RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/15/2012 5:37:03 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

You did not call for Rather to be reinstated, 40 years, one maybe maybe not report......in fact, you said he got what he deserved, I think you would be well advised to consider calling out your own hacks, colleagues, hypocrites, and so on. Much more work to be done there as I have alluded to in the prior posts.

Well, Ken, there are strikes, and boo-boos, and then there are heinous breaches of faith, and unforgivable crimes against ones profession, and those who trusted you.

Help me out with that english there, is that you calling for his reinstatement? What unforgiveable mean, sahib? You ok with his firing (therefore censorship) as your colleagues have it?
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3881960/mpage_6/key_STFU/tm.htm#3883102
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3611836/mpage_1/key_STFU/tm.htm#3611875
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3578514/mpage_5/key_STFU/tm.htm#3580828
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3035188/mpage_5/key_STFU/tm.htm#3042217

you are correct in that you didn't use the word 'endorse' there (in any of them), but I am fair a fuckin whiz at english definitions, and by god, full out support of the thing. Which as I say, your colleagues are telling us is 'banning free speech'.

As a permanantly disgraced hack, I find myself among some pretty unimaginative and intellectually and factually dishonest companions.

I am not so facile with your hipster free wheeling give and take free speech philosophies, could you explain what STFU means in these few posts here, cuz I really don't see the freedom vision there........

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 1/15/2012 5:43:04 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 21

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/15/2012 5:52:09 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

Censorship requires some form of authority, Ron. Since I'm not in possession of any mod codes, there goes that theory.

Maybe you should set your search term to "free speech" and see what you come up with?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 22

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/15/2012 5:54:19 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Nah, I know what it is. Maybe you should look it up though, I don't think that you quite have a handle on it. You seem to have about half of it. So, kudos for that.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 23

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/15/2012 6:12:54 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions: you defend it vigorously for views you hate, or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards

What's hard?

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 24

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/15/2012 6:15:41 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

I can think of six possible positons on freedom of speech before breakfast.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 25

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/15/2012 6:21:07 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

black and white is so limiting.
Unless you are a panda
One of the reasons I never liked Chomsky

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 26

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/15/2012 6:22:16 PM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I can think of six possible positons on freedom of speech before breakfast.

Not depending on how you feel about the speech in question, I hope!

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 27

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/16/2012 2:18:44 AM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

I'm sorry, Ron but, I don't see where failing to defend someone for lying is the same thing as not advocating free speech.

Mr. Rather lied ; plain and simply. He "knew" (on some level) that those documents were false and he lied because of a personal bias he had towards the president.

That's fine. It happens all the time. I notice that Mr. Rather was never prosecuted for lying about the president (prosecution being the only thing that the first amendment protects anyone from).

If I remember correctly, Mr. Rather also was not fired but he did, rather suddenly, decide that it was time to retire. Oh, I'm not naive enough to think that there wasn't some pressure from CBS executives but, I don't think he actually got fired . Personally, I think Mr. Rather was very ashamed of his behavior and it was that that was truly the impetus of his retirement. I could be wrong about that but, I don't think I am.

In fact, if I recall correctly, I was one of the people saying that Mr. Rather should resign (and quite possibly retire) because he had betrayed his profession (of which I was a member, at the time) and the trust that he had partially earned and which was partially willed to him when "Uncle Walter" retired.

Back onto the topic of the moment: whenever anyone, anywhere calls for any limitation of the open and free exchange of ideas, if we don't beat them back into the Stone Age, we are well and truly fucked as a society.

There have been plenty of people/groups with whom I don't agree. I defend their right to be wrong in a very public manner because the only thing that grows if you keep it away from light is fungus. I love it when the KKK or the Neo Nazis come out to march and spew their vile because every time they do, they make probably 4 times as many new enemies as they do recruits. I've actually gone to one march and seen it with my own eyes (I am "guestimating" the ratio, though).

Also, there's a difference between ... I don't know ... Stone Phillips and Rush Limbough. One is paid to deliver us the news, as it happens without putting any of his own opinion into the mix. The other (for reasons beyond understanding) is paid handsomely to bloviate about issues of the day and offer his opinion . That's a huge difference.

If it's true, I think the Canadian position of "If you lie on your newscasts, we won't give you a license to broadcast here" is pretty cool. I also don't think that that's a violation of free speech. It's certainly not a violation of our (U.S.) Constitution and it seems appropriate to me. One hopes that the news is accurate and not purposefully giving false information.

On the other hand, shows that are Op/Ed don't necessarily have to be truthful (It would be nice if they were) and it is very difficult to say that when someone is giving their opinion, they're lying.

I experience that kind of thing, all the time. I wonder if you've noticed that when I post here, I use a lot of "I believe ..." and "I think ..." and "I have always thought ..."? It is very rare that someone can say to me: "You're wrong!" or "You have mis-stated the facts" and I happen to know that it drives some people nuts.

Free speech (forget the legal implications because they don't really count until someone gets charged with a crime for speaking their mind) is the most essential component of a free society. Only by hashing out ideas and doing so with an open mind can our society progress.

I support some of what the Tea Party stands for. I admit that like any organization, there are a few out there on the lunatic fringe but, no one will ever convince me that the Tea Party has added doing away with opposition speech to their platform. I ain't buying it.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 28

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/16/2012 7:20:40 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Well, that is part and parcel of my point, innit? All except the he knew on some level he was lying bit.....

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Post #: 29

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/16/2012 10:40:52 AM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

I apologize. I thought you were comparing failure to defend Mr. Rather with not supporting free speech?

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 30

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/16/2012 10:51:19 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

In the same way that canadians are banning free speech by not allowing Faux Nuze to put up a station in their country.

Here is sort of the working definition (not mine you understand):

With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions:
you defend it vigorously for views you hate,

or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards.

I didn't frame the debate, others are framing it.

As I interpret these words, a lack of a vigorous defense of Dan Rather makes these people I am discussing in the OP fascist or Stalinists.

Perhaps you can wander thru the tangle of Rather versus a cretinous entertainment network issues and sort the fascists and commies.

Though I personally said six before breakfast, and here it is after lunch, so an alternative might be fascists, commies, slobbering hyperbole, disingenuous, hypocritical rant, or total snoring yawn.........

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 1/16/2012 10:53:31 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Post #: 31

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/16/2012 10:56:02 AM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

I think Rather did the right thing by retiring. His credibility was shot regardless of him knowing before hand or not.

Canada is resisting political pressure to enforce their beliefs. Not just against one station. Its their beliefs. If they were restricting free speech, they would have denied the ability of canadian cable companies to broadcast Fox into any canadian home. Something they have not done.

This argument, that Canada is restricting free speech, is stupid.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 32

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/16/2012 11:02:25 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Oh, that peroration was one of the sixers that were inadvertantly missing from my list....

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Post #: 33

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/16/2012 11:13:12 AM

TheHeretic

Posts: 19100
Joined: 3/25/2007
From: California, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Here is sort of the working definition (not mine you understand):

With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions:
you defend it vigorously for views you hate,

or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards.

I didn't frame the debate, others are framing it.

Holy crap, Ron! Did I actually send a reference sailing over your head, for a change? That's good old Noam Chomsky, though I happen to agree with him. Rather's freedom of speech is in no way infringed by holding him to the standards of his profession after he has used it. He spoke, and then a hell of a lot of people spoke in response, and he was ruined. Exactly as free speech is supposed to work.

What you are suggesting is that freedom of speech equates with freedom from response.

_____________________________

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humor have such an inflated sense of self-importance.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 34

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/16/2012 11:30:32 AM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

as are the teabaggers that say that a pattern of lies before the fact are keeping fox out of canada, is a ban on freedom of speech.

I am advocating no such thing Rich. I am advocating only parody, dripping scarcasm, and wholesale fucking derision.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to TheHeretic)

Post #: 35

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/16/2012 10:16:40 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
With regard to freedom of speech there are basically two positions:
you defend it vigorously for views you hate,

or you reject it and prefer Stalinist/fascist standards.

I didn't frame the debate, others are framing it.

As I interpret these words, a lack of a vigorous defense of Dan Rather makes these people I am discussing in the OP fascist or Stalinists.

Perhaps you can wander thru the tangle of Rather versus a cretinous entertainment network issues and sort the fascists and commies.

Okay. I guess I was sort of on the right path but I got misunderstood.

I guess, freedom of speech has to include the "right" to lie to a degree. However, I'm going to write this in a (hopefully) amusing way:

The only affirmative defense for slander is that you were telling the truth and ...

"Freedom of speech" is not an affirmative defense against slander when you are factually mistaken.

I reject the idea (again) that Dan Rather, lying about POTUS was an exercise in free speech. He may believe so and others may but he was lying .

Let me do it another way:

If you were to say: "Michael is a balding man" and I tried to sue you for slander, you would need only to show photographs of my scalp to have the suit either thrown out or adjudicated in your favor. You were exercising your free speech and you were telling the truth .

If you were to say: "Michael likes to pull the wings off of flies" and I tried to sue you for slander, you would need to produce some kind of evidence to support such a claim. In that scenario; you'd be lying and would be forced to pay me.

There's a famous exception to the "Free Speech" rule:

quote:

ORIGINAL Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in Schenk vs. United States
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting "fire" in a theatre and causing a panic.

Holmes - rightly so - points out that there is no absolute right to free speech if you take into account speech that does damage to others unless one happens to be telling the truth. Surely, I can yell "FIRE!" in a theatre if there are flames. I would still be causing a panic (probably) but, I'd be telling the truth .

Mr. Rather was doing damage - not only to President Bush but to the office of POTUS and he was not truthful about it. He was lying . I didn't see anyone trashing Bernstein and Woodward once we all found out they were telling the truth .

If Mr. Rather had been employed by FNC at the time and had been on a show called: "Hannity & Rather", he would have been well within his rights to say: "I think President Bush is a dirty so-and-so because ..."

That is a huge difference and had he been doing that, I would have been supporting his right to free speech, also.

FNC has some shows that purport to be "Newscasts". If they lie during these shows, shame on them. I wouldn't know because I don't watch FNC.

I don't agree with Rush Limbough, McLoughlin, and many others but they have a right to bloviate all day under the banner of "Op/Ed" programming.

Mr. Rather betrayed the trust with which his profession and his position was engendered. He lied because of personal bias. Now, some may argue that he wasn't lying but, I think it has been fairly well documented that he was. Surely, if he wasn't, he would have produced legitimate evidence of his claims? Maybe he would have even fought to stay in his position? Maybe even sued CBS if they tried to fire him? No, Mr. Rather stepped across the line and was no longer on the side of the angels.

Peace and comfort,

Michael

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 1/16/2012 10:19:50 PM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 36

RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech - 1/16/2012 10:29:43 PM

tazzygirl

Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

If you were to say: "Michael likes to pull the wings off of flies" and I tried to sue you for slander, you would need to produce some kind of evidence to support such a claim. In that scenario; you'd be lying and would be forced to pay me.

A lawsuit for defamation has the following basic elements: (1) making a false statement; (2) about a person; (3) to others; and (4) actual damages (if the harm to the person is not apparent). There is a fifth element when the person is a public official or public figure. In such a case, the person who made the statement has to have made it with a known or reckless disregard of the truth.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Post #: 37

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Teabaggers proudly support the ban on free speech

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094