Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off.


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

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/14/2012 6:02:48 PM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

What would you do if the fans found out that you also were fond of castro?

I'm not fond of Castro, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

quote:

The sponsors are not rush's employer.


You're splitting hairs here. The sponsors are as essential to Rush's economic well-being as the Marlins are to Guillen's.



_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/14/2012 6:18:19 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

What would you do if the fans found out that you also were fond of castro?

I'm not fond of Castro, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

You said:

If I owned a multimillion dollar business, and one of my most visible employees were alienating customers with his political views--about Obama, about Santorum, about Miss Piggy--I'd consider it within my rights to discipline the employee in a way that made it clear to disgruntled customers that he was not speaking on behalf of the whole organization.

My point is that if you are the owner of a multimillion dollar business....What would you do about yourself if the fans found out that you liked castro? Do you fire yourself? Do you keep your opinions to yourself so you can make some more money?
Or:
Do you have the courage of your convictions?



quote:

The sponsors are not rush's employer.


You're splitting hairs here. The sponsors are as essential to Rush's economic well-being as the Marlins are to Guillen's.

Rush's employers are those who sign his paycheck If they choose to loose a few sponsors to keep their message on the air they will continue to do so.




(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/14/2012 6:20:09 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I'm not fond of Castro, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.


Do you really believe that the cuban people were better off under our puppet batista?

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/14/2012 7:45:09 PM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:


Because it is no different.


It's completely different.

He exercised his free speech, without government interference. Management exercised theirs, also without government interference. The fans exercised theirs as well, all without government interference.

It's YOU who wants to set what is and isn't acceptable.

Whether we like it or approve it or understand it isn't the point. It's a free country, and what happened here is a whopping helping of freedom.

You know, he's free to walk and go work elsewhere. Maybe for a competing team. Management actions have consequences too.





Is it your opinion that any person can be fired because the management disagrees with that person's political views?

First, since people here aren't good at separating out issues, let's be clear that I'm not condoning it.

But of course. Management can fire you for any damn reason it wants, short of illegal discrimination or violation of specific legislation (Family Leave Act, for instance). It's a business deal, cash for labor, and either party can end it.

Now, management that does that is going to restrict itself to a smaller portion of the available labor pool. But of course they can.

It's a free country. That includes management. You have no "right to employment."

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/14/2012 7:59:54 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I'm not fond of Castro, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.


Do you really believe that the cuban people were better off under our puppet batista?


I don't like Stalin.

That means I like Hitler, right?

Or is it the other way around?

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 1:50:06 AM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: stef


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

my concern is that a.) it's over a political statement, and political statements are protected speech, period

You're wrong. Period.

How am I wrong?

_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to stef)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 1:51:47 AM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Well there ya go, you're principles are for sale, those are your principles.


Since you don't know me or my principles, let's leave them out of this, thanks.

And a personal attack is a pretty poor substitute for reasoned debate.



Lol, that's what you said, you can't spin it now, it's not an/either or proposition, you can't have it both ways.

_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 5:37:08 AM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

I'm not fond of Castro, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.


Do you really believe that the cuban people were better off under our puppet batista?

Apparently, the wealthy, middle class and poor ones who bailed in the late 50's/early 60's did. They felt thay were a lot better off with Bautista than Castro. If they hadn't, they would have moved while Bautista was still firmly entrenched in power.
My ex GF's (from long ago) dad had a large sugar plantation in Cuba. He saw the writing on the wall in about '57 and sold out at a bargain price to a speculator. He came to the US and bought land near Clewiston and set up another plantation with a bunch of his employees from Cuba (labor to management) who had also moved. A couple of years later, the business he had owned was nationalized.
The point is that this man, his family and all the people who worked for him were a hell of a lot better off under Bautista than they would have been under Castro.

Neither you nor I was there. All we have are second hand accounts but the tens of thousands who were there and moved to the US, S America or Europe and the tens of thousands who tried to get out since then by any means possible obviously felt better off under Bautista.

_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 7:02:22 AM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline 		FR

Given that I've drawn the scorn of such righteous posters as thompsonx and xssve, maybe my position does need some rethinking. So help me out, guys!

If you, with your greater moral clarity, were running the Marlins, how would you have responded to Guillen's comments and the outrage they appear to have provoked among fans?



_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 89
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 7:10:10 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:


If you, with your greater moral clarity, were running the Marlins, how would you have responded to Guillen's comments and the outrage they appear to have provoked among fans?


I don't have greater clarity than you, dc. But I'd have taken Guillen aside privately, explained who our fan base is, remind him they pay the club's bills, and ask him to publicly and formally apologize, "clarifying" his remarks. His apology need not be a political recantment necessarily--but whatever he comes up with needs to apease (or at least placate) the fan base.

If he is unable or unwilling to do this--then I'd suspend him for five games. Who knows--perhaps that's what happened.


(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 90
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 7:14:19 AM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice


quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

Well there ya go, you're principles are for sale, those are your principles.


Since you don't know me or my principles, let's leave them out of this, thanks.

And a personal attack is a pretty poor substitute for reasoned debate.



Lol, you are quite right you're being scorned, scorned for your mercenary principles, you can't just say "you're wrong, period", which is an assertion, not a defense, and in direct contradiction to what you said.

So either defend your statements or quit whining about what a big meany I am, which is merely evasion.

_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 91
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 7:18:44 AM   
dcnovice


Posts: 37282
Joined: 8/2/2006
Status: offline
quote:

you can't just say "you're wrong, period",


Actually, stef said that, not me.

Meantime, I'm curious to hear how you would have handled the situation, given your apparently superior moral vision.

Also interested to learn whether you think it was wrong of Rush Limbaugh's sponsors to withdraw their support after his Sandra Fluke comments, Were they being mercenary?

_____________________________

No matter how cynical you become,
it's never enough to keep up.

JANE WAGNER, THE SEARCH FOR SIGNS OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE

(in reply to xssve)
Profile   Post #: 92
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 7:21:28 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

you can't just say "you're wrong, period",


Actually, stef said that, not me.



And actually, several people pointed out why it's wrong--taking a political free speech legal argument and applying it where it is inapplicable in a private setting, and then inserting a pet rant about the role of money in society.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 93
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 7:24:05 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:


Also interested to learn whether you think it was wrong of Rush Limbaugh's sponsors to withdraw their support after his Sandra Fluke comments, Were they being mercenary?


My two cents--they were exercising their own rights to decide what and whom to support.

This also, interestingly, was not a free speech issue, even though the topic was a political one. No government censorship. Private citizens can do as they please. And they did.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 94
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 8:31:00 AM   
searching4mysir


Posts: 2757
Joined: 6/16/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

you can't just say "you're wrong, period",


Actually, stef said that, not me.

Meantime, I'm curious to hear how you would have handled the situation, given your apparently superior moral vision.

Also interested to learn whether you think it was wrong of Rush Limbaugh's sponsors to withdraw their support after his Sandra Fluke comments, Were they being mercenary?



I think it was fully within their rights to do so and part of the free market. I don't think any business should be forced to either give or accept money from either individuals or other corporations. If that lowers their market base then that is a decision they should be free to make, just as if I don't like a company's business practices or mission I should be free to not give them my money, regardless of how small a percentage in their overall income it is.

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 95
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 9:52:14 AM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

you can't just say "you're wrong, period",


Actually, stef said that, not me.

Meantime, I'm curious to hear how you would have handled the situation, given your apparently superior moral vision.

Also interested to learn whether you think it was wrong of Rush Limbaugh's sponsors to withdraw their support after his Sandra Fluke comments, Were they being mercenary?

I already mentioned how I would have handled it, with PR, probably by issuing a statement to the fans that Guillen's comments in no way reflected the views of the management (assuming it isn't an it' snot, in my case) in defense of free speech and making the argument that coercing Guillen into suppressing his personal opinion would be doing what Fidel would have done - i.e., Free speech is an American value, and quashing it is unpatriotic, which it is, especially given the sacrifices made by those who put their lives at risk in defending it, to otherwise is to spit in their faces.

Something along those lines, i.e, upholding the values I believe in seems like the only option if I'm truly willing to put my money where my mouth is - which clearly would not occur to one who does not share those values, and is more included to put their mouth where the money is.

I might even include a gesture to further solidify my commitment to free speech, and throw in a little guerrilla marketing gimmick, allowing the fans to express their disagreement in a safe and democratic manner, perhaps by furnishing peanuts for the fans to throw at him, a little bread and circuses, in fact I'm pretty sure I could pack the damn stadium by doing it, by taking advantage of the adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity, a good PR flack can spin damn near anything.

In the second instance, the situation is not the same: Limbaugh took the risk on his own show, and paid the consequences, and in doing so upheld the principles he apparently believes in which is a form of integrity even if it's low principle he's espousing.

The market responded to his elucidation of low principle, that's how the cookie crumbles, Limbaugh alone is responsible for the content of his show, Guillen didn't say it on Limbaughs show. But if I'm not mistaken, the market punished the Limbaugh show in particular, not Clear Channel in general, even though by your reasoning, if they were so worried about profits they should not have given him that soapbox to begin with. I didn't really follow it, but I'm sure Clear Channel issued the usual disclaimers.

There is a lot of that when it comes to advertising, "yeah, but will it sell in Peoria" is often blamed for the bland programming we are forced to endure - advertisers by nature like to appeal to as broad a market as possible.

I'm less sure about FCC censorship, since a lot of advertisers may and do prefer racier appeals - it tends to make advertising agencies get pretty creative, i.e., the Quiznos ads that were on for a while that were predicated on a very thinly veiled element of homoeroticism, and that campaign was pulled rather suddenly, presumably when the more puritanical portion of the audience finally started catching on, it was a risky move, adn I dont know if it paid off or not, the Quiznos here closed down after being the "hot spot" for some time, I don't know if the Two were related.

Anyway, Limbaugh's been saying much worse shit for years, being rewarded for it by his fans, and ignored by everybody else, in this case, he misjudged the national mood, and the amount of media exposure it would generate C'est la vie.

Back to the first example, they didn't fire Guillen, merely censured him, but did they increase attendance by doing so? Hard to say, and it's not only a chickenshit way out, it's shitty marketing to boot, IMO.

< Message edited by xssve -- 4/15/2012 10:02:43 AM >

_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to dcnovice)
Profile   Post #: 96
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 10:01:50 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		I doubt they "increased" attendance--I suspect they were trying to ward off vanishing attendance.

But to use your point of view--

Should opponents of abortion, for example, stop their crusade to defund government health efforts that include not only abortion, but also contraception? Should they morally say "We disagree with pro-choice views, but we will continue to fund their programs, because we value American free speech, and will not sell our principles by denying funding."?

And if they crusade against funding anyway, are they money whores selling their first amendment values for capital?

If you applied your voiced principles uniformally, you'd have to accuse them of exactly that. Free speech is more important than choice over one's own money, according to you, and any attempt to channel money toward efforts you favor just spits on the first amendment.

It's a pretty radical view, and one that frankly doesn't sell values, but rather puts one value above all others.

Suppose you got your car maintained at the same place for years. Then they hired a service manager who spent his entire day bitching to everyone that "Those kink people are commies, they are ruining America, I wish I could just spit in their faces--hell, they should all be rounded up and killed, slowly, by torture--they should love that! Fucking asshole idiots."

Honestly, you'd keep going there, because you value his free speech so much?

Or would you vote with your dollars and patronize a more customer oriented shop?

(These are rhetorical questions, btw.)



< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 4/15/2012 10:10:17 AM >

(in reply to xssve)
Profile   Post #: 97
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 10:35:17 AM   
xssve


Posts: 3589
Joined: 10/10/2009
Status: offline 		It is the one value that is central above all others, without it, the constitution itself is just a piece of paper.

We have a system of government that is based on the most basic and fundamental principle of government, consent of the governed, and in a representative democracy, consent means consensus, and consensus is formed through linguistic, verbal and literary interaction - if one is not free to express ones opinion, ones ability to generate a consensus is hindered, and there is no longer a surety that the consent of the governed is in fact a matter of consensus or coercion, if the latter, it's no longer a representative democracy, or rather it can only be assumed to represent the coercive faction/s alone.

Every other amendment in the Bill of rights is there to support and enforce the First amendment: from the right to bear arms to voting rights, to the prohibition against quartering troops in private residences, as this was a common tactic in Feudal states that had distinct chilling effects on consensus formation.

When you've sold your speech you've sold the only thing that ensures your continued freedom.

Considering the dear price that has been paid for it, I consider it an egregious insult to sell it as cheaply as you do, money ain't everything.

Like I said before, your value system looks to me a lot like it came straight out of too many late night infomercials.

We largely do have a commercial values system, and it's an imperfect world, but it's the constitutional guarantee of free speech that is the check that keeps it from turning into a dictatorship of profit - we're already on that slippery slope, you're just another rat gnawing away at the brake lines, what you're espousing is economic fascism.

"Those who value security over liberty deserve neither" - it's not just a clever aphorism - those who value security over liberty will end up with neither - there's a reason the first act of any authoritarian government is seize all the media outlets and throw it's critics in prison or put a bullet in them, consensus is a powerful thing, one voice can move the world.

Go fucking read Catherine Fitts, Dillon, Read & Co. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits, and get back to me. I think you badly underestimate the situation, and if not you are just conveniently ignoring it, but save me any more mercenary snark until you read that, her case is much more convincing than your puerile, self serving pablum.

It stands: profit or principle - there's only one of them that can offer you both.

http://dunwalke.com/

_____________________________

Walking nightmare...

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 98
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 10:38:08 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

(in reply to xssve)
Profile   Post #: 99
RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. - 4/15/2012 10:38:12 AM   
PatrickG38


Posts: 338
Joined: 10/8/2010
Status: offline 		This is an excellent example of how freedoms are more threatened by corporate power in many respects than government power. Forget that is words have been skewed out of context as I care not if they weren't. This is an excellent example of why some constitutional rights need to be expanded to cover corporate behavior. Why does it matter if government silences you or your employer does. You are still silenced. Nevertheless, I am impressed how many sheep on on this board and have no problem with the idea they must submit to corporations as if they are more important than citizens.

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 100
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: No freedom of speech if it pisses someone off. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
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 Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.107