Liberals All Over the World Hate Free Speech

[Lewkowski]

Kind of like conservatives getting pissed off when people dare to say "Happy Holidays". Or when they burn a flag. Or when they accuse conservatives of racism.

The difference is obvious. Very few conservatives suggest legislation about Happy Holidays vs. Christmas. Liberals on the other hand are in favor of hate speech laws, 'fairness doctrine' (to be fair... (lol) this isn't a big issue anymore but it is indicative about the left) and laws vs. political speech.

On the college campus side conservatives have been big proponents of open debate - the left... not so much.

[Loki]

I like how you left out the burning flag part. I don't see liberals trying to get their anti-free speech policies into the constitution.

[Lewkowski]

I like how you left out the burning flag part. I don't see liberals trying to get their anti-free speech policies into the constitution.

That's a decent counter example - sadly not every conservative has thought the issue through.

[Enoch the Red]

I like how you left out the burning flag part. I don't see liberals trying to get their anti-free speech policies into the constitution.

Er, Hillary cosponsored legislation to ban flag burning. While not a constitutional change, it's not as though there isn't support on the left for similar positions.

[Loki]

Er, Hillary cosponsored legislation to ban flag burning. While not a constitutional change, it's not as though there isn't support on the left for similar positions.

So it's completely irrelevant to what I said then.

[Enoch the Red]

So it's completely irrelevant to what I said then.

Are there serious widespread movements within conservative circles to adopt constitutional changes that I am not aware of? And even accepting your premise at face value, are you then attempting to argue that only constitutional amendments count as threats to free speech?

Alternatively, why wouldn't Lewk respond to your post with: "So it's completely irrelevant to what I said then."

The difference is obvious. Very few conservatives suggest legislation about Happy Holidays vs. Christmas. Liberals on the other hand are in favor of hate speech laws, 'fairness doctrine' (to be fair... (lol) this isn't a big issue anymore but it is indicative about the left) and laws vs. political speech.

On the college campus side conservatives have been big proponents of open debate - the left... not so much.

I like how you left out the burning flag part. I don't see liberals trying to get their anti-free speech policies into the constitution.

[Aimless]

All I'm saying is inviting milo to your campus seems to be a great way to have an innocent fellow student publicly bullied and humiliated.

The legislation supported by Clinton in 2005 was obviously an attempt at scoring political points but it was also not a blanket ban on flag burning.

[GGT]

The difference is obvious. Very few conservatives suggest legislation about Happy Holidays vs. Christmas. Liberals on the other hand are in favor of hate speech laws, 'fairness doctrine' (to be fair... (lol) this isn't a big issue anymore but it is indicative about the left) and laws vs. political speech.

Huh? It's conservatives who want to put Christian monuments (like the Ten Commandments), or nativity scenes on State House grounds, using legislation.

On the college campus side conservatives have been big proponents of open debate - the left... not so much.

Where do you get that idea? Public colleges/universities are the best place to get diverse opinions, and often host heated debates with controversial speakers. When's the last time a place like Liberty University (for example) invited speakers with differing opinions on things like abortion, sexual orientation, or the role religious (Christian) dogma plays in politics?



edit: dammit wiggin, now that you've started the "how do you change your mind" thread, I can see how much our discussions/debates revolve around trying to change *other* peoples' minds when we think they're wrong or unreasonable or uninformed. Lewk doesn't do that. He just keeps spouting the same line, void of any facts, and says Relativism is wrong even though he admits context matters.

[Lewkowski]

Putting up a monument doesn't suppress speech. As far as the establishment clause is concerned I take the 1791 view of that rather than the courts modern interpretation. That being said... I'm generally not in favor of wasting money on monuments and decoration of government buildings unless its paid for privately.

[GGT]

Lewk, I just read your posts in the TRUMP thread that would fit better here, so I'll reply here instead of continuing the tangent there:

Even though Loki gave you a link showing conservatives were trying to censor classes at University of Wisconsin, you mostly objected to public funding for education....and didn't have the guts to admit your premise (the title of this thread) is just more of your one-sided, flawed, stereotyping of "those damn libruls".

If you genuinely want to discuss/debate the *limits* of Free Speech, or how those things are decided, and by whom -- then count me in. But maybe you're just trolling, using your routine anti-liberal meme, and refuse to see that conservatives can also "Hate Free Speech"? That would be unfortunate, because *speech* is something that affects everyone, everywhere, and crosses political lines.

[Lewkowski]

Lewk, I just read your posts in the TRUMP thread that would fit better here, so I'll reply here instead of continuing the tangent there:

Even though Loki gave you a link showing conservatives were trying to censor classes at University of Wisconsin, you mostly objected to public funding for education....and didn't have the guts to admit your premise (the title of this thread) is just more of your one-sided, flawed, stereotyping of "those damn libruls".

If you genuinely want to discuss/debate the *limits* of Free Speech, or how those things are decided, and by whom -- then count me in. But maybe you're just trolling, using your routine anti-liberal meme, and refuse to see that conservatives can also "Hate Free Speech"? That would be unfortunate, because *speech* is something that affects everyone, everywhere, and crosses political lines.

GGT the issue is that it is liberals at the forefront of attempting to limit freedom of speech. Are there examples of conservatives doing the same? Sure but not nearly at the intensity as modern day liberals are doing it.

[GGT]

GGT the issue is that it is liberals at the forefront of attempting to limit freedom of speech. Are there examples of conservatives doing the same? Sure but not nearly at the intensity as modern day liberals are doing it.

Citation? Proof?

[Lewkowski]

Citation? Proof?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h34

Democrats were far more likely to vote against freedom of speech in this bill.

http://www.cadem.org/our-california/...litical-reform

"restoration of the fairness doctrine and a strong role for political parties."

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/20/hate-speech/

"Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech, but this conceals a partisan divide. Most Democrats (51%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 26% opposed. Independents (41% to 35%) and Republicans (47% to 37%) tend to oppose making it illegal to stir up hatred against particular groups. "

Happy?

[Loki]

Unless the hate speech is against whites...

[RandBlade]

Who's proposed criminalising hate speech against whites?

Citation? Proof?

[Aimless]

What's hilarious is that those surveys show a rising support, among Republicans, for criminalizing certain kinds of hate speech. What's even more hilarious is that support in that group rose when the pollsters didn't specifically give public calls for genocide as an example of hate speech.

[GGT]

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h34

Democrats were far more likely to vote against freedom of speech in this bill.

http://www.cadem.org/our-california/...litical-reform

"restoration of the fairness doctrine and a strong role for political parties."

https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/05/20/hate-speech/

"Americans narrowly support (41%) rather than oppose (37%) criminalizing hate speech, but this conceals a partisan divide. Most Democrats (51%) support criminalizing hate speech, with only 26% opposed. Independents (41% to 35%) and Republicans (47% to 37%) tend to oppose making it illegal to stir up hatred against particular groups. "

Happy?

Not really. With the first two links you're using campaign finance reform bills (co-sponsored/introduced by Republicans btw), and public financing for political campaigns to mean "against freedom of speech". Restrictions or limits on political money, or 'money as speech' aren't new concepts -- we've been trying to find the right balance for decades. If you're going to treat this in your all-or-none, black & white way, then you'd have no problem with foreign nationals bundling millions of dollars, hiding it in PACs or Super PACs, and trying to influence our elections, right?

And the last link isn't just about free speech, but hate speech that *incites crimes* and means stricter sentences (like other extenuating or aggravating circumstances). The biggest variable in those charts is race/ethnicity, and since more minorities identify as Democrats, it's not surprising they'd support the 2009 expanded definition. Even conservatives (read Republicans) are split 38/39 on that.

Lewk, I think you're missing the fact that "Free Speech" has never meant totally unrestricted speech. There have always been legal limits, from civil slander or libel to political money to criminal incitement. And it's only getting harder in the information age, where social media is used to recruit terrorists. So do everyone a favor....and stop trying to paint this as Liberals All Over the World Hate Free Speech. It's not just lame, uninformed stereotyping, it's insulting.

[Loki]

Who's proposed criminalising hate speech against whites?

Citation? Proof?

See Lewk, Enoch, and yourself. Black men get mowed down every week = not a problem. A college class on whiteness = send in the SWAT team.

[GGT]

And despite the course title, it wasn't about "the problems of whiteness", but racial identity in general. What's the sudden outrage with using classic marketing techniques to get more class participants?

[RandBlade]

See Lewk, Enoch, and yourself. Black men get mowed down every week = not a problem. A college class on whiteness = send in the SWAT team.

Black men getting mowed down is a problem, I've proposed practical solutions unlike you. Hell even Lewk has proposed practical solutions unlike you. Put cameras on the Police as standard and use it as evidence to prosecute either criminals or dirty cops. But no, you just want to be prissy and whine about pigs rather than come up with real solutions. Grow up.

A college class on "the problem of blackwhiteness" is racism. But no you want to ignore that and anyone who calls it racist is equivalent to sending in SWAT. Again, grow up.

[Aimless]

It's hard to have a discussion with you when it's clear you don't even know what the class is about. I mean your general obliviousness contributes to the difficulties but so does your specific obliviousness, in this case.

[RandBlade]

A course on the problems of whiteness is clear enough. Your pointed refusal and/or inability to find any equivalent course on the problems of blackness ANYWHERE ELSE says more than enough about your ignorance.

[Aimless]

As I suspected, you don't know what the course is about.

[RandBlade]

As I suspected you can't find any alternative anywhere.

[Aimless]

As I suspected you can't find any alternative anywhere.

You can easily make a course about "the problem of blackness" and probably use 70% of the same material. If you'd bothered to actually read about this you'd have had a better idea of why there doesn't seem to be a course available by that name even though being black can clearly lead to a lot of problems in the US. I'm unsurprised to see you more inclined to spend your energy on arguing from a position of ignorance than on trying to reduce your level of ignorance about the topic of the discussion.

Incidentally, Loki's objection to your "evidence" remains unanswered.

[Ominous Gamer]

I've enjoyed how clueless Rand has shown himself in the parts of this thread I've skimmed but I do want to point out that most, a vast majority even, of colleges do offer a "problem with blackness" course. It's called race theory and it's rather popular.

[Dreadnaught]

I like how you left out the burning flag part. I don't see liberals trying to get their anti-free speech policies into the constitution.

Are you kidding me? This was the single reason I was not able to consider voting for Hillary Clinton. She hitched-on to the train proposing to amend the first amendment.

https://www.thenation.com/article/he...tizens-united/

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-takes-reverse

[Loki]

Love your priorities, Dread. Making sure minorities can vote = unimportant. Preserving the political power of large corporations = deal-breaker.

[LittleFuzzy]

A course on the problems of whiteness is clear enough. Your pointed refusal and/or inability to find any equivalent course on the problems of blackness ANYWHERE ELSE says more than enough about your ignorance.

Would you be whining if it was named "Pernicious Privilege" instead?

[Khendraja'aro]

Black men getting mowed down is a problem, I've proposed practical solutions unlike you. Hell even Lewk has proposed practical solutions unlike you. Put cameras on the Police as standard and use it as evidence to prosecute either criminals or dirty cops.

And yet when we have pretty undisputable video proof of a police officer mowing down a suspect, he still*isn't convicted... yeah, works great.