NationStates Jolt Archive

Most times I have seen Republicans saying things like, this current freedom of speech thing is bs, it was only meant for criticizing the govt. now people use it for everything, we seriously need to rewrite this thing. Than they go on about why they need hand and semi-auto weapons. I mean come on, you are controdicting yourselves by saying we need to limit rights, but not limit them.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying...

But the Bill Of Rights supposedly gives us both the Freedom of Speech AND the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying...

But the Bill Of Rights supposedly gives us both the Freedom of Speech AND the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

What Im saying is, they say that we need to limit freedom of speech and at the same time uphold the right to bear arms.

A lot of people are blind to their own hypocrisy.

What Im saying is, they say that we need to limit freedom of speech and at the same time uphold the right to bear arms.

Where do they say free speech should be limited. I think you are thinking about the Democrats.

Which Republicans are calling for a curb on 1st amendment rights? I've not done so. I don't believe most do, so your "fact" may not be correct?

So what's your point? The way you presented your argument I could say Democrats do the same things, they say uphold free speech and want to say the right to bear arms only applies to militias. The street runs both ways.

Secondly you shouldn't say it's annoying. It's a matter of opinion and people have differences in opinion and always will, and what's more your painting Republicans with a fairly broad stroke. I'm a Democrat myself, I support Free Speech in everything, but I also believe people should have the right to own a gun.

I'm a Republican. Free speech means the government won't arrest you for saying it.

People can still get upset that you're saying it.
You can still lose your job for saying it (that's the way things work now).

The first amendment is about more than free speech. For your homework assignment, go back and read it again.

I'm all for the First Amendment.

I'm also all for the Second Amendment - you wouldn't have had any of them without guns.

Where do they say free speech should be limited. I think you are thinking about the Democrats.
Precisely where the problem is. You can't just generalise and say that Democrats do x and Republicans do x. Republicans are typically the ones who are bitching about "obscenity" on TV and flag burning, as well as other social freedom issues like gay marriage and abortion, from what I've seen. But I hate political parties anyways, they all suck. I'm a liberal, not a Democrat.

Fact...?

What Im saying is, they say that we need to limit freedom of speech and at the same time uphold the right to bear arms.
We need to find them and hold a blanket party. That should return their common sense.

What part of that was a fact? Looked a lot more like that "opinion" thing I see around here all the time.

I'm a Republican. Free speech means the government won't arrest you for saying it.

People can still get upset that you're saying it.
You can still lose your job for saying it (that's the way things work now).

The first amendment is about more than free speech. For your homework assignment, go back and read it again.

I'm all for the First Amendment.

I'm also all for the Second Amendment - you wouldn't have had any of them without guns.
That's right. The Second Amendment is the First Freedom.

I think the scariest thing about Republicans is that they dont think AT ALL. When their leaders crack the whip they fall in line like sheep waiting to be sheared. Its like some kinda mind control

I think the scariest thing about Republicans is that they dont think AT ALL. When their leaders crack the whip they fall in line like sheep waiting to be sheared. Its like some kinda mind control
Not like the mind control exerted by the folks at MoveOn.org, at all, right?

Precisely where the problem is. You can't just generalise and say that Democrats do x and Republicans do x. Republicans are typically the ones who are bitching about "obscenity" on TV and flag burning, as well as other social freedom issues like gay marriage and abortion, from what I've seen. But I hate political parties anyways, they all suck. I'm a liberal, not a Democrat.

Speech on TV is not free. Its the public airwaves and so must be generally acceptable to most people. If a large number of the public find a certain show to be obscene why should it be broadcast? They, do after all, have a stake in the part of the spectrum it being broadcast over.

Let me ask you this, if ABC started a show called, "Laugh at the stupid N*gger hour; man they sure did deserve that slavery," or "Gay fag Homobuttsex hour, laugh as we bash the sissyfag queers."* wouldn't you insist that the government do something and have it removed from the airwaves? And wouldn't that be limit on free speech.

Similiary other people have a right to lobby to have things removed that offend them, but not you. (For example they consider it blasphemous etc.)

You can still say what you like in other media, and there is not a damn thing that the government can do about it.

*does not reflect my actual beliefs, these are just the most offensive things I could come up with in a short time.

I think the scariest thing about Republicans is that they dont think AT ALL. When their leaders crack the whip they fall in line like sheep waiting to be sheared. Its like some kinda mind control

Hmm. I recall not liking the Patriot Act, and I'm a Republican. Does that mean I'm not a sheep, or does it mean I'm not a Republican? Or does it mean your assertion is nonsense?

Hmm. I recall not liking the Patriot Act, and I'm a Republican. Does that mean I'm not a sheep, or does it mean I'm not a Republican? Or does it mean your assertion is nonsense?
it means your not a republican cause a real republican supports things their masters say is good

Speech on TV is not free. Its the public airwaves and so must be generally acceptable to most people. If a large number of the public find a certain show to be obscene why should it be broadcast? They, do after all, have a stake in the part of the spectrum it being broadcast over.
Not terribly convincing, I must tell you. "We must restrict the media because people watch what they don't want to watch."

Let me ask you this, if ABC started a show called, "Laugh at the stupid N*gger hour; man they sure did deserve that slavery," or "Gay fag Homobuttsex hour, laugh as we bash the sissyfag queers."* wouldn't you insist that the government do something and have it removed from the airwaves?
No.

And wouldn't that be limit on free speech.
Apparently not.

Similiary other people have a right to lobby to have things removed that offend them, but not you. (For example they consider it blasphemous etc.)
If a person is offended by something, he could just not look at it. Only when there are governmental funds going into something like that does it become wrong.

You can still say what you like in other media, and there is not a damn thing that the government can do about it.
What? So the radio and the newspaper are exempt from censorship and the TV not? Sorry, but that happens to not be true.

I hate Howard Stern. I hate neo-Nazis. I still believe that he should be able to have his show and that the skinheads should be able to demonstrate. Free speech is the most vital thing to any society, and is so easily quelled.

it means your not a republican cause a real republican supports things their masters say is good
Silly MKULTRA :fluffle:

it means your not a republican cause a real republican supports things their masters say is good

Oh, like a real Democrat supports things their masters say is good, like "stop voting for Dean" in the middle of a campaign so that Hillary can pick who can be the lamebrain to run against Bush so she can win in 2008.

Or like a real Democrat who owns guns feels guilty so he sells them all because Diane Feinstein says guns are evil.

Or like a real Democrat on the Democratic Underground, who in the aftermath of the last election says, "we'll have to buy guns and start the revolution" and another says, "we'll have to make sure we get permits and get lessons so we don't shoot ourselves" and I'm watching this, and wonder where their brains are, since there are no permits in their jurisdiction.

Brainless like that. Obedient like that. I'm sure.

Or, we should all worship Bill Clinton, the greatest gift we've ever gotten as Democrats, except that he's not only fucking Monica, he's fucking us in the ass like he was a Republican. Matter of fact, he seems somewhere to the right of Bob Dole. But no matter, we're Democrats and we must obey!

What Im saying is, they say that we need to limit freedom of speech and at the same time uphold the right to bear arms.

If we were to limit free speech, you wouldn't have been able to say what you said (i.e. your opinion) in the first place.

Isn't that just a tad hypocritical? "Do as I say not as I do" type of thing?

If we were to limit free speech, you wouldn't have been able to say what you said (i.e. your opinion) in the first place.

Isn't that just a tad hypocritical? "Do as I say not as I do" type of thing?
No he is saying the OTHER side wants to do this ... not his side so it would not be hypocritical

Not terribly convincing, I must tell you. "We must restrict the media because people watch what they don't want to watch."


No.


Apparently not.


If a person is offended by something, he could just not look at it. Only when there are governmental funds going into something like that does it become wrong.


What? So the radio and the newspaper are exempt from censorship and the TV not? Sorry, but that happens to not be true.

I hate Howard Stern. I hate neo-Nazis. I still believe that he should be able to have his show and that the skinheads should be able to demonstrate. Free speech is the most vital thing to any society, and is so easily quelled.

Well your that rare breed, a free speech absolutist. However no-one else is. Either on the left or right.

Acually the radio isn't exempt from censorship either. But newspapers are. (Its the airwaves thing, they are a public trust.)

As you pointed out it is the goverment funds part. As the airwaves are part of the commonweal, in essense everything that is broadcast over them is "funded" by the government. (Becuase bandwidth is limited, there can only be a limited number of broadcasters, thus anyh grant of spectrum portion is akin to using public lands). As such, content can be regulated in the public interest. As a democratic society we have electively chosen to take this approach. I don't see what your problem is.

On cable, you can do what you like.

it means your not a republican cause a real republican supports things their masters say is good

Sort of like people who listen to MoveOn.org?

Well your that rare breed, a free speech absolutist. However no-one else is. Either on the left or right.

Acually the radio isn't exempt from censorship either. But newspapers are. (Its the airwaves thing, they are a public trust.)

As you pointed out it is the goverment funds part. As the airwaves are part of the commonweal, in essense everything that is broadcast over them is "funded" by the government. (Becuase bandwidth is limited, there can only be a limited number of broadcasters, thus anyh grant of spectrum portion is akin to using public lands). As such, content can be regulated in the public interest. As a democratic society we have electively chosen to take this approach. I don't see what your problem is.

On cable, you can do what you like.


While a public trust you could argue that they should be given out as a licence without content limitations.
I understand why they have to be doled out because of a frequancy limitation but why the content filtering

Which Republicans are calling for a curb on 1st amendment rights? I've not done so. I don't believe most do, so your "fact" may not be correct?
I'm a Republican. Free speech means the government won't arrest you for saying it.

You can still lose your job for saying it (that's the way things work now).

Sorry, I am not trying to rub it in about you losing your job, but that's called business deregulation. The thing is, they can do what they want.Where do they say free speech should be limited. I think you are thinking about the Democrats.
Hey! Take this test (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/)
http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/

then post your results so I can include them in my survey. I have too many lefty liberals.

Hmm. I recall not liking the Patriot Act, and I'm a Republican. Does that mean I'm not a sheep, or does it mean I'm not a Republican? Or does it mean your assertion is nonsense?
Don't listen to Skapedroe. He is crazy, and he freely admits that he makes liberals look like idiots.

Well you're that rare breed, a free speech absolutist. However no-one else is. Either on the left or right.
I am a free speech absolutist in the centre, and I agree with what Gnostikos has said in this thread.

Well your that rare breed, a free speech absolutist. However no-one else is. Either on the left or right.
Then they do not truly believe in freedom of speech. If we allow governmental control over the media, then that is just begging for fascistic government.

Acually the radio isn't exempt from censorship either. But newspapers are. (Its the airwaves thing, they are a public trust.)
Actually, they're a natural trust. Radio waves belong to nature. We just manipulate them for our own purposes.

As you pointed out it is the goverment funds part. As the airwaves are part of the commonweal, in essense everything that is broadcast over them is "funded" by the government.
So, basically, the government has full control over the visual and auditory media. You are apparently foreign to the idea of free media.

(Becuase bandwidth is limited, there can only be a limited number of broadcasters, thus anyh grant of spectrum portion is akin to using public lands).
So the government gets to decide what should or shouldn't be shown, not the consumers? What kind of ideology is that?

As such, content can be regulated in the public interest. As a democratic society we have electively chosen to take this approach. I don't see what your problem is.
If people want to be hearded like sheep, let them. I discourage that and fight against it, but ultimately there's not much I can do if they insist. I will fight for freedom of expression as much as I can, but majority rules in matters in a democratic form of government, though the rights of the minorities still need to be protected.