The Left and Free Speech

[heatmaster]

Here's an idea and I know many leftists contributors will disagree with this,  but I'm not really interested in the reaction of the left wing class.  All I understand and I am sure many will share this view. But trying to suppress free - speech is the rocky road to political dictatorship and the protests taking place against Donald Trump and the attempt to suppress his free speech is a classic response from those who know there ideological frame of reference doesn’t have that solid foundation which would otherwise welcome free - speech and a health exchange of ideas and a lengthy debate. Why? Because most left wingers do not have any confidence of there ideas.

[ag]

Here's an idea and I know many leftists contributors will disagree with this,  but I'm not really interested in the reaction of the left wing class.  All I understand and I am sure many will share this view. But trying to suppress free - speech is the rocky road to political dictatorship and the protests taking place against Donald Trump and the attempt to suppress his free speech is a classic response from those who know there ideological frame of reference doesn’t have that solid foundation which would otherwise welcome free - speech and a health exchange of ideas and a lengthy debate. Why? Because most left wingers do not have any confidence of there ideas.

Nobody is trying to "supress free speech" by Trump, nor would it be a realistic danger at this point if somebody did try. People are expressing their disgust in the most ovious way: by protesting. Trump is talking all he likes.

The Orwellianism of the Trump crowd here is scary. I am half expecting "Freedom is Slavery" to be formally declared on these pages. Come think about it, it has been.

[Mallow]

Here's an idea and I know many leftists contributors will disagree with this,  but I'm not really interested in the reaction of the left wing class.  All I understand and I am sure many will share this view. But trying to suppress free - speech is the rocky road to political dictatorship and the protests taking place against Donald Trump and the attempt to suppress his free speech is a classic response from those who know there ideological frame of reference doesn’t have that solid foundation which would otherwise welcome free - speech and a health exchange of ideas and a lengthy debate. Why? Because most left wingers do not have any confidence of there ideas.

Let's dispel with this fiction that protesting idiotic statements is the same as suggesting such statements should be illegal. Nobody is suggesting it should be against the law to say moronic things. But we have our own freedom of speech to call idiots out for saying them.

[ElectionsGuy]

Protesting isn't suppressing his speech. And the ironic thing is that Donald Trump isn't a big fan of free speech. 'Opening up' the libel laws against the press and possibly 'closing up' parts of the internet as part of fighting ISIS.

[This account no longer in use.]

[Higgs]

Here's an idea and I know many leftists contributors will disagree with this,  but I'm not really interested in the reaction of the left wing class.  All I understand and I am sure many will share this view. But trying to suppress free - speech is the rocky road to political dictatorship and the protests taking place against Donald Trump and the attempt to suppress his free speech is a classic response from those who know there ideological frame of reference doesn’t have that solid foundation which would otherwise welcome free - speech and a health exchange of ideas and a lengthy debate. Why? Because most left wingers do not have any confidence of there ideas.

Nobody is trying to "supress free speech" by Trump, nor would it be a realistic danger at this point if somebody did try. People are expressing their disgust in the most ovious way: by protesting. Trump is talking all he likes.

The Orwellianism of the Trump crowd here is scary. I am half expecting "Freedom is Slavery" to be formally declared on these pages. Come think about it, it has been.

When you block people from going to a Trump rally and hearing what he has to say, how is that not suppressing free speech?

[ag]

Here's an idea and I know many leftists contributors will disagree with this,  but I'm not really interested in the reaction of the left wing class.  All I understand and I am sure many will share this view. But trying to suppress free - speech is the rocky road to political dictatorship and the protests taking place against Donald Trump and the attempt to suppress his free speech is a classic response from those who know there ideological frame of reference doesn’t have that solid foundation which would otherwise welcome free - speech and a health exchange of ideas and a lengthy debate. Why? Because most left wingers do not have any confidence of there ideas.

Nobody is trying to "supress free speech" by Trump, nor would it be a realistic danger at this point if somebody did try. People are expressing their disgust in the most ovious way: by protesting. Trump is talking all he likes.

The Orwellianism of the Trump crowd here is scary. I am half expecting "Freedom is Slavery" to be formally declared on these pages. Come think about it, it has been.

When you block people from going to a Trump rally and hearing what he has to say, how is that not suppressing free speech?

When you block people from going to a Trump rally and telling other attendees that they are despicable fascist scum, how is that not supressing free speech?

[dead0man]

The Heckler's Veto is 80% as bad as govt censorship.  Self censorship out of fear of the Heckler is worse than either.  Self censorship out of actual fear is understandable, but people with guts should still stand up to it.


Nobody is saying you can't disagree with a particular thought, but shouting down somebody in their own house* is wrong.  Starting sh**t in their home is wrong.  (Watching a little sh**t head get knocked out by an old man is pretty awesome though...and I, like everybody else, would like to see more of that.)



*if you rent a place, it's "yours" for the time you rented it.  Yes, the owners are the real owners and can...ahem....trump you when it comes down to it, but the renters clearly have more right to be there than some assholes trying to shout the renters down.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

the right-wing loves space spaces so they aren't triggered.

[Bojack Horseman]

Protesting is a form of free speech, not a form of interference with speech. I'm what's called an ACLU liberal on these sorts of issues, I'm that I believe that everyone has constitutional rights that must be respected regardless of whether or not they deserve them.

On a political note, this whiny tantrum over anti-Trump protesters by the right is just yet another distraction from what's causing these people to want to go exercise their First Amendment rights.

[Slander and/or Libel]

(Watching a little sh**t head get knocked out by an old man is pretty awesome though...and I, like everybody else, would like to see more of that.)

Truly a champion of freedom.

[dead0man]

Protesting is a form of free speech, not a form of interference with speech.

Indeed.  Right up until it interferes with someone else's speech.  This isn't hard to understand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have no 1st Amendment Rights in another person's house.

Lets try a thought exercise (I know some of you guys hate exercise, sorry, I promise you won't sweat).  Lets say the shoes were on the other feet.  Lets say Sanders or Hillary (whichever you prefer) was holding a rally.  Lets say Trump supporters were hassling the Sanders supporters.  Screaming profanities, being the little bitches that they are.  Getting inside the place, starting lots of shenanigans.  So much so that Sanders/Hillary have to cancel the event.  I know that I'd say the Trump supporters were wrong, you can't go into some other person's house and start sh**t.

I don't like Trump, he is an asshole.  And so are you if you go into his event and act like a dick or if you support such behavior.

[BuckeyeNut]

You have no 1st Amendment Rights in another person's house.

Uh... You may want to take a Constitutional Law class. Also, brownshirts incoming, ITT.

[Mr. Reactionary]

You have no 1st Amendment Rights in another person's house.

Uh... You may want to take a Constitutional Law class. Also, brownshirts incoming, ITT.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/state_action_requirement

[dead0man]

You have no 1st Amendment Rights in another person's house.

Uh... You may want to take a Constitutional Law class. Also, brownshirts incoming, ITT.

Perhaps, but I'm not wrong about this.  Maybe we should take it together?  

And it would be a pretty sh**tty country that would let people talk sh**t on some on other person's land if the owners don't want them there talking sh**t.  Why would you think it would be otherwise or would have anything to do with brownshirts?  You may need a remedial class or three first.

[BuckeyeNut]

You have no 1st Amendment Rights in another person's house.

Uh... You may want to take a Constitutional Law class. Also, brownshirts incoming, ITT.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/state_action_requirement

That very link makes it clear individuals can't violate the first amendment. That doesn't mean you lack the right in another's home, it just the owner of said home can't infringe upon your first amendment rights. (And if that what you're getting at, okay, I guess. But poor wording.) Which, re: protesters, means they--as well as Trump--are acting within their Constitutional rights.

[dead0man]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're not getting it chief.  You're reading it the way you want to read it, not the what it's actually saying.

[BuckeyeNut]

Guess we should get rid of all lawyers, given how immaculately clear the law is.

[dead0man]

That would be nice, but this one isn't really confusing at all.  I understand your fellow travelers have abandoned this thread, but maybe you could pm one and ask why you're wrong here.

[Slander and/or Libel]

That would be nice, but this one isn't really confusing at all.  I understand your fellow travelers have abandoned this thread, but maybe you could pm one and ask why you're wrong here.

I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. I think part of the problem, though, is that First Amendment rhetoric tends to get so muddled and weird. It's completely true, to the point of not having to be said, that a private party doesn't have any obligation under the First Amendment to let you stay on their property and say things they don't want you to say. Absolutely true. The ejection of such parties is in no way an erosion of free speech.

But the argument is quite frequently made that protests erode the right to free speech by trying to shut it down. This, again, is untrue enough as to not need explanation.

Both of these arguments rely on the spirit of the idea of free speech, not the letter of the First Amendment. It's just a matter of which side of a particular issue an interlocutor finds himself as to whether he argues that protest or disallowing protest is a force eroding the principle of free speech.

[dead0man]

But the argument is quite frequently made that protests erode the right to free speech by trying to shut it down.

Is it?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course protest by itself doesn't erode any other person's right to speak freely, but when it crosses the line to violence or threats of violence if speech the protesters don't like isn't shut down it becomes a problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't give a sh**t about sides.  Which was the point of my exercise above.  You can protest all you want at an event, more power to you.  But when you start sh**t in the hopes of not allowing another person to speak, I don't care if it's Trump, Bernie, the Klan, BDS or the Flat Earthers, if they rent a place or are invited to speak, you can't shut down their speech.  You're free to stand outside on the sidewalk and explain why they're idiots if you want, you should be encouraged to do that even, but you can't shut 'em down.

Unless it's in your front yard, then you can call the cops.  If they are threatening you at all, you have the right to use violence. 

Oh, and if you're a college student, the auditorium isn't your home.  Neither is the quad.

[Slander and/or Libel]

What defines your threshold for when a protest is intended to voice an opinion and when it's intended to stop someone from speaking? Have the protestors at Trump events crossed that line? Why and how?

[dead0man]

Sneaking inside and the ensuing shenanigans that got the event shut down.  I admittedly don't know much about the event in question, I'm speaking more in generalities here.  If your goal is to shut your political enemy up, then you're wrong.  Period.  If they're wrong, show us why they're wrong.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I'm not even necessarily disagreeing. I'm just wondering where we got this from, that the motivation of protestors at Trump events was to shut the whole event down. I may be missing something incredibly obvious, but I don't recall ever seeing this actually happening ever.

[dead0man]

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find someone claiming as much..at the event or here, but again, I only have a very shallow understanding of what happened at the Trump event that got canceled because of the shenanigans.  Don't really care, don't like Trump or his people.  I'm talking about how a few people on the left don't want to let people they disagree with voice their opinion, and how many others on the left knee jerk defend those asshats.