@Fox Im a man of principles. 1st amendment is a constitutional right regardless of how unpopular speech may be.
Is it a bad thing when they do it? How about when they justify it exactly the same way you tried to?
So will you get mad if people say Black people are Niggers and LGBTQ People are worthless Faggots?
@CozyNCD Why would I. People will say mean things to once face or behind their back.
@OneEyeKing @Sui @Fox they aren't being punished. by the same line of logic if I am an employer my free speech is firing faggots I don't agree with. who has been punished?
So I'm Not Afraid to use that word.
I was checking to see if you would block me for that. lol.
@CozyNCD Yes. Ive been kicked out of platforms. That doesn't change my stance on freedom of speech.
Wonder what that milquetoast faggot is up to right now.
I of course am talking about Steven Crowder.
@blueeyeswhtdrgn @Sui There should be distinction between professional and personal life. If one is proficient at work then their opinion about a unrelated to their profession, public issue should not effect their employment. Otherwise we're dealing with collectivism.
First, people who say unpopular things shouldn't be killed for it. They can be engaged to find out why they think the way they do. It's called a conversation.
There's nuance here.
Killing sometime for speech isn't the same as telling their employer that their employees are horrible people and they they'll lose business for it.
Which is not the same fucking thing when some dude called someone a nigger 10 years ago and demand they get fired for that.
@Fox @Sui Owners of business can loose clientele over trivial things like employees opinion on illegal immigration. It works for both sides of political spectrum depending what political opinion majority of people in the area have. Its a form of collectivism where if you dont share views you get fired.
It seems to me that a lot of people, both Leftist and Conservative, forget that the right to not be murdered is the basic human right, and so if someone is out there trying to violate that, that's not unpopular speech, but a potential violation of another person's basic human rights. People who follow up a murder by cheering for it and calling for more murders of specific people? They're walking a fine line and if they happen to trip I don't have much sympathy.
On the other hand, disagreeing with someone who was just murdered or died for any other reason? Well, that could be unpopular but it's probably not reaching the level of violating another person's rights, since you don't have any right to have people say nice things about you.
That being said, I think more people need to be pointing out that when someone says "but" after "no political violence" and then just uses the opportunity to talk about how they disagree with a person who was just assassinated, you're kind of erasing the whole "no political violence" thing by justifying political violence. At that point it isn't even about laws, it's about "Are you sure you disagreed with this guy so much that you think he should be assassinated?" because I don't think a lot of these individuals are thinking through the implications of what they're saying. I mean, if some dweeb arguing with dumb college kids deserves to be assassinated, then anyone on the left or the right probably deserves it. That doesn't sound like a fun world to live in.
A bunch of political violence keeps happening. They tried to kill Kavanaugh. They tried to kill Trump and they did kill Comperatore. They did kill Kirk. And the threats keep coming.
The violence and the speech aren't equal and I don't think my argument ever claimed that directly, but the fact that violence keeps happening and people keep threatening more violence does mean that the two are much closer than disagreement would be.
Context does matter, and nuance matters. If you want to flatten what I said into "speech is violence", then you're just the same as the progs -- modernist flattening of complexity into something that never existed.
Given that my post had multiple paragraphs looking at things from different viewpoints and you collapsed it into four words, I suggest you might want to find someone who believes what you want to argue against instead of wasting your time on me.
@OneEyeKing @Sui so as an employer I need to be regulated to make sure that I don't fire people I don't agree with? I don't see any sort of realistic distinction between professional and personal life. I feel like that can be whatever I wanted it to be, unless you want the government to make another sweet rule about that too.
@sj_zero @Fox Violence happens. History is full of it. I think being able to freely express yourself without being prosecuted regardless of what it advocating is covered under the first amendment. If you dont like it then call your local representative. Im sick and tired of people claiming to be conservative ignoring the one document that they claim to uphold.
@blueeyeswhtdrgn @Sui I dont like any governmental intrusion. That still doesnt make a conservative who's disregarding 1st amendment any less hypocritical.
The left cancels the right continuously. Then, a radical kills a conservative and now the right is cancelling the left.
This is a limited "tit for tat". (One side responding after a trigger)
In this regard, is this hypocrisy?
The Left had always played the game "consequences for words". The right is now playing that game.
Now the left complains that this is unfair, "Unconstitutional"?
Sounds like the only people that need to grow a pair are lefties?
🤔
At what point, when you're getting punched, do you say, "that's enough"?
At this point it took someone dying.
I'm thinking the conservatives have a clear moral right to punch back. They're not going to feel bad about it because as you said, the left has no principles.
If they start killing lefties, it'll be because the left won't stop killing conservatives. To them it will be 100% justified.
This is a response from external forces (left). When will they stop punching?
Ok, now I see.
There is no "win" scenario. This is a tribal take by the way. (Usually from lefties)
Punching back after being hammered is expected.
This is common sense, as adjudicated by thousands of judges over hundreds of years.
Why are you trying to make this a constitutional issue when this isn't one?
It's a societal issue. Has nothing to do with "constitutional values".
Well, you think wrong.
There's all kinds of things that aren't covered by the first amendment. It tends to be covered by strict scrutiny, meaning that you have to pass a 3 part test: It needs to be narrowly tailored, to address a compelling state interest, and it needs to be the least restrictive method necessary to achieve the end.
Examples of limits to the first amendment include fraud, libel, slander, commercial advertising, tobacco advertising, uttering terroristic threats, impersonating a police officer, use of radio communications, and there's more where that came from.
The ideal would have been to amend the constitution back in 1798 when the first Sedition Act was passed and the question of federal laws affecting freedom of speech first came up, but instead jurisprudence went this way long after that point, and the court never ruled on the sedition act.
Looking into it, the first supreme court case regarding the line between freedom of speech and threats to people's safety didn't happen until 1919, because prior to the 14th amendment in 1868, the bill of rights didn't apply to individual states, and generally federal law wasn't used for that sort of think widely until the world wars. Even the 1919 case was under the Espionage act for an individual passing out flyers calling on people to avoid the draft.
But don't get me wrong here -- I'm running my own instance solely because I do believe in freedom of speech, and when rubber meets road I don't domain block any instances or even block individuals on my own account. My main arguments here have been that it's complicated and nuanced and it isn't a deviation from principle to say that there's a line and some people might have crossed it.
The freedom of speech is a given and can be arguably said that killing to silence people is obviously bad, but they didn't really kill him because they hate the constitution ("justified killing"). They use the first amendment in defense of their subtle threats and parades.
What they did was violate the first amendment in the process of killing him for using words they didn't like, aka, "hate speech" and "violent rhetoric". The whole "words are violence" crap.
"Wokeism".
I don't think I'm getting through...
I'm out, you do you. I'm glad I was able to give my point of view.
Have a great day.
That's within the lifetimes of the founders, many of them would still be in office.
To demonstrate that the founding fathers were still around, founding father Thomas Jefferson became president in 1801 after the presidency of founding father (And George Washington's Vice President) John Adams who had signed the bill into law. Jefferson pardoned the people convicted under the law.
Is your argument that the constitution document is simple because it doesn't apply and that's why the supreme court didn't strike the sedition act down when it had the chance? That's the only way what you're saying could make any sense. Otherwise, it's just the sort of abuse of power the Supreme court presumably ought to have protected against.
(And to answer my own question, the major reason the act didn't get struck down was likely that the legal basis for constitutional review of laws by the supreme court didn't really get started until Marbury v. Madison in 1803 which established the practice of the supreme court declaring laws unconstitutional)
Look, this is something that both the left and the right get wrong all the time: Courts and laws are very specific, and very anal about getting things just right and staying consistent with itself over centuries. That goes back before the US to the original common law courts in England in the 1100s. That original common law court is still cited today occasionally, believe it or not. That's how certain doctrines made it into the US legal system without US precedent. That's how a lot of common law concepts that seem at first to be incompatible with US law as you'd understand it on the surface occur. There's a lot of history there, and so slogans and platitudes really don't mean anything -- if you say something simply, you're probably getting it wrong.
The US inherited a lot of stuff from common law that seems counter to the constitution. It's one of the reasons why business advertising is treated differently than political speech, or why obscenity isn't protected under the first amendment and never has been.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
Oh my God...
Ok Bro... Now I see why I wasn't getting through.
This guy is great at telling you what to think.
I tried, I let him cook.
I could only get through about 30 mins of his own bias of almost 5 HOURS worth of audio, but thanks for sharing.
I'm still out, enjoy your podcasts.
One of the problems of the word "Freedom" is that it's a hanging signifier, it means everything and nothing.
Freedom to murder people in the street and eat their flesh without consequence?
Freedom to set off nuclear bombs in the heart of cities?
The freedom to own slaves?
Freedom to murder peaceful political enemies and to create lists of new people who ought to be murdered next?
Many dictators use the word "Freedom". Adolf Hitler used the word often in Mein Kampf -- he saw conquering Europe and eradicating racial impurities in Germany as part of establishing freedom for the German people. Stalin used the word to invoke the idea of the working class being freedom from class oppression. Mao used the word to invoke the idea of freedom from colonialist powers who had caused the century of humiliation.
Same with the word "rights". You can have a right to many things, including the right to oppress others.
Freedoms collide with one another, rights collide with one another, and we need to figure out how to rationalize them. That's just reality bumping up against itself.
@RetardStrength @Fox @sj_zero Freedom= God given constitutional rights.
God gives you all the rights. You can speak, you can go wherever you like, you can move your body in any way you'd like, you can hunt and fish and gather off of trees. God gives you free will to decide how to act, then scripture to try to convince you to use that free will to do good and not evil.
Pre-postmodern liberal governments (Also referred to as classical liberal governments) inherently take away your rights. Things God made you free to do are no longer allowed or are controlled.
The constitution then tries to bind those governments into not infringing any more than the most limited number of rights required under the circumstances.
The rights that the constitution protects aren't necessarily the best ones or the only ones, they're just the ones that everyone in the room could agree on 250 years ago.
After that, the constitutional rights didn't exist in a vacuum. Courts immediately created cut-outs for rational limits on freedom of speech including laws against libel, slander, and importantly in this case, criminal conspiracy.
The United States court system inherited criminal conspiracy charges from English common law at confederation, and because of the balance of rights between the right to speak a conspiracy and the right to not have crimes committed against you, they were kept on the books, and in many jurisdictions immediately codified under state laws. Today, such statutes exist in all 50 states, and in spite of the 14th amendment which extended the federal constitution to state law, they were not successfully struck down.
We're talking about a situation where a bunch of people are cheering for the violent murder of a peaceful political voice. As I said, that's really on a line. Then they're working on putting together a list of additional people to murder online.
Mass conspiracy to commit murder has never been constitutionally protected speech. Not even in 1777. God may have given us the right to do it, but the state has always taken that right away for the good of civilization.
We aren't talking about these things in a vacuum here. This is all related to the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, in which a leftist appears to have committed the murder because he didn't like what Kirk had to say (an act which fundamentally violated Kirk's right to free speech and his right to not be murdered). Some people online have been cheering for the murder and calling for more people to die, some people are naming who they want dead. There haven't been any state interventions yet, but some of these people were in sensitive positions for their jobs and lost those jobs for what they said.
One latenight talk show host falsely suggested that MAGA was the one who committed the murder and they were lying about who did it for political gain and had his show suspended, for what we now know was a week. Importantly, this wasn't on cable or Internet, it was on network TV where the show is broadcast over the airwaves.
Let's talk about that last point in terms of constitutional rights: The government has regulated the radio spectrum, such that you and I are not allowed to run a TV station. Even if we pay for the infrastructure, if we were to broadcast in such a way, we will go to Federal prison. So whoever is allowed to use that spectrum has a variety of additional limitations on their speech because they are given access to a public resource and expected to use it for the public good to an extent. Disseminating misinformation about assassinations to justify them is not in line with the regulations on that public resource (which have been held as constitutional for those reasons), so there are potential consequences to those actions.
Unfortunately, all of this thought about classical liberalism is probably just ghosts of a dead era at this point. On one hand, you've got mounting political violence from people who don't know or care that it's going to end in totalitarianism or actively desire totalitarianism because they think their foolish faction will be the one on top. On the other hand, you've got people who naively think you can give all the rights and none of the responsibilities in a society where the current sitting president has nearly been assassinated, a sitting supreme court justice has nearly been assassinated, and a peaceful political activist is freshly dead, his wife widowed, his two kids no to never hear their father's voice again. It reminds me too much of North Africa and the middle east, which was pacifist and Christian until the Muslims took over and never gave it up. It was only Byzantium and Western Europe which grew some teeth that were able to keep going with their ideology rather than be taken over by someone else's.
Postmodern liberalism attempted to give people freedoms they wouldn't have otherwise had, but in reality that's just stealing from Peter to pay Paul, or in the case of a recent high profile murder, releasing a violent criminal 24 times before they just straight-up murder a refugee, which is why I made the distinction between pre-postmodern liberalism.
The next step in our society, if we actually get there and don't just collapse into murdering one another when they make a good point we can't counter without bullets, is a stage of liberalism that accepts the freedoms God grants us but also re-integrates the responsibility God demands of us to be judged worthy of the kingdom of Heaven. The focus on the state is a major problem, because by focusing on how the state does or does not protecting or "providing" your liberty, that becomes part of every answer. In reality, we do need collectivism as a cultural force -- just not a genocidal high progressive cultural collectivism. The idea of individualism as our postmodern society has defined it -- to make everyone look better by just eliminating any measure of a person's worth that they might not measure up to -- might make people free from judgement, but it will lead them to slavery, because they will lack the virtue the physical world demands to achieve personal liberty.
Meanwhile -- and this is important -- you've got one side that sees murder their side commits as positive and to be promoted, and the mere response to murder as evil and to be attacked and punished. If you can't even get both sides to agree that "murdering peaceful individuals is wrong", then you're starting from the wrong end worrying about the rest.
@sj_zero @Fox @RetardStrength (2/2)
And now people are being locked up for hurt feelings. Many states like mine already have similar laws on books (Cyber Harassment) but are not enforcing them yet knowing damn well that it will spark a public outrage. They are waiting for an event that will invoke emotional response from collectivist like you that will willingfully give up their rights for the greater good. The system will erode GOD given rights because your feelings are hurt.
@sj_zero @Fox @RetardStrength (1/2) I hope that you dont expect me to write another volume to your answer, typing on my phone. Yes, our rights are eroded by politically appointed judges alligned with politicians, sponsored by special intrest. Im gladd that you brought up England which is now arresting people for antiestablishment posts on social media. At least that law was introduced to protect children, not just because peiple advocate for violence (which happens regularly on the street).
@sj_zero @Fox @RetardStrength (2/2)
And now people are being locked up because they cause feelings. Many states like mine already have similar laws on books (Cyber Harassment) but are not enforcing them yet knowing damn well that it will spark a public outrage. They are waiting for an event that will invoke emotional response from collectivist like you that will willingfully give up their rights for the greater good. The system will erode GOD given rights because your feelings are hurt.
@sj_zero @Fox @RetardStrength Some lesser crimes like theft by deception should be punishable but in the current two tier judicial system there is no hope. Juries get handpicked to fit political agendas. Do you live in a gated community?
I started off by a summary of natural rights granted to men by God, then explained how constitutions limit government but are themselves part of a state that inherently limits your right. After that, I explained that the constitution is a political compromise from the time, the best everyone in the room could agree on. Then I explained how common law and constitutional rights intersect, and how they haven't intersected (as in, many things have been illegal since 1776). I showed a specific example of existing law that has existed in the United States for centuries that illustrates my point. Next, I brought it back to the point we're discussing, the assassination of a person and individuals not just celebrating but planning the next assassination online. After that, I pointed out the Kimmel situation, and how as an OTA broadcast medium it's a special case under the constitution. I closed out with meditations on the nature of classical liberalism, postmodern liberalism, and a metamodern or post-metamodern liberalism, and the corrupting nature of political violence to the whole system that allows liberalism and codified rights in the first place.
None of which seems to have much of anything to do with anything you've written in response to it. You're responding with some news stories that made you mad, and a word that makes you mad -- and you're accusing me of being emotional.
The word "collectivist" in this case refers to a frame where you are part of a community of individuals and you need to as a group need to arrive at rules you're all willing to agree on. Organized religion and particularly Christianity are inherently collectivist. You are part of the body of the Church, and your behavior affects the functioning of that body, and how that body is reflected upon by the world. You want laws to protect speech from employers, but that's a collectivist solution, not an individualist one.
The sort of discussion you're having might flatter you into thinking you're having a real discussion about rights and freedoms, but in reality if you're just steering with your gut then you're one of the masses who ultimately lead to the end of liberty under democracy. I don't disagree with you that any one of the things you've mentioned is a problem, but that's unrelated to the discussion I've been having. There are a lot of governments that are pushing past the agreed upon limits in their constitutions or traditions, and that's bad, but that doesn't mean the government doesn't have the ability to limit freedoms. Unfortunately, the nature of government is that in order to do anything it always limits freedoms, so the question becomes about how to manage those limitations on freedoms.
I was once a hardliner like you, but the more I learned about the most ideal system our planet has, the more I realized that the system doesn't work that way and can't work that way. You're making a moral statement in saying that speech should never be restricted, but that's not actually possible while having a working government. The key then isn't to as you seem to think I'm doing throw away freedoms. The key is to figure out how to best protect freedoms in the real world we live in.
@sj_zero @Fox @RetardStrength The nature of the government is that it represents people who can buy political influence so those rich people can force their will upon us while giving us a false impression of choice. Thats where you dont see my point. Now write another essay how my constitutional rights are about compromise.
Perhaps you don't understand that the rich and powerful have always written the laws? Are you aware that the constitution was a compromise between The agrarian slave holding states so wealthy farmers in the South and the industrializing states so wealthy factory owners in the north, and between people who thought the government ought not to have any power because the states and the people ought to have it all and the people who thought that the federal government ought to be large and powerful more similar to the states of Europe? In spite of that, the Constitution which you invoked repeatedly here was created with a Bill of Rights that has done as good of a job as any protecting the rights of individuals.
@sj_zero @Fox @RetardStrength We live in the world where we are slaves to the corporate government. Do you think they would write that same Constitution today? Grant us rights? We are one step away from them unveiling the surveillance state. Digital ID linked to digital currency.
@neanderthalsnavel @sj_zero @Fox @RetardStrength Wait till the next emergency happens. They scan ids at the entrance to COSTCO. No jab no food....take a 20th booster slave. Its a compromise to keep society safe from harm.
@neanderthalsnavel @sj_zero @Fox @RetardStrength@shiHealthcare.
FEAR.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N14uId5Tp-Y