Free Speech...protecting the Right

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 13 20:28

Sam wrote: ...what was that word now(?)
Slave.
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Add 2 more (D)emo-crats to the Censor List

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 13 21:19

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/13714 ... or-answers

We covered Clyburn (D-SC)... Add Slaughter (D-NY) and Brady (D-Pa) to the list of "speech protecting(NOT)" censors... Are they just spouting off? Are they a threat to free speech? Are they the kind of "no stature" Pols 'dog says don't exist to blame Palin for the Tuscon Murders? Are they RECENT examples of (D)ems who seek to exploit tragedy in their quest to quell "offensive" political oppositional SPEECH? Are they to be disregarded just because no legislation has been introduced?
Does the Left see the Threat to Speech... Will they resist it...

crux
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Glendale
Posts: 42
Joined: 2010 May 21 08:01

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Glendale » 2011 Jan 13 22:08

The right and left have a great deal in common when it comes to free speech.
The right howls when the left tries to squash it, which it regularly does.
The left howls when the right tries to squash it, which it regularly does.
Both deny ever attempting to ban freedom of expression, even as they're gagging someone.
Any "limits" either side manages to press on our most basic freedom, limits enforced with bullhorns, fists, guns, ruination or imprisonment are always imposed for reasons perfectly valid to the imposers.
A plague on all of them.

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2011 Jan 14 10:01

Yours is a reasonable and symmetrical statement, replete with fair-mindedness. But wait.

Many examples of suppression from the right come to mind but, truthfully, I can think of no examples of the reverse.
(Apart from the occasional intemperate blowhard, for example after the Arizona shootings, and such rantings seem not to be followed up by concrete legislative proposals. Republicans and wing nut conservatives are very, very serious about using the force of law to silence the expression of views they disagree with.)

Suppression from the Right:Suppression from the Left:
  • ?

ParkerLongbaugh

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby ParkerLongbaugh » 2011 Jan 14 11:09

Do a 10second Google search for "suppression free speech" and you'll find plenty of examples from both sides, including the left both in gov and the private sector. Leaving that side of the tally blank is pretty inaccurate...

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 14 18:33

Neck-aint-red wrote:Suppression from the Right:

* Suppression of radio journalism, NPR.
* Suppression of journalists, Wikileaks
* Suppression of symbolic free speech
* ...

The quest to silence offensive, or offensive political speech, of FAR too many on the LEFT, is more than sad.

You should be more aware, and express more care.

1. DE FUNDING, to be accurate, and rightfully so.
2. Obama, H. Clinton and Holder disagree...
3. A flag burning amendment is silly, and burning the flag in and of itself is certainly not the stuff of crime.
4....keep going as you are on no roll yet.

crux
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 354
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

I'm still waiting

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2011 Jan 16 21:40

Is there as much suppression of free speech from the left as from the right in America within the past decade?

Crux apparently thinks that 3 examples I gave of attempted government muzzling of non-conservatives are exactly what he wants!
He has failed to counter, so far, with examples of real attempts, legislation or regulation, to muzzle conservatives. It still seems highly asymmetrical to me. Conservatives complain incessantly about suppression of their free speech, but only they appear actually to be doing it!

Parker had an interesting suggestion that Googling a phrase would yield scads of examples of government suppressing the speech of poor downtrodden conservatives. I tried, but cannot find anything. Would you please list what you found, real examples of attempts, legislation or regulation, to muzzle speech by conservatives?

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

PUHLEEZE...

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 17 00:20

Neck-aint-red wrote:Crux apparently thinks that 3 examples I gave of attempted government muzzling of non-conservatives are exactly what he wants! He has failed to counter...
Is there as much suppression of free speech from the left as from the right in America within the past decade?

Your wild extrapolation aside, and apparent ignorance aside, I did counter.

Yes, to your question.
Just because the left doesn't have the votes to push the Fairness Doctrine through for example, doesn't take it from their heart's desire, or from their calls for this "remedy"
There are always the regulatory back doors like "localism" or licensing left open to the State-ist to enter.
McCain/Feingold, struck down in part by the court... Citizens United v. FEC... The Fed through the 3-2 partisan vote of the FCC pursuing Net Neutrality... The potential to attack free political speech is quite WIDE.

Suppression can be OVERT in many ways.
The recent shameless blame shifting, regarding the Tuscon shootings, have been direct assaults upon the political speech of the right, and though wicked, is no mean little footnote...
This has been a pattern of the left...

The whole selective subjective moral proclamations over Hate Speech, and the pension for pursuing it through legislation, is plain for all to see.
The CONSTANT PUSH of politically correct speech is a dominant hollow call of the left, for they exercise too often a double standard over how speech is used...
Take for example the shameless disgusting attacks upon Conservative Women from the Left that, if reversed, would cause the left to HOWL, "SEXISM!!"

The left is truly adroit at labeling the right constantly, with verbal attack...
The use of the "T word" for example is a concerted effort to demean, and marginalize the Tea Party through the use of sexual slur... Only the Left could carry this through so thoroughly.
How many times have you heard the word "RACIST" used incorrectly as slanderous attack.

Make no mistake...
This is the STUFF of the suppression of speech, and often the last line of the desperate defense of limited ideology.

Neck-aint-red wrote:Parker had an interesting suggestion that Googling a phrase would yield scads of examples of government suppressing the speech of poor downtrodden conservatives. I tried, but cannot find anything.

...the silence is deafening... :clap:

crux
Last edited by Crux on 2011 Jan 17 11:01, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: PUHLEEZE...

Postby Wise One » 2011 Jan 17 09:57

I haven't looked at this for awhile but it's interesting. Here are a few quick thoughts.
crux wrote:... Fairness Doctrine ... the left ... heart's desire ...
This is just silly. Republicans have introduced no recent legislation to mandate torturing kittens and puppies at Guantanamo, but if I charge "It's their heart's desire" then I deserve ridicule.
crux wrote:McCain/Feingold, struck down in part by the court... Citizens United v. FEC...
Although my personal opinion is that these were both reasonable exercises of balanced regulatory discretion, I must concede that the Roberts/Thomas/Alito/Scalia Supreme Court supported your view.
crux wrote:... FCC pursuing Net Neutrality...
You have this one backwards. The proposed regulatory posture would protect speech/communications against arbitrary and anti-competitive throttling and pay walls by telecoms.

crux wrote:This is a pattern of the left which VICIOUSLY demonizes as a mode of operation, not on principle, but through character assassination, and other verbal TOOLS.
This part of your posting is a textbook example of the vitriol in public discourse that has gotten recent attention.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 17 11:06

Wise One wrote: crux wrote:This is a pattern of the left which VICIOUSLY demonizes as a mode of operation, not on principle, but through character assassination, and other verbal TOOLS.

This part of your posting is a textbook example of the vitriol in public discourse that has gotten recent attention.


Thank you and I have censored myself via the edit button.
As for the Left's desire to pursue a Fairness Doctrine "remedy" this is no stretch.
Torturing KITTENS!,now that's just EVIL!
I will watch the FCC regarding NN as I hope you will. Time, will tell.

crux
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

The secret ballot...

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 17 11:33

Our vote, secret and private, protects our personal privacy and Liberty.

Can you imagine if our vote at the polls was flashed on a screen for all to see? How would you like a political operative to be looking over your shoulder as you pull the lever. Can you take a moment to imagine the social pressure, political ramifications or reprisals.

Is your Vote your speech? Is your vote and the privacy of it your FREE speech? Is this your individual Liberty?

I bring this to your attention, because another issue where the Right to Free Speech is threatened by the Left, is through Card-Check Legislation, which would strip away workers SECRET ballot voting on whether OR NOT to join a Union.

This was the "Employee Free Choice Act", HR800 in the 110th congress and HR1409/S460 in the 111th Congress...

If you are unaware of this assault upon privacy in voting, look into this and think about it...

crux
Last edited by Crux on 2011 Jan 17 14:57, edited 2 times in total.
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

ParkerLongbaugh

Re: I'm still waiting

Postby ParkerLongbaugh » 2011 Jan 17 13:54

Parker had an interesting suggestion that Googling a phrase would yield scads of examples of government suppressing the speech of poor downtrodden conservatives. I tried, but cannot find anything. Would you please list what you found, real examples of attempts, legislation or regulation, to muzzle speech by conservatives?

Without even doing a search, several examples come to mind:

1. The St Louis Circuit Attorneys (both liberals and Obama supporters) who attempted to use their gov offices to prosecute those who made criticisms of Obama during the presidential race in 2008.
2. The Democrat-led Senate passing the Durbin Amendment in 2009 as an attempt to give the FCC through bureaucratic regulation what the "Fairness Doctrine" tried to do through law.

And actually doing a search yielded these coming from the left- just on the first page:
http://volokh.com/posts/1204234239.shtml
http://www.joshuajamesbrown.com/?p=749
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-water ... s-parody-h
http://www.claremont.org/publications/p ... detail.asp

I'm not vouching for these sources or articles or their content- but claiming that examples or discussions of examples don't come up is just absurd. These examples probably aren't even that good- but if I can do this in 30 seconds during lunch, the info is certainly out there.

ETA: I should clarify that I don't actually use Google as my default search engine, but use a competitor of them instead.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Chalk one up for the....ACLU? Another example...

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 17 14:37

...of the Left seeking to curb free political speech. That's HR5175/ SR3628 for those who are taking notes.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/21/aclu- ... sclose-act

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

ANOTHER State-ist Dem calls for Nanny to police speech...

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 20 17:28

http://emergingcorruption.com/2011/01/c ... -doctrine/
YUP, your buddy Nadler (D)emo-crat... Seeking to have the FCC reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Say it isn't so!
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Chalk one up for the....ACLU?

Postby Wise One » 2011 Jan 20 20:35

crux wrote:...of the Left seeking to curb free political speech.

I read the ACLU letter and am persuaded by their arguments against the DISCLOSE Act. I wouldn't characterize this as "the Left seeking to curb" but agree that elements of the proposed legislation need to be refined. Its intent seems laudable but specifics need more work.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: ANOTHER State-ist Dem calls for Nanny to police speech...

Postby Wise One » 2011 Jan 20 20:40

crux wrote:YUP, your buddy Nadler (D)emo-crat... Seeking to have the FCC reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
You found somebody ... congratulations! I must point out that this blowhard has done nothing at all to introduce legislation to promote the dead-as-a-doornail Fairness Doctrine. An offhand comment is not serious.

Until you can find a serious attempt by people to revise legislation or regulations to re-institute the FD, I cannot take you seriously on this topic.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: I'm still waiting

Postby Wise One » 2011 Jan 20 21:20

I appreciate your trying to point to real cases, always better than mere blather and bluster, but you should have read them.They are virtually useless.

ParkerLongbaugh wrote:1. The St Louis Circuit Attorneys (both liberals and Obama supporters) who attempted to use their gov offices to prosecute those who made criticisms of Obama during the presidential race in 2008.
I looked into this and it consists entirely of a wild-ass charge by the truly insane Michelle Malkin, hot air backed up by nothing at all. If it comes from Malkin, it is almost certain to be crap. No libel case was ever brought against anybody.

ParkerLongbaugh wrote:2. The Democrat-led Senate passing the Durbin Amendment in 2009 as an attempt to give the FCC through bureaucratic regulation what the "Fairness Doctrine" tried to do through law.
This one is total bullshit. Durbin actually proposed only to reaffirm existing law (which does not include the FD). Durbin said “President Obama says he doesn’t support reinstating the Fairness Doctrine and neither do I.”

ParkerLongbaugh wrote:And actually doing a search yielded these coming from the left- just on the first page: http://volokh.com/posts/1204234239.shtml
This is some random person's assessment of how SCOTUS members vote and has nothing to do with muzzling speech by conservatives.

This is another opinion piece, one guy's opinion of McCain/Feingold and Citizens United. Whether it relates to muzzling speech by conservatives is highly debatable since both regulatory regimens had broad support spanning the political spectrum.

Omigod, this is getting pathetic. Some blogger site expressed outrage because NYTimes thinks Will Ferrell is funny and some health care proponents criticized Humana Corp propaganda mailings. I wonder if Fox News has ever criticized anybody?

This one is blather from an ultrarightest "think tank" railing over the two SCOTUS decisions above, the defunct 1949 Fairness Doctrine, and various other ravings. It has little to do with muzzling of speech by conservatives.

ParkerLongbaugh wrote:These examples probably aren't even that good - but if I can do this in 30 seconds
You are correct, Sir. More than 30 seconds of work is required to support your point.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Sam
Posts: 394
Joined: 2009 Jul 31 22:49

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Sam » 2011 Jan 20 22:45

To those with opposing view points and opinions etc. you need to understand anything presented on this forum must meet with the viewpoints of a certain few. Yeah Folks, you got it, it anything presented if not written by a person from the left leaning persuasion it won't meet the criteria on this forum set by a few. I got the picture shortly after I joined. Now I tell my wife, these folks can't believe they are the one and only with the true information, or they are just narcissistic. Can't tell. My wife, a retired psychologist, tells me they might have a God complex.

They talk about Fox news as being so evil etc, yet Folks, they present the party line down to the talking points as heard from the left leaning persuasion. I have to chuckle when reading their pathetic attempts when they use such words as WILD ASS, HOT AIR, CRAP, TOTAL BS, PATHETIC, BLATHER, EXAMPLE OF THE VITRIOL"

Folks, it seems to me and who am I, but one of those senior citizens, if you really want to get someone to come around to your way of thinking you would gently persuade, induce, beseech, for example, rather than attack. I for one am willing to listen to others opinions if they are presented in a more agreeable way. So guess Folks, I am learning something here and this old coger can still learn but can't say I agree with some.

Just an opinion for one of those older people
Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as
"extremists

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 3206
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

To be aware...

Postby Crux » 2011 Jan 21 08:12

There are these questions unanswered WO:

So, absent "the formal filing of proposed legislation", you have no problem with a call by Democrats to purse a Fairness Doctrine?

When in 2009, during Obama's administration, a Democrat led senate adopts and passes, with near unanimous Republican support, resolutions blocking a fairness doctrine, you are in support of this action in principle?


This is a quick list of Democrat Pols, who have made strong statements recently in SUPPORT of the fairness doctrine:

Jerry Nadler (D) New York
James Clyburn (D) S.C.
Loise Slaughter (D) N.Y.
Nancy Pelosi (D) Ca
John Kerry (D) Ma
Dennis Kucinich (D) Oh
Diane Feinstein (D) Ca
Al Sharpton (D) NY
Debbi Stabenow (D) Mi
Tom Harkin (D) Iowa
Jeff Bingaman (D) N.M.
Anna Eshoo (D) Ca
Bill Clinton (D)
Dick Durbin (D) Il (June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine")

Now true there are MANY MANY Democrats who are also heavy-duty voices of stature who do not support re-instating the FD like the Honorable Al Franken (D): "The public owns the airwaves, but I think this is an odd imposition of governmental power...I'm uncomfortable with it, even though I see how unbalanced radio is and I can't stand it.''

...even ObamaWAY BACK in 2005 agreed, well, sort of... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nanny-s ... -doctrine/

FYI

crux
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1957
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Free Speech...protecting the Right

Postby Wise One » 2011 Jan 21 09:05

This is a lie. A lie. A lie. A lie.

See for example Dick Durbin's explicit renunciation of Republican distortions they keep attributing to him.

All on your list have said things to the effect that they support airing of a broad spectrum of views. Few, if any, support present-day re-institution of the moldy old FCC Fairness Doctrine. NONE have taken the tiniest of baby steps to do anything at all concrete, as by introducing legislation that would re-institute the FD.

The FD was excellent for its time, when media were few, dominated by a very small number (often 1) of owners. Its need has passed because of the diversity of multi-media outlets now available to nearly everybody. Everybody recognizes this.

Republicans have no interest in fighting to solve real problems. They are interested only in fighting imaginary problems of their own concoction – it's a helluva lot easier than real work. Examples:
  • Fairness Doctrine, nobody wants it
  • Flag burning, the classic non-problem ... virtually nobody does it and banning it would be banning free expression
  • Anchor babies, the teensiest of problems, all credible assessments showing this is not the reason people come to he US
  • Birthers demanding ad nauseum more and more proof Obama was born where he was born, because he is half black.
  • Death Panels in Obamacare. They don't exist in Obamacare but they do exist in Republican Arizona.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."