Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

Incorrect. Aside from instances like saying bomb in an airplane or shouting fire in a crowded in a theater, free speech is absolute. It is the most important of the amendments and purposely why the founders made it the 1st amendment.

Supreme Court has correctly ruled that shouting fire in a theater is protected speech
 
Incorrect. Aside from instances like saying bomb in an airplane or shouting fire in a crowded in a theater, free speech is absolute. It is the most important of the amendments and purposely why the founders made it the 1st amendment.

I don't think free speech is absolute. A very simple example would be where it disrupts the ability of another speaker to express himself or herself. If someone disrupted my classroom in the name of free speech I'd have them kicked out.

People's ability to express themselves at work is pretty circumscribed.
 
I don't think free speech is absolute. A very simple example would be where it disrupts the ability of another speaker to express himself or herself. If someone disrupted my classroom in the name of free speech I'd have them kicked out.

People's ability to express themselves at work is pretty circumscribed.

Those are not examples that apply to freedom speech.
 
Those are not examples that apply to freedom speech.

Then we have different conceptions of free speech. That's ok. It is useful to discuss those conceptions. I think anyone can rave as much as they want on a street corner as long as they aren't in some way threatening other people or impeding other people's ability to use public spaces. Even if they impeding other people, I'd try to accommodate them for a reasonable period of time.
 
btw...as a private enterprise i'm pretty sure a movie theater can determine what kind of behavior it permits on its premises (this goes well beyond shouting fire)...patrons can't shout let alone shout fire

but the first amendment is whether government can circumscribe speech

this is another example where a discussion about free speech can break down...some people will have the prohibitions set forth by the first amendment in mind...others will have something else in mind...does it make sense to complain about another country not complying with OUR first amendment
 
Last edited:
Then we have different conceptions of free speech. That's ok. It is useful to discuss those conceptions. I think anyone can rave as much as they want on a street corner as long as they aren't in some way threatening other people or impeding other people's ability to use public spaces. Even if they impeding other people, I'd try to accommodate them for a reasonable period of time.

There no concepts.

What you illustrated does not affect free speech in any way. You are not the government.
 
There no concepts.

What you illustrated does not affect free speech in any way. You are not the government.

I don't know if you noticed but this thread is not about the first amendment and what government may or may not do.

If you have any doubts take a look at the first page of posts or for that matter any random page of subsequent posts.
 
I don't know if you noticed but this thread is not about the first amendment and what government may or may not do.

If you have any doubts take a look at the first page of posts or for that matter any random page of subsequent posts.

When society creates a culture of self censorship, we do not have real free speech.

People lost their jobs because questioned a mask mandate that didn't work

You cheered every step of the way
 
When society creates a culture of self censorship, we do not have real free speech.

People lost their jobs because questioned a mask mandate that didn't work

You cheered every step of the way

this is what I thought the thread was about

the culture (whether real or perceived) that makes some people feel like they are being silenced
 
btw...as a private enterprise i'm pretty sure a movie theater can determine what kind of behavior it permits on its premises (this goes well beyond shouting fire)...patrons can't shout let alone shout fire

but the first amendment is whether government can circumscribe speech

this is another example where a discussion about free speech can break down...some people will have the prohibitions set forth by the first amendment in mind...others will have something else in mind...does it make sense to complain about another country not complying with OUR first amendment

Of course a movie theater can make their own rules regarding that. But the government can't mandate that the same speech is against the law or prosecute you for it. And certainly, it cannot pressure the movie theater into making policies to kick you out for saying it.
 
this is what I thought the thread was about

the culture (whether real or perceived) that makes some people feel like they are being silenced

In a few short years the government has followed society, because it now knows a large portion of society is supportive

As we have clearly demonstrated on these boards
 
I still wonder if leftists on thos board realize that *they* are the people who support full authoritarianism

https://www.the-independent.com/new...-trump-mark-zuckerberg-facebook-b1801618.html

“Zuckerberg listened, and then told Trump that the members had been chosen based on their qualifications,” the source added, confirming: “Despite the pressure from Trump, Facebook did not change the composition of the board.”

Facebook got pressured to change things by both parties

:shocked pikachu:
 
for example, a librarian in Louisiana testified before the local board of her parish (that's what counties are called in Louisiana) about book bans

for that she has suffered all sorts of abuse, including accusations of peddling pornography to children and of wanting to teach 11 year olds how to have anal sex.

there have also been some death threats

would this be an example of society creating a culture of censorship
 
I don't know if you noticed but this thread is not about the first amendment and what government may or may not do.

If you have any doubts take a look at the first page of posts or for that matter any random page of subsequent posts.

Maybe that's my bad for posting the twitter link in here. Although, I still think it applies. While FB ultimately is to blame for censoring information on their own app, the government had no right to use FB as a proxy to silence the voices of American citizens.
 
https://www.the-independent.com/new...-trump-mark-zuckerberg-facebook-b1801618.html

“Zuckerberg listened, and then told Trump that the members had been chosen based on their qualifications,” the source added, confirming: “Despite the pressure from Trump, Facebook did not change the composition of the board.”

Facebook got pressured to change things by both parties

:shocked pikachu:

you also have threats made by Trump against Time Warner that a proposed deal would be looked poorly upon by the Justice Department's antitrust division if CNN's coverage didn't improve

the market for pearl clutching seems rather robust
 
Last edited:
https://www.the-independent.com/new...-trump-mark-zuckerberg-facebook-b1801618.html

“Zuckerberg listened, and then told Trump that the members had been chosen based on their qualifications,” the source added, confirming: “Despite the pressure from Trump, Facebook did not change the composition of the board.”

Facebook got pressured to change things by both parties

:shocked pikachu:

1. Trump was not the government in this appeal to Zuckerberg.

2. LMAO, if you think Trump trying to get unbanned from FB is remotely similar. You need professional help.
 
1. Trump was not the government in this appeal to Zuckerberg.

2. LMAO, if you think Trump trying to get unbanned from FB is remotely similar. You need professional help.

And Facebook didn't feel threatened enough to comply like they did with the dems
 
Back
Top