The Case Against Free Speech

1. 84

   Doneta Wrateposted 5 years ago

   I say one persons freedom ends where a another persons nose begins.  We have the freedom to say what we want but should go elsewhere once a person says they do not want to hear it.

   replyreport
2. 81

   EricDockettposted 5 years ago

   Posts like this belong in the Topical forums, not on the HubPages side. Over there I would imagine there are many people willing to have a vigorous debate on the subject.
   
   That's me exercising my right to free speech.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      GDPR Deleted
      1. 81

         EricDockettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I know, but if you check through you'll see most of the posts that aren't "quotes of the day" have at least something to do with HubPages.
         
         The problem is, when non-HP posts pile up in the HP forum area it becomes difficult for people who are trying to catch up with HP business to find relevant information.
         
         Years ago there was only one forum section. HP separated by HP/Topics so that people who wanted to discuss topics had their area, and those who were just here to write didn't have to sift through two pages of political arguments to find something about HP.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            GDPR Deleted
            1. 81

               EricDockettposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               That's up to you. Hopefully HP staff will move it over to the topics section eventually, so you probably don't have to do anything.

               replyreport
               1. 72

                  theraggededgeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  They moved it

                  replyreport
3. 84

   Doneta Wrateposted 5 years ago

   But people should be considerate enough not to push their "freedoms" to the point of making things uncomfortable for others.  For example the bakers in Florida that had baked stuff for a gay couple but did not want to make their wedding cake.  Gay marriage was against the bakers religious belief.  That gay couple could have gone to any number of other bakeries and had their cake made.  But they insisted on infringing on the bakers religious freedoms and ruined the bakers business with which he was supporting his family.  That gay couple gave the baker a bloody nose with their freedoms.  One persons freedom ends where another persons nose begins.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Or did the baker try to give the gay couple a bloody nose by not treating them as he would have anyone else?
      
      One persons freedom is another persons requirement, from riding in the front of the bus to getting a wedding cake.  Sadly, we haven't learned the lessons about discrimination that our history showed us, and will still discriminate against those that are different than us.  Religion is only one of the excuses used.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         GDPR Deleted
         1. 81

            Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The problem with that, Tess, is that America is incorrigible. The last paragraph of your comment was just the way it was here as recently as 60 years ago. White/Colored, was that not the case in South Africa prior to 1994? Under the apartheid regime where were the Black Africans allowed to eat and congregate?
            
            I don't trust reverting from our current law and instead, relying on an individual's "conscience" to do the "right thing". Conservatives love to talk about this kind of stuff, but it never really works. Nothing ever changed in America without persistent litigation and civil disobedience.
            
            
            Is that ever really a solution? It was unacceptable and as part of the Civil Rights movement, public accommodations must provide goods and services to all on an equal basis.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               GDPR Deleted
               1. 81

                  Credence2posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Tess, we had our own form of apartheid here,
                  
                  1. "Separate but equal" in effect consigned blacks to inferior education and facilities, de jure in the South, de facto, in the North.
                  
                  2. This, not being able to live in cities and towns as part of apartheid had no equal here. But, you can bet that within them segregation by law or by custom was enforced.
                  
                  3. As for jobs and employment discrimination outcomes you described for Black employment, what was a provision of law under apartheid had been de facto here, with basically the same result.
                  
                  4. Until a landmark Supreme court case in 1967, miscegenation was unlawful in many of the states.
                  
                  5. As for association between the races, for America, I offer "Jim Crow". Separation of the races was mandated by law, with "separate" virtually never meaning equal.
                  
                  Is any business operating as a public accommodation really private? They must pay taxes, and in the example of restaurant must submit to health inspection just for public health and safety.  And you can't just pay employees in the manner you wish. So, no, you can't do whatever you want. Only the kid's  lemonaid might get by without a myriad of municipal, State and federal regulations.  So, if you want to choose whom to serveand who to associate with send out invitations to your back yard barbecue.
                  
                  I do see your point that the proprietor of a business should be able to hire who he or she wishes. When I think about employment discrimination, I am thinking on larger scale corporations, who asks me as a resident of Denver to subsidize them in exchange for moving business operations into our community and offering jobs. Since that subsidy comes from my pocket, I can insist on equal opportunity employment on their part.
                  
                  I get your point with private owned business employing who they want, many our family owned and operated, I get that. Parents are free to home school their kids, and send kids to private schools, but the public school system tax base cannot be undermined on account of it.
                  
                  Good inquiry about drawing the line between public and private. As far as I am concerned once when you step outside the door of your property, you are in the public domain.
                  
                  Determining the balance that you speak of is necessary and has always been a topic of discussion in America. With 300 millions here, cooperation is a requirement. In other words, my rights and prerogatives must end where yours begin.
                  
                  We may have a different view on free speech. I have to allow the Nazi the right to peaceably assemble and promote their ideas in the public square, as I want the freedom to promote my own. They can even march if they can get a permit. As a consequence, I oppose religious "establishment" while appreciating their right to engage in public discourse. People can think or believe what they want, just don't become an impediment to my life and property in the assertion of your views.
                  
                  In the example of your train travels, no one requires that you travel the bus if it was not your choice to associate. It is just fine as long as everybody that chooses to ride the bus are offered equal courtesy and accommodation, that is all that I can assist upon.
                  
                  Thanks.....

                  replyreport
4. 84

   Doneta Wrateposted 5 years ago

   The baker did serve and sold baked goods to the gay couple many other times.  Just did not want to do the wedding cake because of his religious beliefs.  the gay couple could have gotten a wedding cake many other places.  I call the baker the nonconformist and independent thinker that gmwilliams was talking about

   replyreport
   1. 80

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I understand that.  But I call that baker discriminatory, as he would have made a wedding cake for others but not this couple.  It's difficult to view that as anything but discrimination.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I am going to say it is possible you do not have a serious religious conviction of any kind.
         
         Asking a devout Christian to bake a cake for a gay wedding is similar to asking a Muslim who owns a meat market to sell you pork.
         
         I would also like to point out that Muslim bakers were asked to bake a gay wedding cake and also refused.  See the link below.  Why is this never discussed in the media?  Why hasn't the state taken the Muslim baker to court for discrimination? 
         
         Can you say hypocrisy?
         
         I'm sure this would also be an issue for an Orthodox Jew who owned a bakery.
         
         Why should someone be required to forgo their religious beliefs?  I believe freedom of religion in guaranteed in the Constitution.
         
         https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video … eries.html

         replyreport
         1. 80

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "Asking a devout Christian to bake a cake for a gay wedding is similar to asking a Muslim who owns a meat market to sell you pork."
            
            No it isn't, for the Muslim does not carry or sell pork to anyone.  The baker sells wedding cakes...to anyone that isn't gay.  That's a huge difference.
            
            Yes, we are guaranteed freedom of religion.  But that freedom does not apply when it is used to discriminate or harm others.  For instance, you may not carry out human sacrifice no matter what your religion says you must do.  You may not beat your children whether your religion says to or not.  You may not execute girls that go to school or refuses to marry who you say they shall whether your religion says to or not.  Similarly, you may not raise the spectre of discrimination yet again in this country (IMO).  We've had enough of that and it caused thousands upon thousands of deaths.
            
            But, unlike the other examples, you may refuse to bake a cake for a gay marriage...until you enter the public arena and open a business welling wedding cakes.  When behind closed doors you may do lots of things that are not permissible in public.  Keep your religious beliefs to yourself and do not force them onto the public.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Readmikenowposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Is this a law that only applies to Christians? Isn't that a bit anti-Christian?
               
               The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
               
               “The Constitution protects speech, popular or not, from condemnation by the government,” said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel to First Liberty, which represents the Kleins. “The message from the Court is clear, government hostility toward religious Americans will not be tolerated.”
               
               https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 … wedding-c/

               replyreport
5. 83

   Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

   Freedom of religious belief is for everyone whether you believe in anything or not.

   replyreport
6. 83

   Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

   What does that have to do with Religious Freedom? We have criminal law for those who violate the law.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It doesn't have much to do with it.  But there have been a few cases where religious freedom is used as an excuse in a public business not to serve those that are seen as not belonging to the same religion.  It has long been accepted (rightly so) within the church (you don't hire an atheist as a pastor), but it is spreading to public businesses, open to anyone that walks in the door.
      
      I wasn't a part of it, but have heard in my area some years ago that the Mormon sect would not allow anyone not of the Mormon church to build their churches.  Something about it being holy ground and non-believers would contaminate the site or some such.  By the time I got into the building trade it had been settled in court and neither contractors nor their employers were required to be Mormon.

      replyreport
7. 83

   Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

   That has nothing to do with religious freedom.  It is bigotry and bias.

   replyreport
8. 84

   Doneta Wrateposted 5 years ago

   wilderness, readmikenow said a muslim baker reused to bake a wedding cake for gay people and yet was not taken to court.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I saw that.  All it means to me is that the people discriminated against declined to go to court.

      replyreport
9. 84

   Doneta Wrateposted 5 years ago

   And that Orthodox Jews also would not want to because of religous belief

   replyreport
   1. 80

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Jews might not want to.  IMO, as soon as they enter the public market place they must serve everyone the same, regardless of religious beliefs.  To do otherwise simply puts us back in the same place we were in 100 years ago; a nation of bigotry and discrimination.  Don't forget that religion  was one of the excuses justifying slavery.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         SmartAndFunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Have you seen the multiple cases filed in Canada by Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv? Yaniv is a male who claims to be a transgender woman, and is taking female waxing aestheticians to court (human rights tribunal) because they work on female clients only. Yaniv wants these women to perform a Brazilian wax on him, which means the women, some of whom work alone out of their homes, would have to welcome him into their homes and handle his penis and testicles. The women refused on the basis that they only accept female clients, that they do not feel safe hosting male clients in their homes when they are alone or only their small children are present, and they are not trained to work on male genitalia. Yaniv says he is a woman and has taken them to court for discrimination.
         https://quillette.com/2019/07/25/a-cana … r-self-id/

         replyreport
         1. 80

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Sure thing - testicles are female organs because a woman is a woman.
            
            It will be fascinating to see what happens with the case, if it actually goes to a verdict.  Are Canadian courts as stupid as American ones?  He might win!

            replyreport
            1. 71

               SmartAndFunposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, will be very interesting to learn the result. Three of the cases were heard together over the summer and will be ruled on sometime this month, I believe (I have forgotten the date, it may actually be in October or November).
               
               Yaniv is despised by just about everyone. Not only is he a vexatious litigant, he is also a pedophile with a menstruation and feminine hygiene product fetish. He is using his status as a transgender woman not only to harass adult female aestheticians (many are Asians - guess what, Yaniv is also racist), but also to access girls in women's restrooms and swim locker rooms. There are a number of "receipts" showing him sexually harassing young teen and tween girls online.
               
               Yet, it does seem British Columbia human rights code is on his side, as people with a self-declared gender identity are considered a protected class under the code, and therefore it is illegal to discriminate against them. Because he has declared himself a woman, the code says he must be treated as one and to refuse to do so is discrimination and incitement of hatred.

               replyreport
10. 83

    Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

    What are your comments based on?  What is your source?

    replyreport
11. 83

    Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

    The brain is a brain, a useful organ for the body to function. It is not the individual. The brain is used to facilitate the nervous system. We are our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking.

    replyreport
12. 83

    Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

    How did religion justify slavery?

    replyreport
    1. 80

       wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       It is my understand that it was an excuse given back in colonial times.  Blacks were inhuman creatures and God had told man the creatures of the world were theirs.  Or they were following God's wishes and "improving" the life of the slaves.  One can justify most anything with the "proper" rationalizations, especially if it is determined that it was God's wish in the first place.

       replyreport
13. 83

    Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

    Not everyone approved of slavery. Saying it's was justified by God is farfetched. It's the individuals not the religion.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       Well, if you want to own slaves you need something to justify an obviously wrong decision!  Especially when all those do-gooders in the north are saying you're such a bad person.  Historically religion has been used to justify a great many evils - some of the worst ever seen.  That some would use it so they didn't feel bad about owning slaves should not be a surprise.

       replyreport
14. 83

    Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

    The problem I have with your statements is they are generalities. I am sure slave owners justified their actions, but not all of them used God as their reasoning. Some groups did not have slaves because of their religious beliefs - Quakers.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       Of course it wasn't all of them!  Likely it was only a small minority, but that wasn't the point.  Some did use religion as their justification, that's all.

       replyreport
15. 83

    Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

    Yes. Some did, not all. Some did not support slavery for religious reasons.

    replyreport
16. 83

    Readmikenowposted 5 years ago

    Should Dave Chappelle be silenced?  Does HIS free speech rights enable him to offend people during his comedy show?  I've watched this and he IS really funny and offends MANY segments of American society.  Here is an article about it.
    
    Dave Chappelle’s New Stand-Up Special Is Hilarious (And Even Subversively Pro-Life)
    
    “It is offensive, deliberately so. But above all else, it’s really funny, even if Chappelle occasionally pulls his punches. If you are sensitive to vulgarity, indecency, and in-your-face offensive humor, regardless of your politics, this probably isn’t the stand-up special for you.”
    
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/08/29/da … -pro-life/

    replyreport
17. 0

    RTalloniposted 5 years ago

    https://share.america.gov/why-protect-offensive-speech/
    "In this competition of ideas, the government doesn’t outlaw speech that it disagrees with but instead assures that everyone may speak and confront ideas that they find offensive. By defending individual rights, this approach ensures that everyone can voice their opinions regardless of who controls the levers of power."

    replyreport
18. 83

    Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

    People who are scared are not aware of the fact they have nothing to be afraid of other than their own dark shadows in their mind.

    replyreport
19. 84

    Doneta Wrateposted 5 years ago

    Can a liberal and a conservative in America ever come to agreement. ha! They both trust such different sources of information.  It is like the old saying of the east meeting the west.
    
    As for Patriotism, I once saw of video of Trump speaking in front of the UN I believe and he said that every person should be proud of his country and do what he can to make it as great as possible.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

       GDPR Deleted
       1. 83

          peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          ++++
          No, I don’t get nationalism either. To be proud of a country is a strange thing. Every country has good things and bad things. To be proud of a country means you are proud about everything the country does or has done in the past. This makes no sense.
          You can be proud on a specific achievement, but to be proud on a country as a whole is foolish and shows lack of criticism.

          replyreport
          1. 72

             lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

             There was someone here not so long ago who said the USA caging children is okay (let's not get into an argument if thi is true or not, that was not the point just that it was okay if they did) because apparently other countries do so. There are some people who are in your words "proud about everything the country does". So there are people who are truly proud of their country. It's sad, but it's true.

             replyreport
             1. 0

                promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                No reasonable person in America or any other country can think their country is better than any other country in every possible way.
                
                But anyone who thinks that Abraham Lincoln and the Founding Fathers are nobodies either has a severe gap in their education or is revealing anti-American bias.
                
                Either way, such claims aren't based on fact or logic.
                
                Then again, maybe Ghandi and Winston Churchill are nobodies and we ignorant Americans are giving them too much respect.

                replyreport
                1. 72

                   lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   They aren't nobodies, but they aren't saints either. They all had huge influences on the countries they were in and beyond.

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      Likewise, America has had leaders who had huge influences on the countries they were in and beyond.
                      
                      They also weren't nobodies. For example, I don't know how anyone can think Winston Churchill is more prominent in world history than Franklin Roosevelt.

                      replyreport
                      1. 76

                         Castlepalomaposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         Only President Kennedy had a profound beautiful effect on my life. The many Presidents started out with good intentions than ended up becoming puppets.
                         
                         Winston Churchill and Gandhi are as opposite as you can get.

                         replyreport
                         1. 72

                            lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                            Yeah, I did not want to get into the kind of person Churchill was, that's a whole different story. That's why I left it at influence. Gandhi was no saint either, but like you say they were still opposites.

                            replyreport
                      2. 72

                         lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                         Did I say otherwise? Also, you mentioned them in your post and they were covered in my reply when I said "They".

                         replyreport
                         1. 0

                            promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                            I'm simply responding to a series of comments on this thread and others that seem to denigrate America in general terms.
                            
                            The fact that some posters are proud of everything American doesn't mean we all are.

                            replyreport
                            1. 72

                               lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                               It would be stupid to think everyone is. It's not even the majority, just the loudest of the lot because noise stands out. You should really view the forum in chronological mode if you aren't already, makes it easier and there's less confusion. Seems like you were replying directly to me as my reply is quoted before your reply in what I see.

                               replyreport
                               1. 0

                                  promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                  I did view it in chronological mode. I stand by my comment that several people wrote a series of posts that showed anti-American bias. Likewise, I have seen the same thing in other recent threads.
                                  
                                  Since you were the most recent poster and made supporting comments to them, I replied to you. My reply was not meant personally.

                                  replyreport
                                  1. 72

                                     lobobrandonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                                     No worries; was just confused.

                                     replyreport
                            2. 83

                               peterstreepposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                               The fact that some posters are proud of everything American doesn't mean we all are.
                               
                               I think it would be simplistic to think so. Generalising Americans is the last thing you can do. When discussing topics generalising is a blunt knife and should be avoided.
                               It’s good to be reminded of that.

                               replyreport
                2. 86

                   GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                   ^5
                   
                   GA

                   replyreport
                   1. 0

                      promisemposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                      Back at ya.

                      replyreport
20. 83

    Kenna McHughposted 5 years ago

    Brandon, Yes. Those definitions are correct. Nationalism is not as bad as Imperialism but close.

    replyreport
21. 0

    Onusonusposted 5 years ago

    The founding fathers of America were wise to recognize the inalienable right to free expression. It is by that same freedom that the op is able to mock and belittle them while standing on their shoulders.

    replyreport