The Freedom Files Continue to Grow!

Throwby · 05-19-2008, 12:50 PM

ban - Obama called for him to be fired. He could have just let nature take it's course. So we agree that free speech is for all and that anyone who tries to shut someone up who is appropriately expressing their freedom to speak is out of line.

ban basketball · 05-19-2008, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Throwby

ban - Obama called for him to be fired. He could have just let nature take it's course. So we agree that free speech is for all and that anyone who tries to shut someone up who is appropriately expressing their freedom to speak is out of line.

With this, "appropriately expressing their freedom to speak,"being the key phrase, we may or may not agree. That's where ideology comes into play. I chose to highlight this phrase, as, for legal purposes only, free speech comes down to this phrase. I'm all for legal speech, with virtually no limits on legal speech. We all can think we know what that means, but courts determine that. On the whole, I think that they do a pretty good job in this regard.

In Imus' case, yeah, it was handled in a way that I was comfortable with. Government was not involved, nor did citizens groups fire him. In essence, the advertisers fired Imus, as well as Imus firing Imus. Imus was the most overlooked person, oddly enough, in that whole debate. Without him, it wouldn't have happened.

Tight-Waist · 05-19-2008, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

In Imus' case, yeah, it was handled in a way that I was comfortable with. Government was not involved, nor did citizens groups fire him. In essence, the advertisers fired Imus, as well as Imus firing Imus. Imus was the most overlooked person, oddly enough, in that whole debate. Without him, it wouldn't have happened.

Not entirely true ban

NAACP SUPPORTS DISMISSAL OF DON IMUS, PUBLIC OUTCRY IS THE START OF LARGER MOVEMENT TO END USE OF RACIST, SEXIST SPEECH & IMAGES

April 13, 2007
The NAACP commends CBS and MSNBC for removing Don Imus from their networks and also recognizes that further action is needed to eradicate such hurtful speech from our popular culture

Throwby · 05-19-2008, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by ban basketball

With this, "appropriately expressing their freedom to speak,"being the key phrase, we may or may not agree. That's where ideology comes into play. I chose to highlight this phrase, as, for legal purposes only, free speech comes down to this phrase. I'm all for legal speech, with virtually no limits on legal speech. We all can think we know what that means, but courts determine that. On the whole, I think that they do a pretty good job in this regard.

In Imus' case, yeah, it was handled in a way that I was comfortable with. Government was not involved, nor did citizens groups fire him. In essence, the advertisers fired Imus, as well as Imus firing Imus. Imus was the most overlooked person, oddly enough, in that whole debate. Without him, it wouldn't have happened.

Having a pervert propositioning my children in graphic terms would be inappropriate as would someone exercising their freedom of speech by shouting down another individual who was invited as a speaker to an event. We could use a bit of decorum in expressing ourselves.

ban basketball · 05-19-2008, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Tight-Waist

Not entirely true ban

NAACP SUPPORTS DISMISSAL OF DON IMUS, PUBLIC OUTCRY IS THE START OF LARGER MOVEMENT TO END USE OF RACIST, SEXIST SPEECH & IMAGES

April 13, 2007
The NAACP commends CBS and MSNBC for removing Don Imus from their networks and also recognizes that further action is needed to eradicate such hurtful speech from our popular culture

When did the NAACP fire him? What did they do to bring about his firing? Approving of the firing is not the same as doing the firing.

Imus and the advertisers fired Imus. Period.

ban basketball · 05-19-2008, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Throwby

Having a pervert propositioning my children in graphic terms would be inappropriate as would someone exercising their freedom of speech by shouting down another individual who was invited as a speaker to an event. We could use a bit of decorum in expressing ourselves.

The former case is illegal speech, assuming that they are minors. The second case, heck, I would sure hope that we can shout down speakers that we disagree with! Isn't that kind of fundamental to debate in this country? I like the idea that when racist organizations picket and march that we can oppose them and counter their protest.

ban basketball · 05-19-2008, 05:22 PM

It's always very curious to me as to how the biggest civil rights violations of our times within "certain ranks" is when racists get reprimended, fired, or called out for their racism.

Yet, when real cases of civil rights violations come up toward members of minority groups, it is denied and excused.

I guess, as John Prine says, "That's the way that the world goes round."

Throwby · 05-19-2008, 05:43 PM

"The second case, heck, I would sure hope that we can shout down speakers that we disagree with! Isn't that kind of fundamental to debate in this country?"

I sure hope that we would have the common sense and decency to let people exercize their free speech without being shouted down when they are responding to an invitation and we just happen to show up. No, it is not fundamental to debate. A debate is like the Presidential debates, where both sides offer their own thoughts but both get to express themselves within the rules of the debate, or when two people or a group of people express their thoughts within the context of civil communication but everyone has the opportunity to speak his own mind. Shouting down guest speakers that you don't agree with is rude, immature and childish and violates THEIR free speech.

Throwby · 05-19-2008, 05:55 PM

Here's an article concerning the subject of "shouting down" others in the public forum. The author makes some very valid observations: http://www.capecodtoday.com/blogs/in...ality?blog=131

You can take this to another level and you would be suggesting it would be your free speech right to go into the legislative chambers at any government level and shout down those who are trying to do the business of democracy. People who are invited as guest speakers should be allowed to speak their peace and those who don't want to hear it can either learn to listen or go home.

ban basketball · 05-19-2008, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Throwby

"The second case, heck, I would sure hope that we can shout down speakers that we disagree with! Isn't that kind of fundamental to debate in this country?"

I sure hope that we would have the common sense and decency to let people exercize their free speech without being shouted down when they are responding to an invitation and we just happen to show up. No, it is not fundamental to debate. A debate is like the Presidential debates, where both sides offer their own thoughts but both get to express themselves within the rules of the debate, or when two people or a group of people express their thoughts within the context of civil communication but everyone has the opportunity to speak his own mind. Shouting down guest speakers that you don't agree with is rude, immature and childish and violates THEIR free speech.

What do you propose that we do to stop this? Should it be outlawed?

The Freedom Files Continue to Grow!

Politics & Religion