[Rant] YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CRITICIZE ME!

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Nice subject line, huh?

 

The Issue:

I've seen quite a bit of posts about free speech lately. Most of which relate to Michael Moore's political comments at the Oscars and other Hollywood stars voicing political opinions and certain websites that list them or denouncement. People say this is a violation of the freedom of speech. This confuses me. These websites are run by individuals are they not just practicing their right to free speech? Or are you free to speak your mind unless you are criticizing another person? If the latter is true I don't think that resembles anything close to having free speech? Perhaps you can only be free to speak as long as you are voicing a certain opinion? Again, that does not sound like free speech.

 

Are these websites violating actors' and actresses' rights to free speech by making these websites? What do you think free speech is?

 

My Opinion:

 

Whenever someone accuses a private individual of violating someone's First Amendment rights, I hit him with a brick, then I order him to go reread the Amendment, paying particularly close attention to the first five words, paying extra-close attention to the very first word.

 

The Bill of Rights is for the most part a restraint on the federal government, but various Supreme Court rulings containing varying degrees of bullshit have "incorporated" most of the BoR into enforceability on state governments, via the 14th Amendment. That Fourteenth can be a real ball-buster sometimes.

 

It's been argued (and I tend to agree) that the BoR doesn't grant rights, it merely protects rights that are inherent in human beings. This means that while nobody but the government can violate the First Amendment, private individuals and organizations can violate the basic civil right of free speech.

 

Criticizing someone for the content of his speech does not violate his rights. Nor does boycotting him, socially shunning him, or not playing his movie at the Baseball Hall of Fame.

 

Anyway, I find private attacks on free speech as repugnant as government attacks on free speech, but less scary. The reason it is scary at all is because so many people seem to be whipped into a "shut up and wave the flag" sort of attitude, which is frightening to the people (including me sometimes) who don't really want to wave a flag they're not sure they believe in right now.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Tyler has been arguing against self-censorship for months now.

 

Nobody's listening.

[Guest SP-1]

War going on or no, just because one can do a thing, doesn't make it good to go on and in fact, DO that thing. Can you say what you want? Sure, that's your right. But I think that there's a line of decency that needs to be watched (though some people don't really give a damn about decency anyway).

[Guest Ace309]

Can you say what you want? Sure, that's your right. But I think that there's blah blah blah...

 

See, that's a fine sentiment, but irrelevant to the post at hand.

 

The First Amendment protects the right of The People~!™ to criticize the government (WITHOUT incitement to violent overthrow). There are extra things involved, but to get into them would be to teach a short course on Constitutional Law, which I have neither the ability nor the desire to do.

 

It is NOT a violation of anyone's Constitutional rights for Michael Moore to make an ass of himself. It is also NOT a violation of Michael Moore's Constitutional rights for me to decide I'm not going to pay to see his movies anymore.

 

Too many people today use the phrase "unconstitutional" when they mean "mildly offensive to me personally," and "You're violating my constitutional rights!" when they mean "You're inconveniencing me, buster." (Also, I don't give a damn what you say, boyo. I know I'm the referee, but by calling you for an illegal hold and then penalizing you when you tell me to F*** off, I'm not violating any of your constitutional rights. I'm also not violating them when I eject you from the tournament.)

 

So, um, after all that, this is essentially a "Me, too" post. Carry on.

[Guest SP-1]

I never said it was unconcstitutional, did I. Nope. So your reply using a quote from my post is irrelevant. I merely gave my opinion about governing oneself and thinking before you speak. No more, no less.

[Guest My Eyebrow is on fire]

...

 

Too many words.

 

::leaves post forever::

[Guest evilhomer]

YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CRITICIZE ME!, I have the freedom of speech!

 

Do you have any idea how contradictory this statement is?

[Guest Powerplay]

Tyler has been arguing against self-censorship for months now.

 

Nobody's listening.

Because it's our right not to . But really, JotW, just because you hold an opinion that isn't the most popular right now, it doesn't mean that your right to freedom of speech overrules our right to say "Shut up!" or hell, even "Shut up and wave the flag." As long as I'm not threatening you directly with immediate harm or using words in attempt to provoke violence (Fighting words), I could tell you to "Shut up" all day. Self-censorship is just that: Someone's own choice to censor their opinions. That's their choice. I'm not saying "Shut the hell up Jotw/Tyler, or I'll kill your girlfriend!", but I'm saying "Shut up, I don't want to hear it around me. You can continue on speaking, and if you choose to stop because you see that I and other people obviously don't agree with you, that's your choice.

[Guest NoCalMike]

People's constitutional rights have been violated though. We should revoke the homeland security act ASAP. It is a complete waste of time and once the war is over it is going to be used way out of context to go after people for other stupid, petty reasons, such as drug posession. The homeland security act was just another measure that was passed in a time where no one was asking this adiminstration any quesitons, just giving them free will to do anything they wanted. Yah and that started with Ashcroft saying we needed to go after headshops all across america.

[Guest Powerplay]

I've heard a lot of crap about the Homeland Security Act and I think I'm going to look over it soon enough. I don't really trust Ashcroft much anyways, so I'm probaby gonna end up agreeing with Mike here.

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Reccomended reading would be the stuff on Total Information Awareness.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

But really, JotW, just because you hold an opinion that isn't the most popular right now, it doesn't mean that your right to freedom of speech overrules our right to say "Shut up!" or hell, even "Shut up and wave the flag." As long as I'm not threatening you directly with immediate harm or using words in attempt to provoke violence (Fighting words), I could tell you to "Shut up" all day. Self-censorship is just that: Someone's own choice to censor their opinions. That's their choice. I'm not saying "Shut the hell up Jotw/Tyler, or I'll kill your girlfriend!", but I'm saying "Shut up, I don't want to hear it around me. You can continue on speaking, and if you choose to stop because you see that I and other people obviously don't agree with you, that's your choice.

As it is in usual situations, but the one I listed isn't the usual.

 

 

If some asshole who happens to own a restaurant starts going off on a rant about how he hates black people (for example), I'm not going to eat in his restaurant anymore. That's my right. The fact that thousands of people would do the same in my shoes is enough to force restaurant owners with racist views to keep them to themselves, for the most part.

 

The thing is most people would walk out of the restaurant. Being racist in public is not very socially acceptable these days, but decrying someone as unpatriotic, unamerican, or even treasonous is completely acceptable.

[Guest Mad Dog]

Yeah but you have all these people jumping on others cases for doing the various things you say is acceptable.

 

I hear all these celebrities crying about McCarthism and all this when people decide to not go to their movies and not buy whatever they're selling b/c they don't want to hear them bad mouthing the President or the war. Seems they want their free speech but at the same time don't want to accept that they become less marketable at the same time. How long till the Dixie Chicks start trying to sue the stations that won't play them or the Ice Tea company that decided not to use them for a commercial? Seems these companies are practicing free speech too.

[Guest DrTom]

Seems these companies are practicing free speech too.

Indeed. Free speech is a two-way street, despite the desires of many people that it weren't. The thing is, radio stations and iced tea companies can legally do things like that because the First Amendment doesn't apply to their actions. Celebrities can whine about their rights all they want, but unless they're facing a government mandate to shut up, they really don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Few things annoy me more than people complaining about their "First Amendment rights" being violated just because someone told them to shut up.

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

At the end of the day, it amounts to whether you consider it to be persecution or not. If a radio station says "they're un-patriotic, we wont play their records" is that persecution? If there are people out there who'll turn off the radio as soon as the Dixie Chicks come on (cause they're anti-war as opposed to the correct answer "they suck") then the radio station has got to see them as a liability, and therefore has no right to keep them on their playlist if they'll decrease listeners. However, to say, out and out, that pro-peace = anti-american, thats stupid. Its like saying pro-abortion = anti-life.

 

On an unrelated note, i think that the Dixie Chicks/ Michael Moores comments will boost their career rather than hinder it. The majority of people in 1st world countries are anti-war, even if America generally isn't.

 

Personally I'm British. Here you get persecuted for saying Bush is right to go to war

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Being racist in public is not very socially acceptable these days, but decrying someone as unpatriotic, unamerican, or even treasonous is completely acceptable.

I think Powerplay has been hitting it right on the head all along. You're not pissy because people don't agree with you; you thrive on playacting as the persecuted martyr. You're just pissy because you're in the minority, and because you might actually suffer some inconvenience as a result of your silly opinions.

[Guest cartman]

I would rather be in the "so-called" minority than be in the supposed majority these days. If Pro-war is the majority, which it really isn't although television and radio would like us to think it is.

 

Or maybe i'm completely wrong and it's just my imagination that 90% of people that I interact with each and every day think Bush is a moron and resent the fact that we're stuck with him as a leader. I guess I just live in an almost completely liberal left-wing part of the country, which according to "polls" don't exist.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

If Pro-war is the majority, which it really isn't although television and radio would like us to think it is.

The television media is overwhelmingly left-wing. Despite this, 73% of Americans recently polled believe the war was justified, 60% believe it's going very well, 33% believe it's going moderately well, and 76% approve of the President's handling of Iraq.

 

maybe i'm completely wrong and it's just my imagination that 90% of people that I interact with each and every day... resent the fact that we're stuck with [President Bush] as a leader.

What is it about you cretins that makes it so difficult for you to understand that you naturally interact with people whose views are similar to yours, rather than antithetical, and that you naturally remember opinions which pleased you rather than opinions with which you disagreed? Your personal experiences reflect nothing, absolutely nothing, about the region in which you live. Where do you live, anyway?

 

I would rather be in the "so-called" minority than be in the supposed majority these days.

And this is the crux of the matter. At present it is the liberals who are so terribly concerned about the popularity of their opinions - down to submoronic actors comparing the current national mood to the McCarthy era, simply because free speech and choice comprise a two-way street. They're free to voice their opinions. Others are free to boycott their movies, cancel their bookings, fire them from their reporting jobs, and refuse to play their music, not unlike the way in which we're also free to buy Sicilian nero d'Avola rather than Bordeaux. These are personal choices, direct consequences of the personal choices of the actors, liberals, and reporters to make known their opinions and the AT LEAST EQUALLY valid expression of opinion by those who disagree with them. It doesn't matter how many people share your opinion. Truth is not determined by consensus.

 

"If introspection reveals the self to be unjust, then no matter how base the opponent may be, will I not be afraid? If introspection reveals the self to be just, then I will go even though against a

thousand or ten thousand men."

- Gichin Funakoshi

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Nice subject line, huh?

 

The Issue:

I've seen quite a bit of posts about free speech lately. Most of which relate to Michael Moore's political comments at the Oscars and other Hollywood stars voicing political opinions and certain websites that list them or denouncement. People say this is a violation of the freedom of speech. This confuses me. These websites are run by individuals are they not just practicing their right to free speech? Or are you free to speak your mind unless you are criticizing another person? If the latter is true I don't think that resembles anything close to having free speech? Perhaps you can only be free to speak as long as you are voicing a certain opinion? Again, that does not sound like free speech.

 

Are these websites violating actors' and actresses' rights to free speech by making these websites? What do you think free speech is?

 

My Opinion:

 

Whenever someone accuses a private individual of violating someone's First Amendment rights, I hit him with a brick, then I order him to go reread the Amendment, paying particularly close attention to the first five words, paying extra-close attention to the very first word.

 

The Bill of Rights is for the most part a restraint on the federal government, but various Supreme Court rulings containing varying degrees of bullshit have "incorporated" most of the BoR into enforceability on state governments, via the 14th Amendment. That Fourteenth can be a real ball-buster sometimes.

 

It's been argued (and I tend to agree) that the BoR doesn't grant rights, it merely protects rights that are inherent in human beings. This means that while nobody but the government can violate the First Amendment, private individuals and organizations can violate the basic civil right of free speech.

 

Criticizing someone for the content of his speech does not violate his rights. Nor does boycotting him, socially shunning him, or not playing his movie at the Baseball Hall of Fame.

 

Anyway, I find private attacks on free speech as repugnant as government attacks on free speech, but less scary. The reason it is scary at all is because so many people seem to be whipped into a "shut up and wave the flag" sort of attitude, which is frightening to the people (including me sometimes) who don't really want to wave a flag they're not sure they believe in right now.

So, let's see if I have this straight:

 

Criticizing the war is fine.

 

Criticizing those who criticize the war is bad?

 

Got it.

-=Mike --- Free Speech: Now a One-Way Street

[Guest TheMikeSC]

I would rather be in the "so-called" minority than be in the supposed majority these days. If Pro-war is the majority, which it really isn't although television and radio would like us to think it is.

 

Or maybe i'm completely wrong and it's just my imagination that 90% of people that I interact with each and every day think Bush is a moron and resent the fact that we're stuck with him as a leader. I guess I just live in an almost completely liberal left-wing part of the country, which according to "polls" don't exist.

There is NOBODY who is "pro-war". There are those of us mature enough to realize that there is no fantasy land where bad people respond well to diplomacy --- but we don't LIKE war.

 

Heck, NOBODY dislikes war MORE than the military.

 

As for your ending observation --- you hang out with idiots and live amongst idiots. You should avoid broadcasting that.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Criticizing the war is fine.

 

Criticizing those who criticize the war is bad?

 

Got it.

-=Mike --- Free Speech: Now a One-Way Street

Actually, if you didn't let the last paragraph (which is where I just start speaking with my own personal bias and opinion), you'll see there's AN ENTIRE POST THERE that says the bill of rights doesn't protect you from personal attacks on free speech, but attempts by the government.

 

The hell is up with you? I've had to encourage you to READ the post twice now in the past few minutes.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Criticizing the war is fine.

 

Criticizing those who criticize the war is bad?

 

Got it.

          -=Mike --- Free Speech: Now a One-Way Street

Actually, if you didn't let the last paragraph (which is where I just start speaking with my own personal bias and opinion), you'll see there's AN ENTIRE POST THERE that says the bill of rights doesn't protect you from personal attacks on free speech, but attempts by the government.

 

The hell is up with you? I've had to encourage you to READ the post twice now in the past few minutes.

And I was commenting on your last paragraph.

 

It isn't exactly rocket science.

 

You might need to heed your own advice.

-=Mike

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

You quoted my ENTIRE POST and then picked on one paragraph.

 

As you can see, I said that nobody has any legal protections from anyone disagreeing with their opinion, refusing to go to their concert/movies, whatever. All the Michael Moores and the Dixie Chicks have brought it upon themselves.

 

Then I said "You know, I find private attacks on free speech kinda scary myself" and you said:

 

So, let's see if I have this straight:

 

Criticizing the war is fine.

 

Criticizing those who criticize the war is bad?

 

Even though I just said:

 

Criticizing someone for the content of his speech does not violate his rights. Nor does boycotting him, socially shunning him, or not playing his movie at the Baseball Hall of Fame.

[Guest Cerebus]

Here's an interesting letter that appeared in a news magazine I subscribe too

 

"I was stuck in D.C. traffic the other day, thanks to an antiwar protest on the Key Bridge. The supposed reason for launching the protest was to disrupt the lives of persons working in Washington so that they could realize how the lives of Baghdad's citizens were being disrupted by the war. If true, that's fine. But let's at least play fair. If the goal is to feel what life is like in Iraq, then I say let the police beat the hell out of the protestors to show them what life in Baghdad is like if you protest against the government."

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

But where are these cops? I seem to remember museums and hospitals being looted.

[Guest Powerplay]

But where are these cops? I seem to remember museums and hospitals being looted.

I think, Tyler, as a show of what would happen when the regime was in place to protestors.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

But where are these cops? I seem to remember museums and hospitals being looted.

Yep. They're looting. What an evil and unjust war we're fighting! Someone find Saddam and put him back in power. Let's gather the troops and go home...

[Guest Tyler McClelland]

Never said that, but you have to be fair if you're criticizing these protests.

 

He said they should beat them up to complete the simulation, but in their simulation, Iraq is already without a regime. There are no cops anymore.

[Guest Powerplay]

Never said that, but you have to be fair if you're criticizing these protests.

 

He said they should beat them up to complete the simulation, but in their simulation, Iraq is already without a regime. There are no cops anymore.

Yeah, but their protests were against the war that brought down the regime. Had the war not occurred, like they asked, they should be beaten up by cops to show how it was before, because it would still be there under their plan.