The right to freedom of speech: What it is and isn't

[Twilight Hue]

PolitiFact - Claims mislead about California forcing jail time for using wrong transgender pronoun

Not just California, Canada even.

Just they use other means the effect the same thing.

Look up Rob Hoogland, a Canadian who was arrested because he continually referred to his daughter as 'her' post transition.


https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPete...inally_happened_canadian_father_jailed_after/

In the states..

Not using transgender pronouns could get you fined

Mind you this is about using words, it's not about the issues revolving around those words just to make it clear. I'm not going to argue the issues, but solely on a person deciding to use words alone and facing arrest and fines over it.

 

[Stevicus]

I came across this article by Ben Shapiro (I know...) entitled "America's silent majority must fight liberals killing freedom of speech." Granted, it's Ben Shapiro so he may be intentionally misleading people since I'm sure he's aware of basic Constitutional law, but he exploits a common misconception in this piece.

In fact, the right to freedom of speech in the US, granted by the First Amendment, prohibits the government from imposing penalties on most forms of speech, whether political, religious, or otherwise. The government, and the government alone, cannot fine, jail, deny services, discriminate against, or otherwise punish people in the US for expressing their viewpoint unless that speech imposes a significant risk of imminent harm, or falls into a few other rare exceptions.

Unlike what that article suggests:

1. People not liking you because they think you're a horrible person based on what you've said, does not violate your freedom of speech.
2. Your boss warning you not to say offensive things because it will hurt the company's reputation does not violate your freedom of speech.
3. People boycotting you because they think you're horrible and don't want to give you their money does not violate your freedom of speech.
4. People disagreeing with you and saying critical things about your opinions, beliefs, or behavior does not violate your freedom of speech.
5. Corporations canceling your account or pulling your ads has nothing to do with your right of freedom of speech. If anything, the corporation's freedom of speech allows it to regulate the content of its platform and associations, free of government interference.

Please take a moment to understand this, if you weren't aware.

The old adage goes, "When you've been living with privilege, equality feels like oppression." A lot of US conservatives are coming to realize that they've effectively lost the culture war. A growing US majority no longer agrees with their views, and in fact finds their views immoral and harmful. This may be jarring to someone who is used to getting their way and having society agree with them, but this phenomenon is entirely unrelated to the right of freedom of speech.

There is no legally actionable harm. There is no redress owed to you. It's just that lots of people think you're a jerk and don't like you. Ultimately, you can either get used to this reaction or stop being a jerk, but no one is violating your rights.

As far as I know, there is still Freedom of Speech in this country, and this is a right which is cherished and staunchly defended by civil libertarians and others who believe in human rights. It is also a cornerstone in our Bill of Rights.

And of course, most people recognize the difference between the public and private sector in this regard. I think there is a fair case to be made when a private sector entity becomes so large as to become a utility, which has a higher level of responsibility than a typical business. For example, the water company can't cut off your water just because they don't like your politics. There are limits even for the private sector, even in this devil-may-care capitalist chaos we call a country. If you're bleeding and in need of emergency care, they can't refuse to treat you just because you wrote something on the internet they didn't like.

Threats and other forms of harassment were also addressed in the article. Doxxing someone and posting their personal information could also be actionable. It's not just a matter of property rights.

The government's role is primarily to protect our rights, including the right to free speech. This is why they pull out all the stops, call out the police force and whatever else they need to do, just so half a dozen Nazis can march and exercise their free speech rights - even in the face of thousands of counter-demonstrators who would oppose them. It's still important for our society to favor free speech, no matter how expensive and messy it might get.

But there's another side to this which may not involve free speech or other constitutional issues. By "cancelling" people they disagree with, the purveyors of cancel culture open themselves up to charges of intellectual cowardice.

It implies that the arguments of the opposition are just so good and irrefutable, that they just can't handle it intellectually - and have no other choice but to shut it down.

It might also entice the curiosity of lurkers who might not have paid attention otherwise. If something is removed from sight by someone else, my first thought might be, "Well, I wonder what they're afraid of."

What's the worst thing that would have happened if they didn't cancel the MyPillow guy? Or if Twitter didn't ban Trump, what's the worst that could have happened? What is it that these people fear so much? Why has fear become so pervasive? And is anyone aware of the consequences of a society gripped by fear?

 

[Twilight Hue]

PolitiFact - Claims mislead about California forcing jail time for using wrong transgender pronoun

It seems since, the law was deemed unconstitutional and struck back down.

It's good news then.

 

[RestlessSoul]

It reminds me of how some say I'm abridging the
rights of others by requiring vaccination to rent
an apartment from me. But they don't recognize
my right to set reasonable conditions for living
in my place of business. My property, my rules, eh.

Is something wrong with your keyboard again, or are you communicating in Homeric metre for dramatic effect?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

5. Corporations canceling your account or pulling your ads has nothing to do with your right of freedom of speech. If anything, the corporation's freedom of speech allows it to regulate the content of its platform and associations, free of government interference.

It's not the corporations freedom of speech, but rather the fact the user entered into an agreement to have their speech limited to granted the privilege of use.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It reminds me of how some say I'm abridging the
rights of others by requiring vaccination to rent
an apartment from me. But they don't recognize
my right to set reasonable conditions for living
in my place of business. My property, my rules, eh.

I would go a step further in say your tenants should be able to expect their landlord to be watching out for their best interest in such situations.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is something wrong with your keyboard again, or are you communicating in Homeric metre for dramatic effect?

My fingers type away without my brain ever employing
or even knowing of such hifalutin concepts.

 

[wellwisher]

Freedom of speech is for adults who can think on their own, and not get emotionally bent out of shape based on buzz words and fad following. Freedom of speech is not for those who like to have others think for them and who become insecure if their memorization work is sabotaged with other reasonable ideas.

If you go back to when the Constitution was written, men had almost all the power and money. The women and children were more limited and sheltered than today. It appears free speech was designed with adult men in mind. It did not cater to the women and children. Men wanted facts for survival and entrepreneurial ventures. Women wanted fantasy and gossip and children wanted to play instead of work. Free speech offered more data from all sides. Fantasy becomes linear and repetitious.

The feminization of culture and the push for emotions first, even for men, has change this masculine foundation for free speech and now there are not enough adult men; intellectually, to handle freedom of speech. The left is especially deplete.

Let me explain how feminization impacted free speech. Women sometimes like to be lied to if the lie makes them feel better; charm and romance. For example, if the wife asks if she looks fat in her new dress, she does not what to hear anything that makes her feel bad. The very question betrays an insecurity. The husband has to weigh his words. A white lie will be accepted better; you look thin, than the cold hard facts if the answer is yes you do.

This is the left in a nutshell. Their husbands; leaders, know them well and will tell them what they want to hear. Defund the police will make you safer. The Right sees this as illogical, and tries to discuss the truth which hurts. "The Right wants us to be in danger!" Censorship of free speech becomes a tool; like sex, for training everyone to lie properly and not hurt feelings with truth that hurts. People are addicted to Facebook and they need to lie properly to continue good times. Nobody ever got punished for the collusion delusion lies since it made the left feel good.

I know some women who like to hang with the guys since they say guys are less two faced. There is free speech between friends, which often leads to friction, but everyone knows where each other stands. Men can still form teams by learning from each other. The gals want to avoid public friction so even of they are mad they will use another face; two face. They will one face when they gossip behind the back. I notice that of the Leftist often gossip with each other on forums, as a team against someone, instead of address the issues; Tucker Carlson is a big liar but never any facts.

The reason women think this way is connected to the way their brain is wired. Women have better wiring side to side between the left and right hemispheres compared to men. It creates the paradox of combining intellect with emotions at the same time. This is important for child raising. The mother can sense the shy child and can build confidence; positive emotions with her blind faith in them. They can sense intellectual needs through feelings. Sound ideas that make one feel good optimizes both sides of the brain. However, sometimes feelings can stand in the way of critical and rational thinking, so bad ideas with a warm fuzzy feeling can slide through.

Men's brains are more wire from front to back, with most men using one side of the brain more than the other. Most men use the left brain, but not both sides, consciously. Men are not often good with emotions since these are not as conscious for easy development. However, this makes it easier to separate intellect from emotions; repressed, allowing free speech not to get bogged via by emotional needs.

 

[PureX]

This a 'Merica, where freedom means we get to do and say whatever we want and then ridicule anyone who doesn't like it. Now THAT'S freedom of speech, goddamit!

 

[icehorse]

If you're trying to discuss or debate IDEAS, and you get slandered or slurred, the slanderer should be viewed with skepticism.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's not the corporations freedom of speech, but rather the fact the user entered into an agreement to have their speech limited to granted the privilege of use.

Those kind of 'agreements' ought to be regarded as invalid.

There is no agreement as there were no discussions on terms for both sides. Rather it is a dictate with no room made for discussion on terms.

Call it for what it actually is. A Dictate.

Agreement is a fraudulent use of the word.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This a 'Merica, where freedom means we get to do and say whatever we want and then ridicule anyone who doesn't like it. Now THAT'S freedom of speech, goddamit!

It's also freedom to retort back. Just like you did now.

That's the beauty part of freedom. =0]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Those kind of 'agreements' ought to be regarded as invalid.

There is no agreement as there were no discussions on terms for both sides. Rather it is a dictate with no room made for discussion on terms.

Call it for what it actually is. A Dictate.

Agreement is a fraudulent use of the word.

Take it up with the staff here. You made such an agreement to use this place, afterall.

 

[AlexanderG]

The problem is being labeled a jerk or other derogatory label.

I remember in elementary school, there was one girl who everyone picked on. She stupid, uneducated, nasty, smelly. Everyone knew this, accepted it as fact. Nobody would sit next to her, the only time anyone talked to her was to taunt her and let her know what an unwanted soul she was.
I remember how easy it was to manipulate crowd into bullying the person who was a little different, are they didn't really have to be that different You just needed to take a disliking to them.

I was relatively new to the area. Hadn't fully bought into the deplorable reputation she had with everyone. So one day we found ourselves walking down the same road. Started a conversation with her and found out she was a really nice person. It said she had refused the advances of one of the popular boys, and it seems he started a bunch of rumors about her, and being popular, no one was willing to side against him. This had been going on a couple of years. Anyway someone saw me walking an talking with her. So I got targeted a bit, willing to hang out with someone as deplorable as she.

When the popular crowd targets you like that, I don't suppose there is much you can do about it. Certainly complaining about it only makes it worse. Doesn't mean the right thing to do is to join in on the bullying just so you can be accepted by the popular crowd either. I feel a little sad by how easily folks get led around like cattle, being afraid to interact with people the herd has decided has to be avoided.

Unfortunately, this is basically how politics works, although for adults in this situation you could file a pretty good lawsuit for slander. I agree that it's human nature for salacious lies to spread faster than mundane truth.

 

[AlexanderG]

Refer to 13.

I hope this is not just another, I'm playing dumb stichk here.

The issues with word usage has been big news for awhile now.

Right, this isn't really a free speech issue but an issue of discrimination against a protected class, which falls under the Equal Protection clause of the US constitution. It's at worst an issue of two competing constitutional rights. If you're treating someone differently because of their sexual orientation, and sexual orientation is a protected class in California or federally, then the law can stand.

In this situation, the discrimination does involve speech. But since the speech comprises an act of refusing to acknowledge a patient's needs in a health care setting, based on unlawful discrimination, that gives the state a specific, compelling interest that would probably hold up in court.

You can refer to this page for more about protected classes.

 

[Father Heathen]

Freedom of speech is for adults who can think on their own, and not get emotionally bent out of shape based on buzz words and fad following. Freedom of speech is not for those who like to have others think for them and who become insecure if their memorization work is sabotaged with other reasonable ideas.

If you go back to when the Constitution was written, men had almost all the power and money. The women and children were more limited and sheltered than today. It appears free speech was designed with adult men in mind. It did not cater to the women and children. Men wanted facts for survival and entrepreneurial ventures. Women wanted fantasy and gossip and children wanted to play instead of work. Free speech offered more data from all sides. Fantasy becomes linear and repetitious.

The feminization of culture and the push for emotions first, even for men, has change this masculine foundation for free speech and now there are not enough adult men; intellectually, to handle freedom of speech. The left is especially deplete.

Let me explain how feminization impacted free speech. Women sometimes like to be lied to if the lie makes them feel better; charm and romance. For example, if the wife asks if she looks fat in her new dress, she does not what to hear anything that makes her feel bad. The very question betrays an insecurity. The husband has to weigh his words. A white lie will be accepted better; you look thin, than the cold hard facts if the answer is yes you do.

This is the left in a nutshell. Their husbands; leaders, know them well and will tell them what they want to hear. Defund the police will make you safer. The Right sees this as illogical, and tries to discuss the truth which hurts. "The Right wants us to be in danger!" Censorship of free speech becomes a tool; like sex, for training everyone to lie properly and not hurt feelings with truth that hurts. People are addicted to Facebook and they need to lie properly to continue good times. Nobody ever got punished for the collusion delusion lies since it made the left feel good.

I know some women who like to hang with the guys since they say guys are less two faced. There is free speech between friends, which often leads to friction, but everyone knows where each other stands. Men can still form teams by learning from each other. The gals want to avoid public friction so even of they are mad they will use another face; two face. They will one face when they gossip behind the back. I notice that of the Leftist often gossip with each other on forums, as a team against someone, instead of address the issues; Tucker Carlson is a big liar but never any facts.

The reason women think this way is connected to the way their brain is wired. Women have better wiring side to side between the left and right hemispheres compared to men. It creates the paradox of combining intellect with emotions at the same time. This is important for child raising. The mother can sense the shy child and can build confidence; positive emotions with her blind faith in them. They can sense intellectual needs through feelings. Sound ideas that make one feel good optimizes both sides of the brain. However, sometimes feelings can stand in the way of critical and rational thinking, so bad ideas with a warm fuzzy feeling can slide through.

Men's brains are more wire from front to back, with most men using one side of the brain more than the other. Most men use the left brain, but not both sides, consciously. Men are not often good with emotions since these are not as conscious for easy development. However, this makes it easier to separate intellect from emotions; repressed, allowing free speech not to get bogged via by emotional needs.

Incel detected.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Right, this isn't really a free speech issue but an issue of discrimination against a protected class, which falls under the Equal Protection clause of the US constitution. It's at worst an issue of two competing constitutional rights. If you're treating someone differently because of their sexual orientation, and sexual orientation is a protected class in California or federally, then the law can stand.

In this situation, the discrimination does involve speech. But since the speech comprises an act of refusing to acknowledge a patient's needs in a health care setting, based on unlawful discrimination, that gives the state a specific, compelling interest that would probably hold up in court.

You can refer to this page for more about protected classes.

Well I'm not arguing the issue itself. Only using them as an example, but you do hit a very good point, and likely hammered in the whole crux of it all. The part you underlined.

Competing constitutional rights.

What happens when constitutional rights compete, and then become challenged when it clashes.

That's something I'm going to pounder over.

 

[Twilight Hue]

That article is a load of nonsense.

A man in court actively disrespected his transgender daughter, and was found in contempt of court. He was directed by court to make sure she had access to life-saving medical care that he was blocking her from getting because of his transphobia.

This is not a free-speech issue.

If I were to continually and unapologetically call you 'she' in court, I would also be found in contempt of court for talking out of line.

Like I said before I'm not arguing the issues.

 

[AlexanderG]

Incel detected.

Right? I can picture this guy on his first date, mansplaining to the girl about how women are wired to raise children and be emotional in a way that can block rational thinking, and how feminization of our culture has destroyed society...and then somehow there's no second date? Because she must be a lesbian who hates all men, yeah, that's it.

 

[Father Heathen]

Right? I can picture this guy on his first date, mansplaining to the girl about how women are wired to be emotional and raise children, and how feminization of our culture has destroyed society...and then somehow there's no second date? Because she must be a lesbian, yeah, that's it.

It was also adorable how he suggests that the right - notorious for accepting convoluted, cockamamie conspiracy theories while rejecting science and actual data - are somehow the rational ones.