Close Please enter your Username and Password
Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
Password reset link sent to
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service


jiminycricket1 74M
5508 posts
6/1/2018 11:24 am
Freedom of Speech


The idea of Freedom...can be the strongest thing or the most fragile. Strong when it's your Freedom and fragile when it's about the Freedom of others. the hypocrisy of that is reflected in every bill of the Bill of Rights and the HOW we interpret them....and How our interpretation is NOT about FREEDOM or RIGHTS
Freedom of Speech. and limiting it..in the name of "Hate" speech..
My problem with it is....... who gets to decide?
Certainly not the speaker.... just like every else...Roseanne wasn't thinking in the term of hate... but speaking words interpreted in the terms of hate.
People that hear her words.... Get to make up their minds as to how hateful it was..They get to decide...
For those who would decide she's right.....we can't make that a crime.... we can, however, make the ACTIONS that result from those thoughts....criminal.. Even the idea that it's a crime to use speech to 'incite" criminal behavior...is redundant... for it is the responsibility of the criminal, and not what incites him/her.. because if that was the case nobody would be responsible... as "life" can "incite" criminal behavior..

So when it comes down to it....People deciding to limit freedom of speech....doesn't limit the thought of the speaker.....in fact has nothing to do with the "Freedom" of speech at all........but
THE FREEDOM TO LISTEN

So it's about the HOW ...A HOW that is a controlling affront to every.. Even more so...to those who see it as hateful... than those that do not. It's about who gets to make your decisions for YOU, and It's simply NOT about "FREEDOM" at all.
It's about how strong THEIR freedom is.. and how fragile YOUR freedom is.


jiminycricket1 74M
13732 posts
6/1/2018 11:26 am

Okay... I read Lizst blog and the responses....and I got no control over myself..
So be it.


jiminycricket1 74M
13732 posts
6/1/2018 1:28 pm

I've Got to talk about "laws" too..
Laws are different than Freedoms and Rights....

Laws take away Freedom and Rights...in the name of Freedom and Rights.. Freedom and Rights can come into conflict between someone and someone else... Laws resolve that conflict.. It doesn't Change it. It still takes away Freedom and Rights...anybody can always hang their hat on that.....But laws do have rules....
How the ACTIONS of someone, can either purposely or unintentionally effect the RIGHTS of others.. the ACTION is ALWAYS the perpetrator..not the person, the person is only responsible for the ACTION.
Laws are design to protect the Rights of the "victims".. not the perpetrators..
The idea that a perpetrator can be the victim.. is ludicrous.. Yet both sides use it and say it.

A liberal could say.. how can a law punish a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread.... Well the action isn't the starving man.. It's the stealing. That the starving man could be the "victim" of the law.. is ludicrous..

And so it is....that regulations designed to protect victims.....have been turned around to deregulation...that protects the rights of the perpetrators..
And simply pretends there are no victims... but that the perpetrator is the victim...And the ACTIONS of the law, itself, is the perpetrator....
Again the idea that the perpetrator can be a victim is LUDICROUS.
And even more so that a LAW can be a perpetrator.


jiminycricket1 74M
13732 posts
6/1/2018 2:21 pm

I imagine many on the Right.....would be thinking .. well, what about "illegals"?

Well, in History there have been those who have circumvented the "Rule of Law: and the rules in which laws are based. They replaced them with their own.

First rule .. laws resolve conflict of rights.... Well. illegals as soon as they crossed the border... they lose their rights.. so that doesn't work.. Their rights aren't in conflict with ours..
Second rule.... There must be an action. which effects the rights of a victim.
well.. that doesn't hold water either.. who's the victim? We are?... well, I'm not.. are you the victim of all illegals? The rule of the law., doesn't come into play in regards to all illegals.. because if YOU think about it.. they are both the perpetrator and the victim.
Third a law is NOT about punishment.. it's about prevention
And finally, and most importantly when laws and even the Bill of Rights come in conflict with Human Rights.... it goes to the "Higher Power.".?
ALL,. like in ALL illegals are criminals......WTF? And the Right's HYPOCRISY about that.....doesn't hold water and certainly doesn't hold "holy" water...


hermitinthecity 70M
1696 posts
6/1/2018 9:50 pm

I'm all for hate speech, it reveals the haters.

Judgment Day will be interesting - and all paths lead there.