Freedom of speech disappearing?

[Vassenor]

You did not get the point - when you call your opponents "leftists", you imply that they support socialism/communism, a very unpopular and even ostracizing ideology, to make them less appealing, while not using any actual points against their ideas.

Yes I know that, what's sad though is socialism is more accepted now for some reason and calling someone a pinko commie doesn't bring any disgust like it once used to.

[Esternial]

You did not get the point - when you call your opponents "leftists", you imply that they support socialism/communism, a very unpopular and even ostracizing ideology, to make them less appealing, while not using any actual points against their ideas.

Yes I know that, what's sad though is socialism is more accepted now for some reason and calling someone a pinko commie doesn't bring any disgust like it once used to.

Yes, really sad that you nowadays actually have to use an argument to prove someone's ideology wrong instead of name-calling

It's really easy, though, if you're not a child.

[Herrebrugh]

Some other ways people are being censored are they are usually are being called: ismalapobe, homophobic, racist, bigot and you name it, they are pushed from society just because they have opposing views so enjoy NS!

Maybe it's because the people being "censored" are islamophobes, homophobes, racists, bigots etc.

I don't have to take them seriously, nor do I generally feel like taking them seriously.

[Petrolheadia]

You did not get the point - when you call your opponents "leftists", you imply that they support socialism/communism, a very unpopular and even ostracizing ideology, to make them less appealing, while not using any actual points against their ideas.

Yes I know that, what's sad though is socialism is more accepted now for some reason and calling someone a pinko commie doesn't bring any disgust like it once used to.

Well, I prefer that to the 50s, when even being suspected of being a communist or a gay/lesbian made you blacklisted.

[Annorax]

Yes I know that, what's sad though is socialism is more accepted now for some reason and calling someone a pinko commie doesn't bring any disgust like it once used to.

Well, I prefer that to the 50s, when even being suspected of being a communist or a gay/lesbian made you blacklisted.

You have a point about the gay/lesbian issue but as far as the 50's and communists, McCarthy was right.

[Vassenor]

but as far as the 50's and communists, McCarthy was right.

Oh really? Instilling rampant paranoia for no other reason than to further one's own career is good?

[Annorax]

but as far as the 50's and communists, McCarthy was right.

Oh really? Instilling rampant paranoia for no other reason than to further one's own career is good?

The opening of KGB archives proved Soviet espionage agents numbered in the hundreds. He was right just like J. Edgar Hoover.

[Vassenor]

Oh really? Instilling rampant paranoia for no other reason than to further one's own career is good?

The opening of KGB archives proved Soviet espionage agents numbered in the hundreds. He was right just like J. Edgar Hoover.

But he didn't know that at the time. He started the witchhunt purely to advance his own career.

[Petrolheadia]

Oh really? Instilling rampant paranoia for no other reason than to further one's own career is good?

The opening of KGB archives proved Soviet espionage agents numbered in the hundreds. He was right just like J. Edgar Hoover.

I have nothing against finding agents.However, firing a person just because they might be a communist is bad and people responsible for the Red Scare should be prosecuted for unjust ruining of people's lives.

[Esternial]

The opening of KGB archives proved Soviet espionage agents numbered in the hundreds. He was right just like J. Edgar Hoover.

I have nothing against finding agents.However, firing a person just because they might be a communist is bad and people responsible for the Red Scare should be prosecuted for unjust ruining of people's lives.

Some people have yet to grasps the concept that Soviets were a people belonging to a state while communism is an ideology that is stateless. So communists aren't necessarily Soviets.

[Petrolheadia]

I have nothing against finding agents.However, firing a person just because they might be a communist is bad and people responsible for the Red Scare should be prosecuted for unjust ruining of people's lives.

Some people have yet to grasps the concept that Soviets were a people belonging to a state while communism is an ideology that is stateless. So communists aren't necessarily Soviets.

Well, in Poland, where I live, communism and socialism are used interchangeably. So that is why I write like this.

[Esternial]

Some people have yet to grasps the concept that Soviets were a people belonging to a state while communism is an ideology that is stateless. So communists aren't necessarily Soviets.

Well, in Poland, where I live, communism and socialism are used interchangeably. So that is why I write like this.

Aye, that's kind of sad, because there's a pretty significant distinction.

[Annorax]

I have nothing against finding agents.However, firing a person just because they might be a communist is bad and people responsible for the Red Scare should be prosecuted for unjust ruining of people's lives.

Some people have yet to grasps the concept that Soviets were a people belonging to a state while communism is an ideology that is stateless. So communists aren't necessarily Soviets.

Whatever leftist sectarian branch the Soviets were is irrelevant. They had a communist party that ruled the U.S.S.R. seems pretty communist to me.

[Vassenor]

Some people have yet to grasps the concept that Soviets were a people belonging to a state while communism is an ideology that is stateless. So communists aren't necessarily Soviets.

Whatever leftist sectarian branch the Soviets were is irrelevant. They had a communist party that ruled the U.S.S.R. seems pretty communist to me.

And North Korea claims to be a democracy. Your point?

[United Isles of the Commonwealth]

Whatever leftist sectarian branch the Soviets were is irrelevant. They had a communist party that ruled the U.S.S.R. seems pretty communist to me.

And North Korea claims to be a democracy. Your point?

You can claim to be the president. Doesn't make it true

[Esternial]

Some people have yet to grasps the concept that Soviets were a people belonging to a state while communism is an ideology that is stateless. So communists aren't necessarily Soviets.

Whatever leftist sectarian branch the Soviets were is irrelevant. They had a communist party that ruled the U.S.S.R. seems pretty communist to me.

Oh gee, you totally missed my point.

Soviets were communists but communists aren't necessarily Soviets.

Get it?

[Black Mars]

Freedom of speech always has been in a scope of tolerance from the majority.

[Dakini]

Freedom from being called names that hurt your feelings is not freedom of speech.

Funny how the right always portrays the left as overly sensitive, and yet when somebody disagrees with them they go on a rant about their freedom being taken away.

It isn't about feelings being hurt it's about being heard. I guess freedom now is being able to cocoon yourself in in a safe space and avoid real life.

Freedom of speech does not include entitlement to an audience or access to a platform on which to speak your views. Freedom of speech also does not include freedom from criticism.

Basically, you can say what you want, but you can't say it wherever you want because people aren't obliged to give you a microphone or a stage. You also can't force people who don't want to listen to your opinion to listen to your opinion and you can't prohibit other people from using their freedom of speech to shout down or criticize your opinions.

Oh, and it also doesn't mean that other people aren't free to judge you for your speech. If you say something that makes other people not want to associate with you, that's their right.

[Peristroykasian J A O]

yes.
/thread

[Stormwrath]

Freedom of speech and freedom to criticize others' opinions indeed exist, and we should be thankful for that. But it's crossing the line when you forcefully silence someone in the manner of threatening acts just because it doesn't agree with your views.

[Ethel mermania]

It isn't about feelings being hurt it's about being heard. I guess freedom now is being able to cocoon yourself in in a safe space and avoid real life.

Freedom of speech does not include entitlement to an audience or access to a platform on which to speak your views. Freedom of speech also does not include freedom from criticism.

Basically, you can say what you want, but you can't say it wherever you want because people aren't obliged to give you a microphone or a stage. You also can't force people who don't want to listen to your opinion to listen to your opinion and you can't prohibit other people from using their freedom of speech to shout down or criticize your opinions.

Oh, and it also doesn't mean that other people aren't free to judge you for your speech. If you say something that makes other people not want to associate with you, that's their right.

You don't get to use violence to stop their speech, you don't get to rush the stage to stop speech, you don't have a right to heckle and not get thrown out of a private space while attempting to stop speech.

[Dakini]

Freedom of speech does not include entitlement to an audience or access to a platform on which to speak your views. Freedom of speech also does not include freedom from criticism.

Basically, you can say what you want, but you can't say it wherever you want because people aren't obliged to give you a microphone or a stage. You also can't force people who don't want to listen to your opinion to listen to your opinion and you can't prohibit other people from using their freedom of speech to shout down or criticize your opinions.

Oh, and it also doesn't mean that other people aren't free to judge you for your speech. If you say something that makes other people not want to associate with you, that's their right.

You don't get to use violence to stop their speech, you don't get to rush the stage to stop speech, you don't have a right to heckle and not get thrown out of a private space while attempting to stop speech.

I didn't say violence was acceptable.

Heckling, on the other hand...

[Narland]

You don't get to use violence to stop their speech, you don't get to rush the stage to stop speech, you don't have a right to heckle and not get thrown out of a private space while attempting to stop speech.

I didn't say violence was acceptable.

Heckling, on the other hand...

You hit the nail on the head. Open debate in the public square (literally) never guarantees that people will listen to you. Everyone has a voice, and can use it--some will use their freedom of speech to argue with you. That is fair play.

Freedom of speech also means taking responsibility for what is said. Freedom of speech never means freedom from the consequences of speech, especially when it causes harm. If one uses fighting words or uses words to cause a panic (deliberately provokes an instinctual fight or flight response) and gets punched in the face or trampled by the crowd, the fault lies with the provocateur.

The other part of our inalienable rights is is the right to freedom of association. If I do not like what you have to say, I have the right to disassociate from you with the expectation that once I do, that you leave me be.

[Des-Bal]

If you believe in suppressing free speech then it doesn't matter whether you want to use the government or the collaborative efforts of private citizens to do it, you are opposing free speech.

[Threlizdun]

The OP is mistaken in presuming there ever was a time in the U.S. or any society for that matter where all speech was respected. There are always behaviors that won't be seen as socially acceptable. Violation of social norms almost always meets that reaction. You are still given the right to say what you want in the U.S. so long as it isn't slander, libel, fraud, or a direct danger to others. People fail to recognize that free speech does not protect them from the ability of others to challenge them. Similarly, free speech is protection from censorship on the part of the state. Your right to free speech does not stop private organizations from silencing you if you use their facilities and say something they do not wish to be associated with.