 
     |
| For A Better America (Page 7/10) |
|
cliffw
|
DEC 13, 01:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
JUL 29, 08:28 AM
|
|
Freedom of Speech should be freedom of speech !
If I have to rent to a minority, if I have to serve a minority, if I have to bake a wedding cake for a queer, how come can anyone, any company, limit my freedom of speech ?
|
|
|
maryjane
|
JUL 29, 10:03 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Freedom of Speech should be freedom of speech !
If I have to rent to a minority, if I have to serve a minority, if I have to bake a wedding cake for a queer, how come can anyone, any company, limit my freedom of speech ? |
|
You evidently don't understand what "freedom of speech" (or any other freedom) actually means. There are many things that are 'legal' to do, but many of those come with a heavy price in society, and the freedom to voice our personal opinions is certainly one of them
Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, the text of the amendment prohibits only the federal government, the states and local governments from doing so.
|
|
|
|
cliffw
|
JUL 30, 02:19 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by maryjane:
You evidently don't understand what "freedom of speech" (or any other freedom) actually means.
Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, the text of the amendment prohibits only the federal government, the states and local governments from doing so.
|
|
I do understand what freedom of speech actually means. It is an inalienable right. If we, any public entity, can be forced to comply with the American Disabilities Act, Freedom Of Speech should be inalienable.
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
JUL 30, 03:16 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
I do understand what freedom of speech actually means. It is an inalienable right. If we, any public entity, can be forced to comply with the American Disabilities Act, Freedom Of Speech should be inalienable. |
|
You can't even make up your own mind,..much less postulate what Scotus might rule on your supposition. Do you intend to argue both sides of the coin in front of that bench??
Which is it? Inalienable .........or........"should be inalienable"?
Hint....Wrong, on both accounts.
|
|
|
cliffw
|
JUL 31, 07:49 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by maryjane:
You can't even make up your own mind,.
Which is it? Inalienable .........or........"should be inalienable"?
Hint....Wrong, on both accounts. |
|
It is inalienable and should be inalienable.
|
|
|
|
maryjane
|
JUL 31, 11:46 AM
|
|
Based upon..?
Your word?
I suspect, you don't understand the context of 'free speech' that is normally discussed in this country.
|
|
|
|
Jake_Dragon
|
JUL 31, 12:17 PM
|
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JUL 31, 08:37 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by maryjane:
You evidently don't understand what "freedom of speech" (or any other freedom) actually means. There are many things that are 'legal' to do, but many of those come with a heavy price in society, and the freedom to voice our personal opinions is certainly one of them
Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, the text of the amendment prohibits only the federal government, the states and local governments from doing so.
|
|
I was about to flip my **** there for a minute because I misread this. But I see that you're saying that companies do not have to abide by first amendment rights... yes, correct... I concur. Unfortunately, Facebook, Twitter, etc... are allowed to completely limit free speech and only allow what they want to allow.
Incidentally, had the FCC been allowed to pass Net Neutrality, it would have permitted the Government to regulate everything on the internet within the US space. I'm obviously totally against Net Neutrality because it's horrible. It's essentially as if the Democrats created a bill called the "Save Babies Act" and all it was was a funding bill for Planned Parenthood. Net Neutrality did very little from what the crazy left thought it would. What it did do was give the FCC the right to regulate the Internet... and under those circumstances, the Federal Government would be able to regulate Twitter and Facebook.
Still wouldn't support it though... Freedom of Speech has to sides... other people have the same freedoms.
|
|
|
Boondawg
|
JUL 31, 10:23 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
Not just you Boondawg, everybody, ... call your legislators, mail them also, email them, do it regularly. Be the squeaky wheel, make them listen. Demand a reply. |
|
From what I've witnessed here*, destruction is more important than construction.
I thought all that stuff I RED (I spelled it that way because Is-land...) about Humans were just kinda' "worst-or-best-case-scenarios".
I didn't know we are susceptible to actually pretending to not see stuff!
Some people have to pull a lever to be heard.
Some have to burn-down a Taco-stand...
Everything is relative.
* I don't mean to imply that this place is some kind of extra-evil, just commenting on the shocking realization of the accumulation of reality of a "babe" out of the Alaskan woods...sue me, I didn't realize humans were so complicated.[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 07-31-2020).]
|
|
|
|