Republicans and free speech

[Admiral]

Also, I wouldn't kill to protect fabric, even if it was my fabric. I'm with thaiboxerken- the ability to kill someone doesn't make you right, and the threat to kill someone for destroying a flag seems petty.

Yes, it's your flag. You might even be legally in the right if he's trespassing. But I don't care if you paid a thousand dollars for the flag- killing someone for something like that is unbelievably selfish.

I know you made the comment in a not very serious way, but it's an emotional response that I oppose.

 

[Admiral]

I have seen them re:doctors and others who work where abortions are sometimes done. I have seen pictures of lynchings and I rarely joke about targets.

Exactly (though religious people who threaten to take life, or take life, are by far in the minority). The Christians that threaten to do these things are reprehensible, and the Christians who do are despicable (as are all murderers).

So why do the same thing in response? Why threaten religious people in general? Doesn't it make more sense to respond hatefully towards the people that make these threats, rather than anyone who wears a monk's robe? Why is this any better than hating Muslims in general for what a few screwed-up terrorists did?

It's the generalization I'm reacting to, fuelair.

 

[Tailgater]

Yep. They also want the freedom to preach the christians faith to children in public schools.

Who is "they"?

 

[Mycroft]

I had this argument wh some righty over free speech and Kramers rant.
I always find it funny when republicans bring up free speech. Then a theory hit me.

The only time righties bring up free speech is when they are defending some bigot. Am I wrong?

It's very likely that whenever anyone brings up the issue of free speech it's in defense of something unpopular. If it wern't, nobody would have to defend it.




I will now skip the rest of this thread.

 

[Admiral]

It's very likely that whenever anyone brings up the issue of free speech it's in defense of something unpopular. If it wern't, nobody would have to defend it.

I think the point was, "as opposed to defending flag burning or pornography."

 

[thaiboxerken]

Who is "they"?

republicans

 

[Tailgater]

republicans

I've never met a Republican who would support that. What an ignorant generalization. Wacko fundies want that. That's like saying all Democrats want to ban anything religious in public. There are factions in both, but none of them believe these things as a whole or even a majority.

 

[RandFan]

The only time righties bring up free speech is when they are defending some bigot. Am I wrong?

Yes.

 

[RandFan]

I meant republicans, the right, the g.o.p. They are not known for their stance on personal rights (other than gun rights). They usually aint up on free speech. Ill edit my firstpost.

I find very few people including Democrats who are really for free speech. I'm a Republican and I have consistently been in favor of free speech. Many Democrats simply label the speech they don't like "hate speech" or politically incorrect. It's a very effective form of censorship (yes, I do understand that what most people mean by "free speech" is the freedom of government interference of speech.

That said, I will agree that those Democrats who want to restrict speech are more narrow in the speech they want to restrict than those Republicans who want to restrict speech.

However, many Democrats will respond to just about any slight when it comes to censorship from the right but speech codes at college campuses are always defended or down played. Whenever I have made a point about college speech codes someone wants to give a more egregious example perpetrated by the right as if that would make the speech codes ok by comparison.

Like I said, few people are truly for free speech.

 

[RandFan]

The only time righties bring up free speech is when they are defending some bigot. Am I wrong?

It's rather easy to label someone a bigot. Lenny Bruce was labeled all sorts of things. Speech is often offensive. By lumping every strong opinion voiced by Republicans as bigotry you have found a very powerful means to silence people. Republicans simply become bigots unless they tap dance and don't offend.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like racist attitudes and hateful rhetoric. I think Richards was an idiot and I would not Begin to try and defend what he said but once you start labeling Republicans with a broad brush the way you have done it makes discourse difficult. You have made a convenient ad hominem argument.

I do defend bigots though. I don't defend what they say but I do defend their right to speak.

Take the following video, I would defend that guy his right to free speech. I'm curious TMY, Would you?

 

[Admiral]

I find very few people including Democrats who are really for free speech. I'm a Republican and I have consistently been in favor of free speech. Many Democrats simply label the speech they don't like "hate speech" or politically incorrect. It's a very effective form of censorship (yes, I do understand that what most people mean by "free speech" is the freedom of government interference of speech.

That said, I will agree that those Democrats who want to restrict speech are more narrow in the speech they want to restrict than those Republicans who want to restrict speech.

However, many Democrats will respond to just about any slight when it comes to censorship from the right but speech codes at college campuses are always defended or down played. Whenever I have made a point about college speech codes someone wants to give a more egregious example perpetrated by the right as if that would make the speech codes ok by comparison.

Like I said, few people are truly for free speech.

Like I said to Luke- you may well be a libertarian (particularly since you're a fan of Ayn Rand). Most people prefer to describe themselves as either "Republicans who are socially liberal" or "Democrats who are economically conservative," but the term libertarian just makes a lot more sense (though you're not always sure whom to vote for. I tend to vote Democrat).

Don't forget, though, that private campuses have the right to restrict the speech of people who go there, for the same reasons that, say, Walmart can throw you out of their store for shouting obscenities- it's a private organization. I don't support these rules (I suspect I'm one of the people who, like you, really supports free speech), but they're not unconstitutional- they're just a decision on the school's part to make the school more attractive to the majority of potential students.

Here's my basic question- if you're for free speech, you'd support the right of the Ku Klux Klan to hold a meeting in a house down the street from you, or to march peaceably through your streets (I support this right too, even though I find the sentiment despicable). However, I'm sure you wouldn't let the Ku Klux Klan meet in your living room. Is that restriction of free speech? No, it's a choice you make with your private property. College administrations feel the same way, and they have the right to do what they want with their land.

Having said that, I don't support the decision. While it's not contradictory to the first amendment (has nothing to do with the government), it is contradictory to the ideal of free expression that is important to a college atmosphere- one shouldn't suppress views that they disagree with, they should argue against them.

 

[LawnOven]

I dunno, I think there are plenty of racial, social and cultural bigots to go around on both sides of the isle. If you are fair you will see that at best we are talking about matters of degree.

What definition of republican are we working with? If every person that considers themselves a republican and also opposes flag burning amendments just gets relabeled a "libertarian" then it seems like one is just defining republican to mean a**hole.

Personally I think all social conservatives, whether they be democrats or republicans should be eyed suspiciously however, that being said, it doesn't seem like one can be taken seriously as a republican candidate unless they are a social conservative; which is kind of sad.

 

[RandFan]

Like I said to Luke- you may well be a libertarian

If you do a search of the forum for RandFan libertarian you will see that I self identify myself as libertarian small ("L").

Most people prefer to describe themselves as either "Republicans who are socially liberal" or "Democrats who are economically conservative," but the term libertarian just makes a lot more sense (though you're not always sure whom to vote for. I tend to vote Democrat).

I tend to vote Republican but I have been more willing to consider Democrats as of late.

Don't forget, though, that private campuses have the right to restrict the speech of people who go there, for the same reasons that, say, Walmart can throw you out of their store for shouting obscenities- it's a private organization. I don't support these rules (I suspect I'm one of the people who, like you, really supports free speech), but they're not unconstitutional- they're just a decision on the school's part to make the school more attractive to the majority of potential students.

I'm talking about public schools or any schools that receive any public funding.

 

[RandFan]

What definition of republican are we working with? If every person that considers themselves a republican and also opposes flag burning amendments just gets relabeled a "libertarian" then it seems like one is just defining republican to mean a**hole.

Let's be clear here, libertarians by and large are against laws restricting flag burning.

Personally I think all social conservatives, whether they be democrats or republicans should be eyed suspiciously however, that being said, it doesn't seem like one can be taken seriously as a republican candidate unless they are a social conservative; which is kind of sad.

I don't start by assuming that any group is wrong or bad. I'm also willing to question my own assumptions. Politicians have figured out how to effectively demonize different groups of people. It only serves the politicians. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with viewing certain groups with suspicion. That seems quit reasonable so long as you aren't dogmatic in your dismissal of them which I don't take you to mean at all.

 

[Admiral]

If you do a search of the forum for RandFan libertarian you will see that I self identify myself as libertarian small ("L").

Right- sorry, it's just that many people identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats without fully considering where their philosophies lie, and I wasn't sure if you'd considered it (since you referred to yourself as a Republican).

I tend to vote Republican but I have been more willing to consider Democrats as of late.

Republicans recently have destroyed any vestige of a "small government" attitude that they might have once held. In general, when politicians get into power, they'll do whatever they can to hold on to that power, including passing pork legislation and supporting government programs that people expect. Don't forget that G.H.W. Bush raised taxes even after he promised not to. Most outrageously, they support laws that directly benefit corporations at the cost of competition and a free market. What Republicans say they believe about the free market and what they actually do once they're in office have very little connection.

I'm talking about public schools or any schools that receive any public funding.

Got it- that's a distinction I didn't know you made.

 

[RandFan]

What Republicans say they believe about the free market and what they actually do once they're in office have very little connection.

I think that could be applied to politicians in general. It's easy to become cynical at the whole mess. It works by and large. It will work better when we stop acting like Pavlov's dogs and salivating every election at promises of change given in sound bites and wrapped in slick marketing. I think the Republicans are spineless and greedy and the Democrats have demagogued the issue so thoroughly that the best dynamic for bringing fiscal responsibility would be a Democrat president and Republican congress ala Clinton after 1994.

 

[Admiral]

I think that could be applied to politicians in general. It's easy to become cynical at the whole mess. It works by and large. It will work better when we stop acting like Pavlov's dogs and salivating every election at promises of change given in sound bites and wrapped in slick marketing. I think the Republicans are spineless and greedy and the Democrats have demagogued the issue so thoroughly that the best dynamic for bringing fiscal responsibility would be a Democrat president and Republican congress ala Clinton after 1994.

I personally think the best would be a libertarian president, or at least a few more "porkbusters" in Congress, but to tell you the truth I'm not very optimistic about that happening.

More important, I feel, than getting libertarians into power is at least educating people about libertarian arguments- while there are many people who oppose libertarianism for intelligent reasons (and I fully respect them), the vast majority of people are completely ignorant about the philosophy's ideals, or of basic economic principles (which are important to understand no matter what ideology you hold).

 

[LawnOven]

Let's be clear here, libertarians by and large are against laws restricting flag burning.

I understand, I made that comment because I I took Luke T's comments to mean he wished to identify himself as a republican who opposed flag burning. If one wishes to call them self a republican and votes for republicans most of the time, I see no reason why one should have the title of libertarian hoisted upon them.

Maybe it is a mistake in my reading comprehension, the OP title says republican and the post says righty, conflating the two. Maybe Luke T considers himself a "righty" libertarian, as opposed to a "righty" republican. He just said righty, not republican, maybe he's being sly in regards to the general sentiment of the OP. I don't know.

I hope you understand what I am trying to say.

Mainly I'm just taking issue with framing a statement in a way which paints a broad brush with a diverse group of people and then defines away an argument against said statement.

It just sounds like a no true Scotsman fallacy to me, and is at the very least not a very good way to have an open dialog with those you may disagree with (which I am assuming was the point of this thread to begin with).

(All of this coming from a bleeding heart liberal )

I don't start by assuming that any group is wrong or bad. I'm also willing to question my own assumptions. Politicians have figured out how to effectively demonize different groups of people. It only serves the politicians. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing wrong with viewing certain groups with suspicion. That seems quit reasonable so long as you aren't dogmatic in your dismissal of them which I don't take you to mean at all.

The reason I eye social conservatives suspiciously is because, in my opinion, usually the social cost of their politics is high, and the reasoning is almost always suspect.

 

[Admiral]

I understand, I made that comment because I I took Luke T's comments to mean he wished to identify himself as a republican who opposed flag burning. If one wishes to call them self a republican and votes for republicans most of the time, I see no reason why one should have the title of libertarian hoisted upon them.

I'm not hoisting- the reason I said he MIGHT be one is that I don't know him or his politics, although often "righties" that are against flag burning are liberal on other social issues. If he isn't, that's fine too, but I'm not trying to label him against his will or anything. You're right, though, I sounded unclear. (Also, of course many libertarians refer to themselves are righties, that's true.)

Mainly I'm just taking issue with framing a statement in a way which paints a broad brush with a diverse group of people and then defines away an argument against said statement.

Agreed.

 

[LawnOven]

"hoisting"

Thank you for throwing my ridiculous command of the English language back at me; and also for clarifying the intentions of your statement.