Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
Okay, maybe some people get it; I have so much trouble finding them, though.
Backstory first (hey, remember who's starting this thread!).
I was talking with this guy at work, who is an idiot. He is a self-styled anarchist, which (he is adamant about pointing out) doesn't mean he wants "no authority", but self authority. He also wants there to be no property and a whole bunch of other things, which I don't mind, because such things will never happen during my lifetime. But he did say something which sort of ticked me off, as it does whenever I hear it from anybody.
He was explaining to me how America has never had "free speech". I asked him if he meant the yelling "fire" sense, and he said no - but any sense. I asked him to elaborate, and he brought up this recent case of the Dixie Chicks. When the Iraq war thing happened, the Dixie Chicks happened to speak against it during an interview or something, and a lot of people went into a hate craze and started breaking their CDs and stuff. It's just another case, this guy explained, where anyone with a "dissenting opinion" is shouted down, sometimes quite loudly, by majority, who of course are all sheep. Thus, the First Amendment's speech protection is a sham, he concluded.
What a complete and utter fool. I didn't laugh at him, but I did call him a complete and utter fool (I suppose I created a hostile work environment for him - oh well). I don't know why so many people make this argument and similar arguments, but it's just plain dumb - don't use it.
The First Amendment forbids the government from restricting speech. It makes it illegal for the government to arrest you, or otherwise take special steps to prevent you from expression, because of your opinion or views. That's it - the First Amendment does not restrict any other entity. If you call your boss an ass, he can fire you for it. And if you say something I think is stupid, I can call you on it.
The Dixie Chicks were not arrested. The government did not forbid airing their critical interview. At no time were their First Amendment rights violated. So many people seem not to understand that the same First Amendment which allows you to call the President a moron is the same Amendment that allows someone - or lots of ones - to call you an idiot for it. Anybody can respond any way they desire. Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequences. If you want to demand that people should have the right to speak their mind without having to hear any flak at all for it, you're actually restricting speech (how's that for a conundrum?).
Now, there are genuine First Amendment issues. From what I hear, the whole Howard Stern thing might be one. But that has nothing to do with my argument.
Has anyone else heard anybody try this "oh, you're denying my freedom of speech" bullshirt? Doesn't it get seriously aggrevating?
Backstory first (hey, remember who's starting this thread!).
I was talking with this guy at work, who is an idiot. He is a self-styled anarchist, which (he is adamant about pointing out) doesn't mean he wants "no authority", but self authority. He also wants there to be no property and a whole bunch of other things, which I don't mind, because such things will never happen during my lifetime. But he did say something which sort of ticked me off, as it does whenever I hear it from anybody.
He was explaining to me how America has never had "free speech". I asked him if he meant the yelling "fire" sense, and he said no - but any sense. I asked him to elaborate, and he brought up this recent case of the Dixie Chicks. When the Iraq war thing happened, the Dixie Chicks happened to speak against it during an interview or something, and a lot of people went into a hate craze and started breaking their CDs and stuff. It's just another case, this guy explained, where anyone with a "dissenting opinion" is shouted down, sometimes quite loudly, by majority, who of course are all sheep. Thus, the First Amendment's speech protection is a sham, he concluded.
What a complete and utter fool. I didn't laugh at him, but I did call him a complete and utter fool (I suppose I created a hostile work environment for him - oh well). I don't know why so many people make this argument and similar arguments, but it's just plain dumb - don't use it.
The First Amendment forbids the government from restricting speech. It makes it illegal for the government to arrest you, or otherwise take special steps to prevent you from expression, because of your opinion or views. That's it - the First Amendment does not restrict any other entity. If you call your boss an ass, he can fire you for it. And if you say something I think is stupid, I can call you on it.
The Dixie Chicks were not arrested. The government did not forbid airing their critical interview. At no time were their First Amendment rights violated. So many people seem not to understand that the same First Amendment which allows you to call the President a moron is the same Amendment that allows someone - or lots of ones - to call you an idiot for it. Anybody can respond any way they desire. Freedom of Speech does not mean Freedom from Consequences. If you want to demand that people should have the right to speak their mind without having to hear any flak at all for it, you're actually restricting speech (how's that for a conundrum?).
Now, there are genuine First Amendment issues. From what I hear, the whole Howard Stern thing might be one. But that has nothing to do with my argument.
Has anyone else heard anybody try this "oh, you're denying my freedom of speech" bullshirt? Doesn't it get seriously aggrevating?
