Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
rockaction

***Official*** Free Speech Thread

Recommended Posts

It was axed not by mods, but by the starter. Here's the place to post anything related to free speech, whether it be government restrictions or just social anathema and pressure. 

Here. We. Go.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is being touched on in the Kaepernick thread, but also merits discussion here:

Eugene Gu, MD‏Verified account @eugenegu 1h1 hour ago

The NFL banning its players from kneeling is a chilling attack against the First Amendment and a racist policy against the majority African-American players who want to peacefully protest the injustice they face in their daily lives.

https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/999350697991667712

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, squistion said:

This is being touched on in the Kaepernick thread, but also merits discussion here:

Eugene Gu, MD‏Verified account @eugenegu 1h1 hour ago

The NFL banning its players from kneeling is a chilling attack against the First Amendment and a racist policy against the majority African-American players who want to peacefully protest the injustice they face in their daily lives.

https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/999350697991667712

Nah. It's a lot of things, but it ain't that.

Let's reserve this thread from talking about the real threat to our First Amendment freedoms:  the White House billionaires who buy up news outlets and manipulate coverage 19 year olds who disrupt white supremacist speeches on college campuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Rules that Trump Can't block political critics on Twitter

I wonder how this gets enforced.

"no government official -- including the President -- is above the law, and all government officials are presumed to follow the law as has been declared."

"We hold that portions of the @realDonaldTrump account -- the 'interactive space' where Twitter users may directly engage with the content of the President's tweets -- are properly analyzed under the "'public forum' doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court, that such space is a designated public forum, and that the blocking of the plaintiffs based on their political speech constitutes viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment," Buchwald wrote.

Edited by Mookie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they start charging for it, I’m out.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, squistion said:

This is being touched on in the Kaepernick thread, but also merits discussion here:

Eugene Gu, MD‏Verified account @eugenegu 1h1 hour ago

The NFL banning its players from kneeling is a chilling attack against the First Amendment and a racist policy against the majority African-American players who want to peacefully protest the injustice they face in their daily lives.

https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/999350697991667712

Unless the NFL is Congress, he's a bit off base. If he wants to argue that the NFL policy goes against the spirit of free speech, that's an argument he can take up. A chilling attack on the First though, no it's not.

Employers regularly set guidelines for their employees in terms of communication, for example. My employer has a guideline where no employee is to speak to the press on behalf of the company, that responsibility falls to corporate communications. Now, I can go speak to a reporter and they may publish a story based on me as a source. That's my right to free speech, Congress has not enacted any law abridging my freedom of speech. But my company will terminate my employment based on my violation of the guidelines they have laid forth for their employees.

Freedom of speech shall not be abridged by Congress. That does not mean freedom of speech is free from private sector ramifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

We have, as a society, more free speech than we've ever had. I don't see any threats to it. Not sure that this is a relevant topic at this point.

Have you missed what the President has said about changing what is legally considered defamation? Plus his desire to shut down the press who criticize him (which is another part of the 1st Amendment)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

Have you missed what the President has said about changing what is legally considered defamation? Plus his desire to shut down the press who criticize him (which is another part of the 1st Amendment)?

Come get me when either of those ideas are close to becoming laws. I'm not concerned at all about that.

Now I AM concerned that when Trump and other prominent members of the right consistently attack the mainstream media, they do damage to our institutions. But that's a very different issue from freedom of speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael Moore‏ @MMFlint 17h17 hours ago

Oh NFL! I love you! What better time to curtail free speech than during the National Anthem! USA! USA!! USA!!! Back in the USSA!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, timschochet said:

We have, as a society, more free speech than we've ever had. I don't see any threats to it. Not sure that this is a relevant topic at this point.

Huh? We have serious threats to publicly free speech (read: not First Amendment issues but raw speech) and freedom of expression and discourse. This deserved its own thread then, and certainly does now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

This seems problematic.  But it's from one of our nation's fiercest Bill of Rights advocacy groups, so I'm sure I'm just missing something:
 

 

W T F

Edit:  OK, upon actually seeing the clip, it's clearly satire.

Edited by Ramsay Hunt Experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ramsay Hunt Experience said:

W T F

Edit:  OK, upon actually seeing the clip, it's clearly satire.

My bad, I didn't make it past the halfway point. Just saw the tweet and watched the first minute or two to confirm. It's a very silly, obviously flawed argument, but it doesn't belong in the free speech thread. Will delete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump did not accept my friend request on Facebook.  I am going to find some nut job federal judge force him to under the guise of the first amendment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, rockaction said:

Huh? We have serious threats to publicly free speech (read: not First Amendment issues but raw speech) and freedom of expression and discourse. This deserved its own thread then, and certainly does now.  

When I think of free speech, my mind goes to the First Amendment. I'm not sure what you're referring to with "raw speech" and "freedom of expression and discourse". Can you offer some examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

When I think of free speech, my mind goes to the First Amendment. I'm not sure what you're referring to with "raw speech" and "freedom of expression and discourse". Can you offer some examples?

Check out Nobody Speak on Netflix if you have the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

Check out Nobody Speak on Netflix if you have the time.

I will, thanks.

Intuitively though, I have trouble believing that the press, with so many venues as a result of the internet age (practically unlimited) has less free speech than any other time in our history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I will, thanks.

Intuitively though, I have trouble believing that the press, with so many venues as a result of the internet age (practically unlimited) has less free speech than any other time in our history.

The flip side is that with so many voices only a few truly break through the noise and are heard, and the argument made by the documentary is that the super-wealthy are using that wealth to effectively silence voices they don't like. Obviously the former reporters of Gawker can report their stories and opinions in blogs or on twitter or whatever, as can the reporters of the Las Vegas Review-Journal silenced by Adelson and the reporters whose editorials are subject to approval from (or sometimes just dictated to them by) Sinclair News Group.  But the wealthy have turned off their figurative microphones, and in many cases forced them to choose between reporting the truth and making a living. It's obviously not a Constitutional argument because there's no government action other than indirectly through the courts, but the underlying principle is nevertheless troubling.

And I assume conservatives would make a similar argument about the state of free speech on college campuses- right wing viewpoints aren't being silenced by the government but they're having their figurative or even literal microphones taken from them by people who don't like the content and are in a position to exercise undue influence over what is and isn't heard. I don't think it's as big of a deal because, well, 19 year olds and nazis vs billionaires and reporters. But admittedly it's the same basic idea.

Edited by TobiasFunke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2018 at 0:28 PM, squistion said:

This is being touched on in the Kaepernick thread, but also merits discussion here:

Eugene Gu, MD‏Verified account @eugenegu 1h1 hour ago

The NFL banning its players from kneeling is a chilling attack against the First Amendment and a racist policy against the majority African-American players who want to peacefully protest the injustice they face in their daily lives.

https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/999350697991667712

No, it’s not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Freakin' paywall. :kicksrock:

By the way, I read the original intent/intention law review article up until page 914 yesterday. Fascinating stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Right-click and open incognito. Or (I think this trick still works), click the link from Google search results.

Not with all sites, I tried it yesterday on a Boston Globe article and was notified that they (The Globe) saw that I was in incognito mode and if I wanted to continue to read their articles I would have to pay $.99 a month, or whatever. :kicksrock:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked it elsewhere, but this thread seems more appropriate. What happens when Trump ignores the order to not ban twitter followers? How can this be enforced? Is it just ignored and that's it? Can twitter be held accountable in any way? The President himself? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hilts said:

I asked it elsewhere, but this thread seems more appropriate. What happens when Trump ignores the order to not ban twitter followers? How can this be enforced? Is it just ignored and that's it? Can twitter be held accountable in any way? The President himself? 

According to a Bloomberg article it would have to be enforced by litigation by the blocked users against Twitter, whom the writer believe would ultimately prevail, some snippets from the article:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-24/trump-twitter-blocking-ruling-is-bad-for-free-speech

The best way to understand why a federal district court was wrong Wednesday, when it held that Twitter users have a constitutional right not to be blocked by President Donald Trump’s personal account, is to consider the lawsuits that will come next.

I can point to a variety of reasons the decision was wrong, some of which I’ve already explored in an earlier column. It should be overturned on appeal.

But chief among the problems is that the government doesn’t ultimately control what the court called the “interactive space” of replies to the president’s tweets — Twitter Inc. does. That reality, which the court obscured and obfuscated, is going to lead to very serious consequences for the First Amendment rights of Twitter, and all other social media platforms.

Here’s how: Users who are blocked altogether from Twitter are going to start suing the company on the ground that they are being excluded from what the court has deemed the “designated public forum” associated with Trump’s account.

These suits are going to create a logical-legal anomaly. If they lose, then there exists a public forum that some people can’t access — which makes no legal sense. If they win, then Twitter will have been deprived of the free-speech and free-association right to block users it doesn’t want.

The court found against Trump on the basis of a tricky doctrine known the designated public forum. A product of judicial interpretation of the First Amendment, the idea is that there are some government-controlled spaces that aren’t traditionally open like public parks, but are nevertheless designated by the government for speech of some kinds and on some subjects. In such spaces, the government may regulate the subject matter, but it can’t discriminate against private speakers on the basis of their viewpoint.

This doctrine shouldn’t have been applied to Trump’s Twitter account at all. The court had to slice and dice Trump’s feed into different parts to make the decision fit. It said that what Trump tweets himself is government speech, not a public forum at all. And it said Trump is under no obligation to listen to comments. He could, for example, mute any followers he wishes. [...]

Edited by squistion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Right-click and open incognito. Or (I think this trick still works), click the link from Google search results.

Nice work-around. Great op-ed. Especially agree with the words from the Barnette decision and state actors. I think others in here have made good points about marketplaces and reprisals, so I'll leave that for another day, but I side with French there, too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hilts said:

I asked it elsewhere, but this thread seems more appropriate. What happens when Trump ignores the order to not ban twitter followers? How can this be enforced? Is it just ignored and that's it? Can twitter be held accountable in any way? The President himself? 

This is a really interesting question. And technically Dan Scavino is who would have to control this, as Director of WH Social Media, I would think. The problem with all corrupt entities though is not always just resistance but also corruption. Can the WH even find a way to efficiently unblock everyone they have blocked? What are the numbers? What was the criteria? Do they even know? No idea. I sense some serious stupidity emanating from all this eventually but also some gross defiance of judicial orders.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question for our legal scholars: back in the 80s & 90s, when i was active on talk radio, i would successfully argue that commerce had no 1st Amendment protection because the USSC had so ruled, in Mutual Film v Ohio (1915) - the ruling which allowed movies to be censored on the 'commerce' basis - and that, when it was overruled in the early 50s, it was only on the basis that films were being banned as sacriligeous. At the time - and these were national radio shows - no one could find new law which countered my claim.

I'm wondering if there have been other rulings in this area in the quarter-century since and am especially curious if giving corporations 'person' status would have any effect there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

A question for our legal scholars: back in the 80s & 90s, when i was active on talk radio, i would successfully argue that commerce had no 1st Amendment protection because the USSC had so ruled, in Mutual Film v Ohio (1915) - the ruling which allowed movies to be censored on the 'commerce' basis - and that, when it was overruled in the early 50s, it was only on the basis that films were being banned as sacriligeous. At the time - and these were national radio shows - no one could find new law which countered my claim.

I'm wondering if there have been other rulings in this area in the quarter-century since and am especially curious if giving corporations 'person' status would have any effect there.

Here's that case.

Quote

The censorship, therefore, is only of films intended for exhibition in Ohio, and we can immediately put to one side the contention that it imposes a burden on interstate commerce.

Wow, that was easy. And it was probably true, I don't think that is really debatable.

When old cases like this (which are almost indecipherable to begin with) are overruled one thing that drives me nuts is that the USSC often does not explicitly overrule the thing that everyone thinks was overruled. The USSC is really deferential to past Justices, even in the worst of situations (say Brown) they won't come out and clang the bell that a really terrible and stupid thing was done.

- On the face of things I agree with you. This ruling, which simply solves the 1st Amendment by reclassifying any monetization of it into commerce, seems to stand on its own.

And in truth I think this is probably an example of how Citizens United could create great harm. Reclassifying the speaker as a corporation would take almost all speech requiring any sort of artificial or juridical entity to become automatically regulatable, which would be a disaster.

Listen to this:

 

Therefore, however missionary of opinion films are or may become, however educational or entertaining, there is no impediment to their value or effect in the Ohio statute. But they may be used for evil, and against that possibility the statute was enacted. Their power of amusement, and, it may be, education, the audiences they assemble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of adults only, but of children, make them the more insidious in corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should degenerate from worthy purpose. Indeed, we may go beyond that possibility. They take their attraction from the general interest, eager and wholesome it may be, in their subjects, but a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to. Besides, there are some things which should not have pictorial representation in public places and to all audiences. And not only the state of Ohio, but other states, have considered it to be in the interest of the public morals and welfare to supervise moving picture exhibitions. We would have to shut our eyes to the facts of the world to regard the precaution unreasonable or the legislation to effect it a mere wanton interference with personal liberty.

We do not understand that a possibility of an evil employment of films is denied, but a freedom from the censorship of the law and a precedent right of exhibition are asserted, subsequent responsibility only, it is contended, being incurred for abuse. In other words, as we have seen, the Constitution of Ohio is invoked, and an exhibition of films is assimilated to the freedom of speech, writing, and publication assured by that instrument, and for the abuse of which only is there responsibility, and, it is insisted, that as no law may be passed 'to restrain the liberty of speech or of the press,' no law may be passed to subject moving pictures to censorship before their exhibition. [236 U.S. 230, 243]   We need not pause to dilate upon the freedom of opinion and its expression, and whether by speech, writing, or printing. They are too certain to need discussion-of such conceded value as to need no supporting praise. Nor can there be any doubt of their breadth, nor that their underlying safeguard is, to use the words of another, 'that opinion is free, and that conduct alone is amenable to the law.'

Are moving pictures within the principle, as it is contended they are? They, indeed, may be mediums of thought, but so are many things. So is the theater, the circus, and all other shows and spectacles, and their performances may be thus brought by the like reasoning under the same immunity from repression or supervision as the public press,-made the same agencies of civil liberty.

Counsel have not shrunk from this extension of their contention, and cite a case in this court where the title of drama was accorded to pantomime;2 and such and other spectacles are said by counsel to be publications of ideas, satisfying the definition of the dictionaries,-that is, and we quote counsel, a means of making or announcing publicly something that otherwise might have remained private or unknown,-and this being peculiarly the purpose and effect of moving pictures, they come directly, it is contended, under the protection of the Ohio constitution.

The first impulse of the mind is to reject the contention. We immediately feel that the argument is wrong or strained which extends the guaranties of free opinion and speech to the multitudinous shows which are advertised on the billboards of our cities and towns, and which regards them as emblems of public safety, to use the words of Lord Camden, quoted by counsel, and which seeks to [236 U.S. 230, 244]   bring motion pictures and other spectacle into practical and legal similitude to a free press and liberty of opinion.

The judicial sense supporting the common sense of the country is against the contention. As pointed out by the district court, the police power is familiarly exercised in granting or withholding licenses for theatrical performances as a means of their regulation. ...

The exercise of the power upon moving picture exhibitions has been sustained. ...

It seems not to have occurred to anybody in the cited cases that freedom of opinion was repressed in the exertion of the power which was illustrated. The rights of property were only considered as involved. It cannot be put out of view that the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion. They are mere representations of events, of ideas and sentiments published and known; vivid, useful, and entertaining, no doubt, but, as we have said, capable of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attractiveness and manner of exhibition. It was this capability and power, and it may be in experience of them, that induced the state of Ohio, in addition to prescribing penalties for immoral exhibitions, as it does in its Criminal ...Code, to require censorship before exhibition, as it does by the act under review. We cannot regard this as beyond the power of government.

It does not militate against the strength of these considerations that motion pictures may be used to amuse and instruct in other places than theaters,-in churches, for instance, and in Sunday schools and public schools. Nor are we called upon to say on this record whether such exceptions would be within the provisions of the statute, nor to anticipate that it will be so declared by the state courts, or so enforced by the state officers.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Here's that case.

Wow, that was easy. And it was probably true, I don't think that is really debatable.

When old cases like this (which are almost indecipherable to begin with) are overruled one thing that drives me nuts is that the USSC often does not explicitly overrule the thing that everyone thinks was overruled. The USSC is really deferential to past Justices, even in the worst of situations (say Brown) they won't come out and clang the bell that a really terrible and stupid thing was done.

- On the face of things I agree with you. This ruling, which simply solves the 1st Amendment by reclassifying any monetization of it into commerce, seems to stand on its own.

And in truth I think this is probably an example of how Citizens United could create great harm. Reclassifying the speaker as a corporation would take almost all speech requiring any sort of artificial or juridical entity to become automatically regulatable, which would be a disaster.

Listen to this:

  Reveal hidden contents

Therefore, however missionary of opinion films are or may become, however educational or entertaining, there is no impediment to their value or effect in the Ohio statute. But they may be used for evil, and against that possibility the statute was enacted. Their power of amusement, and, it may be, education, the audiences they assemble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of adults only, but of children, make them the more insidious in corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should degenerate from worthy purpose. Indeed, we may go beyond that possibility. They take their attraction from the general interest, eager and wholesome it may be, in their subjects, but a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to. Besides, there are some things which should not have pictorial representation in public places and to all audiences. And not only the state of Ohio, but other states, have considered it to be in the interest of the public morals and welfare to supervise moving picture exhibitions. We would have to shut our eyes to the facts of the world to regard the precaution unreasonable or the legislation to effect it a mere wanton interference with personal liberty.

We do not understand that a possibility of an evil employment of films is denied, but a freedom from the censorship of the law and a precedent right of exhibition are asserted, subsequent responsibility only, it is contended, being incurred for abuse. In other words, as we have seen, the Constitution of Ohio is invoked, and an exhibition of films is assimilated to the freedom of speech, writing, and publication assured by that instrument, and for the abuse of which only is there responsibility, and, it is insisted, that as no law may be passed 'to restrain the liberty of speech or of the press,' no law may be passed to subject moving pictures to censorship before their exhibition. [236 U.S. 230, 243]   We need not pause to dilate upon the freedom of opinion and its expression, and whether by speech, writing, or printing. They are too certain to need discussion-of such conceded value as to need no supporting praise. Nor can there be any doubt of their breadth, nor that their underlying safeguard is, to use the words of another, 'that opinion is free, and that conduct alone is amenable to the law.'

Are moving pictures within the principle, as it is contended they are? They, indeed, may be mediums of thought, but so are many things. So is the theater, the circus, and all other shows and spectacles, and their performances may be thus brought by the like reasoning under the same immunity from repression or supervision as the public press,-made the same agencies of civil liberty.

Counsel have not shrunk from this extension of their contention, and cite a case in this court where the title of drama was accorded to pantomime;2 and such and other spectacles are said by counsel to be publications of ideas, satisfying the definition of the dictionaries,-that is, and we quote counsel, a means of making or announcing publicly something that otherwise might have remained private or unknown,-and this being peculiarly the purpose and effect of moving pictures, they come directly, it is contended, under the protection of the Ohio constitution.

The first impulse of the mind is to reject the contention. We immediately feel that the argument is wrong or strained which extends the guaranties of free opinion and speech to the multitudinous shows which are advertised on the billboards of our cities and towns, and which regards them as emblems of public safety, to use the words of Lord Camden, quoted by counsel, and which seeks to [236 U.S. 230, 244]   bring motion pictures and other spectacle into practical and legal similitude to a free press and liberty of opinion.

The judicial sense supporting the common sense of the country is against the contention. As pointed out by the district court, the police power is familiarly exercised in granting or withholding licenses for theatrical performances as a means of their regulation. ...

The exercise of the power upon moving picture exhibitions has been sustained. ...

It seems not to have occurred to anybody in the cited cases that freedom of opinion was repressed in the exertion of the power which was illustrated. The rights of property were only considered as involved. It cannot be put out of view that the exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio Constitution, we think, as part of the press of the country, or as organs of public opinion. They are mere representations of events, of ideas and sentiments published and known; vivid, useful, and entertaining, no doubt, but, as we have said, capable of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attractiveness and manner of exhibition. It was this capability and power, and it may be in experience of them, that induced the state of Ohio, in addition to prescribing penalties for immoral exhibitions, as it does in its Criminal ...Code, to require censorship before exhibition, as it does by the act under review. We cannot regard this as beyond the power of government.

It does not militate against the strength of these considerations that motion pictures may be used to amuse and instruct in other places than theaters,-in churches, for instance, and in Sunday schools and public schools. Nor are we called upon to say on this record whether such exceptions would be within the provisions of the statute, nor to anticipate that it will be so declared by the state courts, or so enforced by the state officers.

good stuff, but i was assured by lawyers at the time i was arguing this stuff that the ruling, because the Ohio Constitution did not conflict with USC in this realm, was a tacit establishment of the regulatability of speech whose sole purpose was commerce and that was not countered by the ruling which overturned Mutual v Ohio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, wikkidpissah said:

good stuff, but i was assured by lawyers at the time i was arguing this stuff that the ruling, because the Ohio Constitution did not conflict with USC in this realm, was a tacit establishment of the regulatability of speech whose sole purpose was commerce and that was not countered by the ruling which overturned Mutual v Ohio

Actually I was trying to agree with that. But IMO while that may be the speech itself would be protectable in its own right, though I think CU shows just how close that issue would be. I do not see too much distinction between the outcome of the CU dissent and this case from 1913.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 8:34 AM, squistion said:

Michael Moore‏ @MMFlint 17h17 hours ago

Oh NFL! I love you! What better time to curtail free speech than during the National Anthem! USA! USA!! USA!!! Back in the USSA!!

The NFL is an entertainment business...the actors are being asked to follow their scripts when they are on stage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I talk politics at work that’s one thing, but if I show up at meetings and conference calls and start making political speeches instead of addressing the subject of the meeting, then it is appropriate for management to ask me to stop doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2018 at 0:52 PM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

This is a really interesting question. And technically Dan Scavino is who would have to control this, as Director of WH Social Media, I would think. The problem with all corrupt entities though is not always just resistance but also corruption. Can the WH even find a way to efficiently unblock everyone they have blocked? What are the numbers? What was the criteria? Do they even know? No idea. I sense some serious stupidity emanating from all this eventually but also some gross defiance of judicial orders.

Can’t Twitter just step in here and enforce compliance with a couple of lines of code?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are millions of restrictions placed everyday on free speech in the workplace and no one raises an eyebrow.   Why is  it so important that multi-million dollar football players get to make a statement during a time many people hold solemn and are offended by such acts?  These people are paying to see these players play football.  If a waiter wants to read every customer a verse from the Bible prior to serving them are we going to fight for his free speech right.   I see zero reasons based on any principle why we want to arbitrarily draw the line for free speech at the workplace with NFL players during the national athem.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2018 at 2:33 PM, TobiasFunke said:

Nah. It's a lot of things, but it ain't that.

Let's reserve this thread from talking about the real threat to our First Amendment freedoms:  the White House billionaires who buy up news outlets and manipulate coverage 19 year olds who disrupt white supremacist speeches on college campuses.

So how many posts in the free speech thread before speech is stifled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rove! said:

If I talk politics at work that’s one thing, but if I show up at meetings and conference calls and start making political speeches instead of addressing the subject of the meeting, then it is appropriate for management to ask me to stop doing that.

True but the question for your comparison is: the game hasn’t started yet so is their kneeling closer to the talking politics at work or making political statements at a work meeting? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 10:44 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

C+.   Not that effective.  The examples given were of employees actually fired for expressing non-PC opinions.  Nobody outside of the idiot populist president who has zero say in the matter is saying anything about firing players.

Then stating:

"The cure for bad speech is better speech — not censorship." 

is condescending (conservative speech = bad speech).  The best speech is free speech, not some elitist self-judged 'better speech.'

Then this:

"That was when the conservative mob called for heads to roll."

Who was calling for heads to roll outside of Trump.  The vast majority of people, both conservatives and liberals, do not support firing players and in general support the players right to protest.   The people who did protest simple choose on an individual level not to watch the NFL.  There was no organized movement.  

Then this:

"I agree. It is different. Because it’s about the flag, the censorship is even worse."

This makes no sense.  Let's ignore that the protest is not about the flag, why is NFL players kneeling during the national anthem more important than other free speech.  The NFL players are megastars and have a huge platform to state their case anytime they want to with no reprocussions, just not during the anthem.  And if you really care about free speech, what about real government censorship 60 days prior to an election.  David French was in full support of government censorship, but somehow this is worse?

Even the best most articulate arguments for this aren't that good as virtually every American has restrictions on free speech at work.  This is a dumb place for liberals to fall on their sword.  

 

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think any place is a dumb place to fall on a sword. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

True but the question for your comparison is: the game hasn’t started yet so is their kneeling closer to the talking politics at work or making political statements at a work meeting? 

Good question. When to they start work, at kick off or when they show up to get ready to work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Good question. When to they start work, at kick off or when they show up to get ready to work?

I’m not sure it really matters but just pointing out that I don’t think Rove’s analogy really worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

True but the question for your comparison is: the game hasn’t started yet so is their kneeling closer to the talking politics at work or making political statements at a work meeting? 

You have millions of people watching and they are in full uniform.  Their views are reflecting upon their employer.  If their message is that important, perhaps they could tweet and explain what it is.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

You have millions of people watching and they are in full uniform.  Their views are reflecting upon their employer.  If their message is that important, perhaps they could tweet and explain what it is.   

Not millions - typically the anthem isn’t shown on TV. That time is reserved for selling beer and pizza. Also they do tweet their messages. Eric Reid is regularly tweeting things related to the abuse of police power. The NFL has the right to set rules for the anthem and I don’t think it is violating the 1st at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ilov80s said:

I think any place is a dumb place to fall on a sword. 

Noting the significant rise in "witch hunts" these days, perhaps being burned alive upon a pyre may not be too dumb a place for said sword fall.

?

Just say'in.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

The examples given were of employees actually fired for expressing non-PC opinions.  Nobody outside of the idiot populist president who has zero say in the matter is saying anything about firing players.

Kaepernick still doesn’t have a job.

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

Then stating:

"The cure for bad speech is better speech — not censorship." 

is condescending (conservative speech = bad speech).  The best speech is free speech, not some elitist self-judged 'better speech.'

That’s a frankly bizarre misinterpretation of the phrase. Kaepernick is not conservative. French is. French is saying that the cure for kneeling is criticizing it, not prohibiting it.

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

The vast majority of people, both conservatives and liberals, do not support firing players and in general support the players right to protest.

It’s like you’ve never been in the Kaepernick thread.

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

And if you really care about free speech, what about real government censorship 60 days prior to an election.  David French was in full support of government censorship, but somehow this is worse?

Link to David French supporting government censorship?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Man of Constant Sorrow said:

Noting the significant rise in "witch hunts" these days, perhaps being burned alive upon a pyre may not be too dumb a place for said sword fall.

?

Just say'in.


 

I can’t think of a fiery pyre without thinking of Khaleesi and perhaps her falling on my sword. Queen of the Andals and the First Men indeed. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Kaepernick still doesn’t have a job.

True, but he was not fired.   SF was happy to not resign him due to performance. I suppose we will find out if there was any collusion.

Quote

That’s a frankly bizarre misinterpretation of the phrase. Kaepernick is not conservative. French is. French is saying that the cure for kneeling is criticizing it, not prohibiting it.

At that point in the article he had only given the examples of conservatives being fired and had not mentioned his disagreement with Kaep's kneeling.  The way it reads it was talking about them, but in the context of the whole article he clearly was including Kaepernick too.  I don't follow journalists and really was not all that familiar with French.

Quote

It’s like you’ve never been in the Kaepernick thread.

Of course, but  I don't see a ground swell of people demanding kneeling players be fired.   I am not even sure there is one I recall in that thread.  Conservatives see kneeling as disrespectful and out of place.  Polling shows 82 percent support their right to protest.  That is a strong showing in a poll and would include strong support across all political slants.

Quote

Link to David French supporting government censorship?

I am not familiar with French.   It was late and I simply assumed his support of McCain-Fiengold and Google was not that helpful.   I was probably wrong in that.  There are just too many people who supported government censorship (McCain-Fienld) who are up in arms over this NFL policy. 

Edited by jon_mx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.