Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
rockaction

***Official*** Free Speech Thread

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

I am not familiar with French.

You should spend some time Googling and reading him. He’s among the best conservative thinkers out there today.

People sometimes say that liberals should spend more time reading conservative journalists and conservatives should spend more time reading liberal journalists. I don’t think that’s the best strategy for most people. I think a better practice is for liberals to read smart liberal journalists who are a bit less liberal than they are on at least some issues, and for conservatives to read smart conservative journalists who are a bit less conservative than they are on at least some issues.

In other words, on the scale from 0 (super liberal) to 100 (super conservative), if you’re a 15, read some smart journalists in the 20-25 range. If you’re an 85, read some smart journalists in the 75-80 range.

David French would be perfect for you.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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? 

If people are in the stadium and watching,  then the show has started

Edited by Rove!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jon_mx said:
Quote

 

6 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.

That is a false statement. They did not resign him due to performance issues.

Share this post


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

That is a false statement. They did not resign him due to performance issues.

The case seems to have revealed that team scouting department evaluated Kap as a starting quality QB. Plus no way anyone can say Eric Reid isn’t being signed due to poor performance. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should protest like this be allowed in a private business on private property.Disclaimer I worked for Publix for almost 30 years and thanks to stock that they gave me as an owner(largest employee owned company in the country) I will never have to work again.Also like to note that the company is the last to close during a hurricanes  and the first to open back up.Is the largest contributor to the United Way in the state.Associates have helped build 100s of homes for Habitat for humanity.Shipped truck loads of goods to disaster areas. Publix donated $650,000 to Adam Putnam candidate for Gov.He is pro NRA. Publix did not donate to the NRA.Other companies that donated to his campaign include two of the largest power companies in the state,Disney,Universal,Pepsico,Budweisers parent company and many others.Only Publix was targeted though  and the thing is they tape outline of dead bodies in the parking lot and lay down inside the stores disrupting business .They are uninformed Publix as a corp never donated a dime to the NRA.

So this is free speech but should it be allowed.Personally I think they all should have been trespassed and dispersed and if they failed to comply arrested. Starts at about 9.28 Oh and I have never worked at a single Publix that had a gun aisle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElME_BLWgTg

Edited by rustycolts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2018 at 9:23 AM, squistion said:
On 5/27/2018 at 4:57 AM, jon_mx said:

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

That is a false statement. They did not resign him due to performance issues.

I think “performance” and “performance issues” mean pretty much the same thing here. You guys aren’t really disagreeing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2018 at 9:53 AM, Maurile Tremblay said:

You should spend some time Googling and reading him. He’s among the best conservative thinkers out there today.

Thanks for the suggestion and response.  :thumbup:

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think “performance” and “performance issues” mean pretty much the same thing here. You guys aren’t really disagreeing.

Yes we are. He is saying one thing and I am saying the opposite.

He said Kaep was not signed due to his performance (suggesting it was due to poor QB play)

I stated that it was false that he not signed because of issues with that, in other words, it involved other things independent of that.

Edited by squistion

Share this post


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

He is saying one thing and I am saying the opposite.

I know that was your intent. I was just poking fun because what you actually said was in fact the exact same thing that he said. (He said SF did "not resign him due to performance" and you said that SF did "not resign him due to performance issues.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2018 at 11:23 AM, squistion said:

That is a false statement. They did not resign him due to performance issues.

Yep. I mean just look at his winning % the last couple years. Pretty awful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like facebook is partnering with the Atlantic Council, a think tank funded by NATO, US govt, and the arms industry, to "monitor" the internet for "misinformation and foreign influence" and "protect democracy."  

https://www.mintpressnews.com/facebook-partners-hawkish-atlantic-council-nato-lobby-group-protect-democracy/242289/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ex-Senate Aide Charged in Leak Case Where Times Reporter’s Records Were Seized

A former Senate Intelligence Committee aide was arrested Thursday in an investigation of classified information leaks where prosecutors also secretly seized years’ worth of a New York Times reporter’s phone and email records.

The former aide, James A. Wolfe, 57, was charged with lying repeatedly to investigators about his contacts with three reporters. According to the authorities, Mr. Wolfe made false statements to the F.B.I. about providing two of them with private information related to the committee’s work. They did not say whether it was classified.

...Mr. Wolfe’s case led to the first known instance of the Justice Department going after a reporter’s data under President Trump.

...The seizure — disclosed in a letter to the reporter, Ali Watkins — suggested that prosecutors under the Trump administration will continue the aggressive tactics employed under President Barack Obama.

...

Investigators sought Ms. Watkins’s information as part of an inquiry into whether James A. Wolfe, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s former director of security, disclosed classified secrets to reporters. F.B.I. agents approached Ms. Watkins about a previous three-year romantic relationship she had with Mr. Wolfe, saying they were investigating unauthorized leaks.

News media advocates consider the idea of mining a journalist’s records for sources to be an intrusion on First Amendment freedoms, and prosecutors acknowledge it is one of the most delicate steps the Justice Department can take. “Freedom of the press is a cornerstone of democracy, and communications between journalists and their sources demand protection,” said Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman.

A prosecutor notified Ms. Watkins on Feb. 13 that the Justice Department had years of customer records and subscriber information from telecommunications companies, including Google and Verizon, for two email accounts and a phone number of hers. Investigators did not obtain the content of the messages themselves. The Times learned on Thursday of the letter, which came from the national security division of the United States attorney’s office in Washington.

The records covered years’ worth of Ms. Watkins’s communications before she joined The Times in late 2017 to cover federal law enforcement. During a seven-month period last year for which prosecutors sought additional phone records, she worked for Buzzfeed News and then Politico reporting on national security.

Shortly before she began working at The Times, Ms. Watkins was approached by the F.B.I. agents, who asserted that Mr. Wolfe had helped her with articles while they were dating. She did not answer their questions. Mr. Wolfe was not a source of classified information for Ms. Watkins during their relationship, she said.

Mr. Wolfe stopped performing committee work in December and retired in May.

Ms. Watkins said she told editors at Buzzfeed News and Politico about it and continued to cover national security, including the committee’s work. Ben Smith, the editor in chief of Buzzfeed News, said in a statement, “We’re deeply troubled by what looks like a case of law enforcement interfering with a reporter’s constitutional right to gather information about her own government.”

A Politico spokesman, Brad Dayspring, said that the situation was “managed accordingly” after Ms. Watkins disclosed the matter, and that her primary beat was national security and law enforcement, not solely the committee, which other reporters primarily covered.

Ms. Watkins also told editors at The Times about the previous relationship when she was hired to cover federal law enforcement.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said last year that the Justice Department was pursuing about three times as many leak investigations as were open at the end of the Obama administration. Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department prosecuted more leak cases than all previous administrations combined. ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2018 at 9:44 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

 

Quote

In our polarized times, I’ve adopted a simple standard, a civil liberties corollary to the golden rule: Fight for the rights of others that you would like to exercise yourself. Do you want corporations obliterating speech the state can’t touch? Do you want the price of participation in public debate to include the fear of lost livelihoods? Then, by all means, support the N.F.L. Cheer Silicon Valley’s terminations. Join the boycotts and shame campaigns. Watch this country’s culture of liberty wither in front of your eyes.

Well said.

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

 

Well said.

Things you say while on the job are not the same as things you say outside of your work obligations.

if I go spouting off about politics when every time I meet with clients - even alienating some because of it,  I don’t think I can claim “free speech.”  The first time I do it, they might say, wow that Rove! has beliefs.  After the 2nd or third, they might say hey knock it off, and after that, probably fired.

The anthem is part of the spectacle of the NFL live experience...grossly oversized flags, famous singers, military personnel in their finest dress blues...etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Well said.

I think he's making the argument I've been making a lot on these boards (of course, more eloquently) and that is that free speech is different than First Amendment rights. Corporations are so large, and the mob so vocal, we can't even discuss certain things or express certain beliefs in semi-private anymore. And our notion of what is private is shrinking. Overall, it's not a good climate for discourse today, both politically and socially. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think he's making the argument I've been making a lot on these boards (of course, more eloquently) and that is that free speech is different than First Amendment rights. Corporations are so large, and the mob so vocal, we can't even discuss certain things or express certain beliefs in semi-private anymore. And our notion of what is private is shrinking. Overall, it's not a good climate for discourse today, both politically and socially. 

Huh, interesting, I view it as one in the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Huh, interesting, I view it as one in the same.

Oh, I'm distinguishing between the "market activism" some people advocate and the actual state actor restriction on speech. I think they're similar, too. I think that when Google fires somebody for publishing a memo, "free speech" is implicated even if the First Amendment isn't. That's all. That's why this isn't the Official ***First Amendment Speech And Expression Clause Thread***, it's the free speech thread.  

I think you and I see eye-to-eye on this issue in general.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a long but worthwhile essay from The Economist:

 Some thoughts on the crisis of liberalism—and how to fix it

I didn’t want to start a new thread on it, but I’m not really sure which existing thread it should go in. I’ll put it here and I’ll excerpt a paragraph relating to free speech, but it’s not primarily about free speech.

“Liberals also put a premium on tolerance: partly because they regard individual rights as pre-eminent and partly because they understand that, particularly in the world of human affairs, people seldom know enough to be absolutely certain of their judgements. They are averse to orthodoxies. But identity politics is an ascendant orthodoxy: its votaries habitually deny people with alternative views the right to speak, using the methods of the people they say they oppose in order to get heretics sacked, and books and arguments censored. And they do so not just because they get carried away but because they think that it is the right thing to do. Hurt feelings trump freedom of speech. A history of oppression trumps open debate. Identity politics is thus the biggest challenge to liberalism’s commitment to free speech and diversity of opinion since the red scare of the 1950s.”

The essay on the whole has more nuance than most political writing these days.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that WaPo should have to register as a lobbyist is pretty fringe, and not worth giving much thought to. After all, for any given nutso position, no matter how deranged, if you look hard enough, you’ll be able to find somebody loony enough to support it. Generally, that person is not worth taking seriously. These days, for example, it is often simply the President of the United States.

Share this post


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

This is a long but worthwhile essay from The Economist:

It is long, and interesting. Thoughts later.  

This is Dr. Weinstein's -- he of Evergreen State -- testimony in front of Congress. Really eloquent and interesting.  

https://youtu.be/uRIKJCKWla4

And this is where he is brilliant about the separation of free speech from the protections of the First Amendment:

https://youtu.be/uRIKJCKWla4?t=846

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Trump again claims that WaPo is an unregistered lobbyist.

- I really think this deserves more attention. This a president calling for regulation and punishment of the press.

I have no doubt that Trump would shut down unfriendly media outlets if he had the ability to do so.  (I understand that this is really less about the Washington Post and more about this weird feud with Jeff Bezos, but still).  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I have no doubt that Trump would shut down unfriendly media outlets if he had the ability to do so.  (I understand that this is really less about the Washington Post and more about this weird feud with Jeff Bezos, but still).  

I agree. It’s unreal we have a president even proposing this. It’s one of the most blatantly unconstitutional things I’ve ever heard of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2018 at 9:04 AM, Maurile Tremblay said:

This is a long but worthwhile essay from The Economist:

 Some thoughts on the crisis of liberalism—and how to fix it

I didn’t want to start a new thread on it, but I’m not really sure which existing thread it should go in. I’ll put it here and I’ll excerpt a paragraph relating to free speech, but it’s not primarily about free speech.

“Liberals also put a premium on tolerance: partly because they regard individual rights as pre-eminent and partly because they understand that, particularly in the world of human affairs, people seldom know enough to be absolutely certain of their judgements. They are averse to orthodoxies. But identity politics is an ascendant orthodoxy: its votaries habitually deny people with alternative views the right to speak, using the methods of the people they say they oppose in order to get heretics sacked, and books and arguments censored. And they do so not just because they get carried away but because they think that it is the right thing to do. Hurt feelings trump freedom of speech. A history of oppression trumps open debate. Identity politics is thus the biggest challenge to liberalism’s commitment to free speech and diversity of opinion since the red scare of the 1950s.”

The essay on the whole has more nuance than most political writing these days.

I'm going to provide running commentary on the article. I'm a little lost about the European dynamics of the local and national vs. liberalization but this stuck out for @timschochet "Populism is as much a protest against being insulted as it is a protest against stalled economic growth."

The subsequent paragraph: 

"They need to do as much as possible to promote local self-government. Britain stands in particular need of this. In the golden age of 19th-century laissez-faire, Britain was one of the most diversified and decentralised countries in the world: London was just one great city among many. Birmingham and Liverpool were two of the greatest jewels in the British Empire. But the age of neo-liberal triumphalism coincided with the age of concentration of power in London. London-based government has sidelined local government. The London economy has thrived while the regional economies have withered. The Brexit revolt was as much a revolt of the provinces against the city—and thereby of conservative-minded Country against the cosmopolitan Court—as it was a revolt against Europe."

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Tocqueville focused on the evils of the bureaucratic state, with its addiction to rational arrangements and indifference to human variety. His book, “Democracy in America”, is a hymn as much as anything to small-town America: the America of local town meetings where everybody was given a chance to express their opinions and shape local politics. Tocqueville was also obsessed by the homogenising potential of mass society. He worried that a world bereft of a taste-making aristocracy and dedicated to the theoretical proposition of human equality would reduce people to the level of undifferentiated atoms: mediocre narcissists who, in their determination to exercise their rights, reduced themselves to the level of equal dependency on an all-powerful state."

Nice. And Tocqueville worried about purely free speech, too, as I've pointed out many times in these threads.   

Share this post


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

In the very same way, I think Trump's "America First" populism was as much a revolt by the heartland of America against the coasts as it was a revolt against globalization.

I agree.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In the end identity politics is not only incompatible with liberalism but positively repugnant to it. The essence of liberalism lies in individualism: liberals believe, along with Benjamin Constant, that “there is a part of human existence that remains of necessity individual and independent, and which lies of right utterly beyond the range of society”. Liberals certainly need to do more to address structural constraints on individual self-fulfilment. But they need to address these constraints as a means to an individualist rather than a collectivist end. By contrast identity politics is obsessed with the collective. It makes a fetish of biological characteristics such as gender, race or sexuality. It encourages people to identify with groups rather than stand out from the crowd. It submerges individuality into some broader sense of identity. It also encourages people to argue that rational arguments are subordinate to questions of identity: white men are asked to “check their privilege” while non-white men frequently invoke their race or gender (“speaking as a black woman) as a way of winning arguments. The price of wokeness is the re-racialisation and re-biologisation of public discourse."

This reminds of Tom Wolfe, who pointed out in the Mauve Gloves Reader that one could always be assured that after identifying one's self within a group that you could be sure to hear the word "I." 

As a [blank], I...

:thumbup:

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old free speech thread, I mentioned how the Southern Poverty Law Center had an admirable history, but seems to have gone kind of nuts recently, classifying moderate, reasonable, honorable people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as dangerous extremists.

They've finally apologized to Nawaz and are writing him a $3.375 million check.

As far as I know, they have not yet retracted their statements about Hirsi Ali.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

In the old free speech thread, I mentioned how the Southern Poverty Law Center had an admirable history, but seems to have gone kind of nuts recently, classifying moderate, reasonable, honorable people like Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali as dangerous extremists.

They've finally apologized to Nawaz and are writing him a $3.375 million check.

As far as I know, they have not yet retracted their statements about Hirsi Ali.

Yeah, that's good. Now for Ali. She's an atheist who was genitally mutilated. I hate to type those words, but it's what she claims [I think].

They won a defamation suit? 

Sounds like SPLC went really batty.  

"Quilliam and Mr. Nawaz were represented by Tom Clare, Libby Locke, and Megan Meier of Clare Locke LLP, a boutique law firm specializing in defamation litigation.  To see the settlement agreement negotiated with the SPLC, click here."

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't subscribe to the WSJ, so I can't read this. Reason's Robby Soave comments on it here. Apparently, the ACLU is weighing a possible change to its internal guidelines about which First Amendment cases it will take. The change would give lower priority to speech that is racist, sexist, etc. Soave suspects that the ACLU's leadership wants to remain a pro-First Amendment organization, but they also want to avoid alienating young progressives who view free speech protections as mostly protecting hate speech. So they may compromise a bit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

1. download/install/open Google Chrome.
2. Ctrl-Shift-N
3. paste link from Wall Street Journal and hit Enter.

I think that works for NYT and WaPo, but not WSJ. (I think NYT and WaPo lock you out if you have the wrong cookies, while WSJ locks you out unless you have the right cookie.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I think that works for NYT and WaPo, but not WSJ. (I think NYT and WaPo lock you out if you have the wrong cookies, while WSJ locks you out unless you have the right cookie.)

mmmmmm.....cookies.....

Share this post


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

I don't subscribe to the WSJ, so I can't read this. Reason's Robby Soave comments on it here. Apparently, the ACLU is weighing a possible change to its internal guidelines about which First Amendment cases it will take. The change would give lower priority to speech that is racist, sexist, etc. Soave suspects that the ACLU's leadership wants to remain a pro-First Amendment organization, but they also want to avoid alienating young progressives who view free speech protections as mostly protecting hate speech. So they may compromise a bit.

I agree with this stance and have been bothered that it took this long to get there.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Who Wrote the Opinion, and What Was the Vote Breakdown?

The Chief Justice wrote the opinion. It was a 5-4 decision, with the Chief joined by the four liberal-leaning Justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor). The four remaining Justices dissented (Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch). Each of the four dissenters wrote their own dissents, which may explain why the opinion took so much time.<<

Good analysis here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2018 at 0:42 PM, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't subscribe to the WSJ, so I can't read this. Reason's Robby Soave comments on it here. Apparently, the ACLU is weighing a possible change to its internal guidelines about which First Amendment cases it will take. The change would give lower priority to speech that is racist, sexist, etc. Soave suspects that the ACLU's leadership wants to remain a pro-First Amendment organization, but they also want to avoid alienating young progressives who view free speech protections as mostly protecting hate speech. So they may compromise a bit.

Saw this the other day and thought of this thread. 

So what use is the ACLU to me, now? What's Hecuba to him, or him to Hecuba?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Michael Moore will be coming out with an anti-Trump movie just before the election.

- I mention this here because this is precisely the kind of speech that Citizens United could potentially halt if it was ever overturned.

There's no "potentially" about it.  This is literally exactly what prompted the Citizens United case in the first place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Moore also said in the post: “I know Roseanne. I know Trump. And they are about to rue the day they ever knew me.”

I'll bet there are lots of people who rue the day they knew Michael Moore.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'll bet there are lots of people who rue the day they knew Michael Moore.

Certainly a gadfly. How truthful is another issue. Made a house bet on Trump, though, and came out a winner.  

Share this post


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

There's no "potentially" about it.  This is literally exactly what prompted the Citizens United case in the first place.

Just to clarify- this film would supposedly come out in September 2018, right?  Trump isn't on the ballot in 2018.  Does this alter the Citizens United analysis at all? Would it still be protected from the law that the decision struck down because it's not "electioneering" w/r/t a candidate within X days from that candidate facing election?  I honestly don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Trump/WaPo thing, the irony is they do feature editorials from former generals who function as actual lobbyists for weapons manufacturers, often promoting militarism without disclosing how it stands to enrich their employer.  I doubt it rises to the level of having to register as a lobbyist, but it is a huge conflict that they never disclose.  

Democracy Dies in Darkness

Share this post


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

Just to clarify- this film would supposedly come out in September 2018, right?  Trump isn't on the ballot in 2018.  Does this alter the Citizens United analysis at all? Would it still be protected from the law that the decision struck down because it's not "electioneering" w/r/t a candidate within X days from that candidate facing election?  I honestly don't know.

From Citizens: An electioneering communication is defined as “any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication” that “refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office” and is made within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. §434(f)(3)(A). The Federal Election Commission’s (FEC) regulations further define an electioneering communication as a communication that is “publicly distributed.”

I'm shuked. Is Trump a candidate? Or is he a sitting official?

Jeebus. Words and concepts are so up for grabs. Not Bs'ing. I don't know what they'd rule, either.  

Share this post


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

On the Trump/WaPo thing, the irony is they do feature editorials from former generals who function as actual lobbyists for weapons manufacturers, often promoting militarism without disclosing how it stands to enrich their employer.  I doubt it rises to the level of having to register as a lobbyist, but it is a huge conflict that they never disclose.  

Democracy Dies in Darkness

Can you link to this?  Every WaPo editorial I've ever seen describes the person's current employment.

  • Like 1

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.