What should be considered free speech? (read description)?

Protest vs. Free Speech?
Protest vs. Free Speech?

So we have yet again been reminded of the football player kneeling by that Nike advertisement.

Now I have a question.

The logic behind the outrage is that what he did is disrespectful to our troops and our country.

Yet we also have people who fly a NAZI flag on their lawn, and when neighbors approach them about it, they claim to be protected under their right to free speech.

Now obviously if the football player started waving a Nazi flag during the national anthem in a football setting, most people would be pissed.

So let me ask my question.

People yell "You ungrateful spoiled bastard! " when some football player kneels during the national anthem, because it's disrespectful to American troops right?

Then why do people proceed to yell "Free speech!" when a person has a flag on their lawn that is responsible for not only killing hundreds of thousands US troops and 11 million Jews and other none Aryans in concentration camps?

Who do we want to have free speech? When do we think protesting is Okay?
Answer if you will, in a civil manner.
Updates:
Well damn I didn't expect this to be featured.

A lot of different opinions I see.

Keep a discussion goin'!

3|4
30117

Most Helpful Girls

  • What a fantastic question, hitting the nail on the head, showing all kinds of hypocrisy. Now, I realize this is a highly American issue which doesn't involve me per se, more than the frustration of watching it from a far, without the tools to make a change or help people Think.

    Both are considered free speech. And they should. We have freedom of speech however we don't have freedom of consequences.

    To kneel on a day when the world is watching was a superb choice of timing and his action is winning all the publicity it needs. Police brutality SHOULD be looked upon. That should be EVERYONE's interest. He did a PEACEFUL non-violent protest against VIOLENT law enforcement.

    However, instead of giving the action a thought, and understanding it's point - most people against it, discuss it as a disrespect to the nation. You know, from a distance, all I see is him pointing fingers to something that SHOULD be a disrespectful act to the nation.
    Police brutality.
    Are you then saying that police brutality ISN'T an act of disrespect to the nation?

    I fail to find any wrongs in his doing. Having a proud Nation is all fine and dandy, but police brutality isn't anything to be proud of. That whole cultural thing is mindless to me. How can THAT be ok?

    I live in a country where free speech is a thing. Freedom of speech is regulated in three parts:
    - Fundamental Rights and Freedoms protects personal freedom of expression "whether orally, pictorially, in writing, or in any other way".
    - Freedom of the Press Act protects the freedom of printed press, as well as the principle of free access to public records (Principle of Public Access) and the right to communicate information to the press anonymously. For a newspaper to be covered by this law, it must be registered and have a "legally responsible publisher", meaning a person who is ultimately accountable for the printed material.
    - Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression extends protections similar to those of Freedom of the Press Act to other media, including television, radio and web sites.

    Hate speech laws prohibit threats or expressions of contempt based on race, skin color, nationality or ethnic origin, religious belief or sexual orientation.

    Speaking one's mind can be communicated without immature insults and shit throwing. We're not children.
    I do appreciate Beto O'Rourke's brilliant answer to this question. Check it out :)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGWmh-maevk

    3|4
    1|1
  • Freedom of speech means the law can't stop it. Your boss can if it's on company time. Having freedom of speech means you have the right to say what you choose and not fear legal repercussions, with a few exceptions. It doesn't mean you are sheltered from what people think. No one has said kneeling should result in arrest. And, as much as we'd like it to, the nazi flag thing won't result in jail time either.

    You're protected from the law, not public opinion. People expressing their outrage over it is free speech too.

    1|8
    0|0
    • You should recount. I can provide thousands of examples of people who think athletes who kneel for the US National Anthem should be jailed. Even a cursory examination of Twitter would provide more than enough evidence contrary to your suggestion.

    • Show All
    • So you want people locked up if they deny holocaust. I am one of those that deny it. It's my opinion I dont see why anyone living anywhere must be forced to eat that garbage called holocaust. 20 million Russians died in world war 2. Do you see any Russians being jailed up. Lol wow Jews really Brain washer people.

    • @DaMack999. Who said anyone wanted Holocaust deniers locked up? Go away

Most Helpful Guys

  • Because when right-wingers moan about "free speech", they don't actually mean free speech. They mean "free speech for me and my buddies". Great example from alt-right propaganda minister and partisan hack Ben Shapiro:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ahd2k89sj4

    But even disregarding the things you've already said, their point makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because:
    1. Kneeling is no way a disrespectful action
    2. All US soldiers are doing their job by their own volition. Nobody forces them to sacrifice anything. There is no mandatory conscription like in other countries.
    3. US soldiers have the duty to protect the constitution of the US which... promotes free speech. So to say: "shut up, you're insulting the troops" is actually extremely ANTI-constitution (and anti-American). It is authoritarian.

    And since we're already on it, I'd say sending your troops into completely useless and unnecessary wars is far more disrespectful than kneeling. Before the war in Iraq started, Bush/Cheney used their military budget to let Raytheon build a ridiculously expensive, utterly useless submarine instead of protecting US soldiers by giving them armored vehicles. Why? Because the submarine was more lucrative for Raytheon. They told young men to go fight in some other country where they KNEW those young men would be awaited by road-side bombs and didn't even give them armored vehicles. And Mike Pompeo had the fucking nerve to say: "You can't choose your military, you've got to take the one you have". Yet, has this jackass ever been called out for disrespecting the troops? Oh no. You see, killing US soldiers is totally okay if you're white and a part of the elite. If you're black, all it takes is some kneeling and people will call you disrespectful.

    7|3
    2|7
    • You know Kaepernick's behavior has nothing to do with war, right?

    • Show All
    • Oh so breaking law like nazis do and calling miniority people all sort of names and segregation isn't disrespecting them & not anti American, but to refuse to stand up for the flag as way to protest against injustice is disrespect. Wow.

    • @BlueCoyote Where do you get your facts about Ben Shapiro? Lol
      I could have a long discussion on why police brutality isn't what you make it out to be, but that's a lot of typing and a waste of my time since you wouldn't believe me anyway. My suggestion is to get "facts" from both political sides and make your own decisions.

  • The objection to football players protesting is not simply that they are protesting but that they choose to do so during a time when we should be paying our respects to the flag, our nation, and all of those who have fought to preserve our liberties. If Colin Kaepernick wants to protest after the game, that is his right. But please don't protest during the National Anthem. Having the right to do something does not make it the right thing to do.

    I am not happy about a neighbor flying the Nazi flag but I have no recourse to deter that behavior. I am not happy about NFL millionaires protesting during the National Anthem and there IS something I can do about that, so I will.

    1|3
    1|1
    • Very well put! People seem to be missing the point of free speech. I won't ramble but the bottom line is where do you draw the line. If one fundamental right can be outlawed they all can. The constitution doesn't say government given rights for a reason!

Recommended Questions

Loading...

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 28

  • Oh, because right wingers think only their hate speech should be protected

    10|12
    7|37
    • No way! I believe in your right to say your stupid shit too! How else would I get to criticize it on a public forum?

    • Show All
    • @coralee It's not hard for people to move up.

      Step 1: Get a job to pay for food and apartment with a couple roommates
      Step 2: Take out student loans to go to community college or trade school.
      Step 3: Get a better job thanks to that degree of yours.

      Welcome to the middle class, no social assistance necessary!

      Most people in poverty just can't quite complete step 1 and get off drugs and not have kids.

    • If we set the bar lower to even the playing field what happens? The people that are working their asses off to get ahead are now being punished for doing so. White black unicorn whatever. Those hard working people I could have just worked less hard and still be in the same position. So that kills motivation and incentive. Not to mention I think things like that are inherently racist Prejudice whatever you want to call it by Nature. It says that you cannot succeed in life unless we " assuming you're part of the white majority" lower the bar for you to catch up. to me that's a giant cock slap in the face and yet all those people who want these programs. are running to the people who are being the most racist. Today's Democratic party you almost have to be racist when that's pretty much they're only talking point on how we owe them and we hold them down so they need us to bring them up.

  • Free speech applies to everyone; if it doesn't and you marginalize certain groups of people because of what they believe, speech is not free.

    Free speech is our voice, and if you take a voice away, you become powerless.

    You make it sound like people condemn kapernack more than they do neonazis, and I don't think that's true. Additionally, kapernak didn't just communicate his ideas with words (free speech) he kneeled during the national anthem, which I do think is redundant and disrespectful.

    With free speech, we have the right to offend. Just because someone is offended does not mean other people's rights should be taken away, neonazis included.

    So to answer your questions:

    -Everyone needs to have free speech, or it's not free speech. It's censorship that leads to despotism in the local government.

    -peaceful protesting should always be allowed. People can condemn it, or disagree with it, but it shouldn't be illicit. I feel that's it is a part of free speech. I don't know when protesting is or isn't right, because I don't know what you mean by "right"

    There are many times people like myself disagree with the protestors (i. e. kapernack and the neonazis), but they are humans too, so they should still have the basic rights of free speech and the ability to protest peacefully. However, if protestors begin to harm people and/or property, than they are abusing their right, and should not be allowed to protest.

    So I guess protesting is "right" as long as it's peaceful.

    1|3
    0|0
    • Mho right here.

      I can tell you've taken the time to learn about this. I never knew a lot of female 15 year olds who even had a remote interest in politics. Good work.

    • Show All
    • Clever*

  • Anything is free speech and I support for anything to be expressed even if I disagree with it. I don't believe in there being hate speech since anything you do or say can offend someone. You might be thinking "What about the racists out there?" Most people today don't support it and usually if you let everyone know your a racist you could get your ass kicked, lose your job, suspended or expelled from a college, etc.

    1|4
    0|0
    • Thank you. someone with come sense. i take my hat off to you

    • Show All
    • Nothing another poster that blocked me because i was right about something

  • It's ridiculous that some people got angry over him kneeling. Anything that doesn't encourage someone into violent acts towards other individuals should be considered free speech.

    2|4
    1|1
  • How does "being ungrateful" mean it isn't free speech anymore?
    Also, I was under the impression that vast majority of Americans don't like nazis and will call them the scum of the earth, am I wrong?
    That says nothing about free speech at all.

    1|4
    0|0
    • A majority, sure. But, you need to remember? A lot of good men voted for Trump because he thought they would bring them something special.

      Three types of Trump supporters I have met personally.

      Good men who have families and needed the tax-benefits he would promise - My brother in law, he is a good man and I love him dearly.

      Men who delude themselves into thinking they know something about the economy or the nation and thought Trump would fix it, but the REAL reason they voted for him was that Trump offered these white republican men a place to belong, so they believe. This one is particularly frustrating.

      Men who are just racist assholes.

      I haven't met a neo-nazi yet, I have not met a rich guy who wanted Trump in power, and I have not met a white supremacist yet.

    • Show All
    • @hellionthesagereborn I dont demonize those who disagree with me, but I know you are full of shit. The democrats aren't perfect, but if you're HONESTLY trying to sell me the Republican party, you will have to do much better than bringing up the past and parties switching interests.

    • @Wammu Absolutely you demonize, that was your entire comment was to demonize and misrepresent people who voted for trump (all the swing states that voted for Obama twice also voted for trump yet you where trying to frame it as if the majority of voters where racist (even though we have no statistical data suggesting that and in fact substantial evidence against). As for "selling you" the republican party, no, why would I sell you the republican party? I'm not republican (I have some issues with them as well), to be honest their is no party that represents me (I have issues with all of them, but currently the left has been so extreme and so bigoted (intolerant of others opinions) that they are very much on my "shit list" so to speak, more so then any other group at the moment). I have not sold you anything, I have stated facts. You can disagree with their policies, that's fine (I think their is merit to many of them) but claiming that they are racist is factually incorrect.

  • Everything should be considered free speech unless it’s INTENTIONALLY meant to encourage violence (past, present, future)

    1|7
    0|0
  • Nothing of what you said has anything to do with free speech. You don’t seem to understand the concept of free speech.

    1|6
    0|1
    • Please explain it in your own opinion. What does freedom speech mean to you?

    • @DaMack999

      You act like freedom of speech is some matter of opinion or perception. It’s a well defined constitutional and legal concept.

    • It is also a philosophy. Treating it as a purely as written legal concept is a bit cheap. Copyright is technically a legal concept but people agree on fair use which goes against the letter of the law in favour of the spirit of the law.

  • Well both are technically free speech. As long as the government isn't involved social consequences for your words or beliefs still happpens. That being said I don't think it's disrespectful what Colin did i think people will defend anything if it aligns with their beliefs and attack something different.

    0|4
    0|0
  • We have freedom of speech not freedom of consequences. I thought you liberals hated free speech?

    2|6
    2|5
    • Only when you disagree with them

    • They seem to lack a consistency. We've been saying the same fundamental things for a while, they keep mischaracterizing it and using dirty tactics to discredit. Like CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, etc. And they keep fucking doing it.

  • to be honest there's no true thing as free speech. There's censorship in the media, like in movies and music. Yet people being hateful seems to be a more allowed thing. free speech doesn't mean someone should be a dumbass, smh.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I think its ridiculous how Kaepernick is being punished. he's protesting in a peaceful way yet you have the white supremacist that were in Virginia who ran a lady over and yes the lady he ran over was white just like him. point is they are violent even towards their own if you dont agree with the supremacy

    1|1
    1|5
    • You're talking two totally different things. CK was basically protesting at work. He didn't catch shit for making political comments. If I say, yeah, I'll come in and do my job, but those 9 AM meetings are BS so I'm not going to go to those, how would the boss take it?

    • Show All
    • And this is one of the many reasons democrats will NEVER EVER take the White House back.

    • Dear white people take your pity else where

  • Even Gag doesn't allow us to speak our minds or make jokes. Careful

    0|7
    0|0
  • They only supported free speech when it's for their own convenience

    3|2
    0|3
  • Anything that doesn't hurt anyone else within reason of course because if someone gets upset over you saying you agree with something.
    then that's not something anyone should be upset for.

    0|2
    0|1
  • It's free speech, but that doesn't set you free of consequences.

    1|3
    0|0
    • Speech with government enforced consequences is the exact opposite of the defention of free speech. You could not be more wrong. You basically just said it's a married bachelor.

    • @TacoFamine Did i say the government? I mean other people can say what they want back, people can think what they want of you, and say what they want of you.

  • Well i believe in all around free speech which means as long as your not threating harm then you can say it

    0|4
    0|0
  • Because conservatives are a bunch of sore losers. Only things that support their agenda are tolerated, everyone else is a bunch of snowflakes.

    1|1
    0|5
    • You`re seventeen; you literally know nothing.

    • Show All
    • Well I’m getting bored with you two. I know in my heart you liberals will keep up the rhetoric and get Trump elected again. Muting this question.

    • @kaskas19- that might make sense, if the conservatives had lost- but they WON! So explain how a winner is a sore loser? Lol That’s like telling my black girlfriend she’s a white supremacist! Lol

  • If your ideals can and have harmed someone in the past it shouldn't be protected by the constitution or if they can harm someone now. Like Nazis, the KKK, or anyone who have a history of violence.

    1|0
    0|3
    • What about black lives matter that pesky left wing group that breaks shit every weekend

    • Show All
    • @up_64 Yeah I don't know much about the spectrum side of things but in general I find its better just to ask about specific things than use a whole label as people are more complex than just being right or left. Even something like me with social libertarian is fairly specific but it could give a very different idea to one person than another exactly what that means.

      Honestly I live in a conservative province so I'm the most liberal person I know :P

    • @kiaTate- ok so all you have to do is change the constitution- simple, right? You’re stunningly naive.

  • Free speech is having the freedom to speak your mind, as long as you are not doing it to spread hate, hurt someone or knowingly spreading false facts.

    0|1
    0|1
    • No, unfortunately free speech means expressing your opinions and ideas without risk of government intervention. I''m very liberal and hate Nazis but they have a right to speak out and protest (not run people over and destroy property, which they do).

    • Show All
    • So you're saying the Netherland had laws that prevent people from voicing concerns that may not be 100% politically correct?

      Many places like Sweden (that I believe has similar laws to the Netherlands) are starting to he against refugees because they cost lots of money that the taxes payers have to pay for and it takes money away from helping their own people. + refugees are more likely to break the law. I'm not saying counties shouldn't take refugees, but if people don't want their hard earned money going other people and not their countries citizen they have a right to protest that.

    • If the citizens would educate themselves more before they would protest against something they would know that taking in refugees would actually have advantages for the economy, instead of disadvantages. And no, not being 100% politically correct is something else then purposely degrading a certain group. Voicing concerns about whether the refugees are good for your country is something else entirely than, for example, saying that all Muslim immigrants must leave the country.

  • I think free speech is important. Even views I don’t believe in. If I get the right they should too

    1|2
    0|0
  • Show more from Girls
    8

What Guys Said 115

  • No idea. This seems to mostly be an American thing. I don't see why doing anything or not doing anything during a national anthem is a big deal. Its not like he was slapping his balls off the microphone during a minutes silence.

    5|2
    0|0
  • Pretty sure that both are free speech. Both Kapernick’s protest and the people voicing that they’re pissed off about his protest are legitimate uses of free speech.

    I presume flying a nazi flag would be free speech, but a neighborhood may ban it with HOA rules or something like that.

    The only things I think shouldn’t be protected by free speech would be the trifecta (libel, slander, incitement to violence).

    0|0
    0|0
    • You are missing theft through deceit. Like if I told you, buy this car, it is in perfect working order, and you buy it and it does not work. If I knew that in advance and was purposely lying about it, that is theft through speech. That isn't protected either.

    • Show All
    • @cuteness89 what's the big picture? You want a more authoritarian government?

    • @TacoFamine slander is illegal now, but it’s hard to prosecute for good reason.

  • You make a valid point. I don't criticize him for kneeling. People have the right to freedom of speech in the US. There is one thing that does bother me, though. There are cases where kneeling is a way of showing respect instead of disrespect. It's possible that this could all have been a giant misunderstanding that was blown way out of proportion.

    0|0
    0|0
  • good post and question on the hypocrisy in many people's arguments

    they should both be respected as free speech.

    1|0
    0|0
  • First, anyone displaying Nazi flags on their home or in their yard are moral reprobates and what they are glorifying is evil. But as reprehensible as that is, they are doing that on private property which they presumably own. So unless their flag displays violate some type of city code or property owner's association rules, what they're doing is protected under the First Amendment.
    As for Colin Kaepernick and his ilk, what they were/are doing isn't protected by the First Amendment. It would be if they were protesting on their own time, but that's not what they're doing. No one has a First Amendment right to engage in political protest while they are at work and on their employer's time. Especially so when that protest is antagonizing their employer's customers (the fans who go to the games and those who choose to watch, or not watch, on TV). No other employee could plausibly claim a Constitutional right to engage in political protest while they are at work. And Kaepernick and his compatriots are at work when they are doing their protests. What has been craven about the whole thing is that their employers (the team owners) have allowed this to go on, and that is why they're suffering declines in attendance at games and lower television ratings.

    1|3
    0|0
  • It is not clear that there is a distinction here. There is nothing that says that "free speech" cannot be offensive.

    No one is arguing, in the case of Mr. Kaepernick does not have a right to free speech. If he wishes to kneel on his own front lawn in front of a flag, no one would object. The problem in his case is that he is making his protest on company time, so to speak, and that is hurting the company's bottom line.

    In that context, the company is not obliged to indulge him. Viewed properly, then, this is not an issue of free speech as of employer rights vs. employee rights. You certainly have the right to shout epithets at the top of your voice on the job. Do so, however, and the employer is free to fire you.

    The other problem for Mr. Kaepernick is that his symbol means one thing to him, and something else to others. The problem is that we live in the age of symbology of symbols. A person makes the "ok" sign at a Congressional hearing and - mutatis mutandis - that becomes a white power symbol.

    Again, Mr. Kaepernick is free to express himself as he wishes and to interpret that expression as he will. However, he has no control over how others read his expression. That is the danger of substituting - as this culture is too won't to do - symbolism for reasoned argument.

    Suffice to say, the issue here was context and not free speech. Mr. Kaepernick and his allies chose to define it that way, for obvious reasons, but boiled down to its essentials this was a question of union/management relations and not any constitutional question of free speech.

    Free speech may be offensive - so long as it is not libel, slander or incitement. There is, then, at that level, no contradiction here.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Agreed, I’d just add the caveat that the only speech that needs to be protected is offensive speech.

    • Show All
    • @ladsin Hey, I'll have to use that one!

    • It was one of the most frequent phrases thrown around when I was doing some government construction 😂

  • I dunno how spicy this opinion will sound, but from my perspective, the free speech goes both ways. One can kneel during the anthem, say how much they hate the cops, and whatever. However, I, or anyone else, can become offended and form an opinion against the person’s topic and/or the person themselves. Free speech is (or should be imo) the right to say something without government intervention. I. e. I can say “I hate the US” without being thrown in jail.

    It’s essential to have the caveat though that free speech is not synonymous with consequence-less speech. I can say whatever, but it isn’t like I can’t expect not to get hated for an unpopular opinion or whatnot. We don’t live in a bubble where people can’t reflect their own opinions back.

    I’d actually make the argument that hate speech does not or should not be a concept that exists. I don’t think the government should define what is deemed offensive or not. I think the consequences of someone speaking hate of something should be culturally based instead. I think people have a right to become offended, societally shun whoever they wish to, maybe even refuse business, whatever.

    Regarding your Nazi flag on the lawn reference, I’d firstly say that it is pretty screwed up to have a flag like that/be promoting it. However, I think it is still free speech to have the flag/voice their support. That being said, if they agreed under contract by the neighborhood policy when they got the home, the neighborhood has the right to force removal. The Nazi neighbor waived his right to post something like that when he signed the contract or agreed to a policy. Likewise, the neighbors can hate and refuse to ever help the Nazi neighbor.

    So ultimately, I’d say free speech goes both ways. One can say whatever, but they can also get consequences.

    That is NOT to say I’m condoning protests in the sense of breaking laws like flipping cars, blocking traffic without permit, threatening people, and stuff of the sort. That’s not free *speech*— that’s just violence. It is important to maintain a clear distinction.

    0|0
    0|0
  • @SketchForger I'm not sure, but this is what I believe:

    I've heard a couple different reasons for the outrage. First reason- he is disrespecting the flag of a country that allowed him to make millions of dollars. Second reason- the issue he is protesting doesn't exist. Third reason, his actions are disrespectful to veterans.

    The first and the third are a matter of opinion and the third uses some odd logic- Kaepernick should be grateful to the military seeing as free speech is what allows him to protest. He is not grateful to the military because he is kneeling. But, if he weren't kneeling, he would not be exercising free speech. He should be showing respect to soldiers for fighting for his right to allow him to kneel, but if he kneels he is not showing respect to soldiers. Circular logic. It eats itself.

    The second reason is due, in part, to a Harvard study published a few years ago showing disparity in how African americans were treated by police, but showing no disparity in the number of unarmed white, unarmed black men shot by police. I don't agree with this study, but Harvard is a prestigious academic institution and, unlike other studies which could be said to have "white bias," the professor of this study is black. I don't agree with the study, but I can see why many would.

    Kaepernick's employer can put guidelines in place regarding what he can and cannot do. People can criticize him. The second guy owns the property. People can, and I'm sure do, take him to task for his gross display. If he worked at a cafe and put the flag up, his employer would have every right to fire him. This isn't me defending the guy- I can't even imagine the sort of garbage person that would proudly display that on their house. Abhorrent, uncivil, immoral, evil, etc.

    The constitution outlines what is acceptable and what is not. Nobody likes the Neo-Nazi maniac and the evil ideas he is propping up, but property rights grant him that ability. Some people don't like what Kaepernick is doing and business freedoms allow the NFL to fire him for misconduct. Why not change it? Outside of isolated circumstances it works as was intended and allows society to function as it should.

    I don't have a problem with Kaepernick, whereas I do have a problem with the Neo Nazi. But rights are objective and, while the NFL can fire Kaepernick, the government cannot demand this piece of garbage remove his trash.

    0|0
    0|0
  • It’s a topic I often talk about. The right to be offended can not exist without the right to offend. It’s something that we have forgotten. Causing offense which incits hatred and or violence is something that needs to be shut down however. Criticising religion is one of the toughest nuts to crack. If one is free to practice and evangelise religion, another is free to criticise it. The critic shouldn’t be subjected to death threats and often violence because of it. Can you see the irony?

    To be clear, I can criticise anything I want with civility. Just because I have a voice doesn’t mean people should listen.

    My all time favourite quote is from the British comedian Ricky Gervais

    “Just because you’re offended, it doesn’t mean you’re right”.

    Think about that for a moment. How many times have you yourself found something offensive and thought that you were right because of it? I have, many times. I WAS WRONG. Because you have an opposing opinion and because you are claiming free speech it doesn’t mean your validated.

    The lines are drawn with opinions without facts: they’re useless. Especially in charged topics.

    On g@g we all know that we are asking the personal opinions of people and don’t really (unless specifically asked) require citations of studies etc. In regards to flat earth people and holocaust denial. You have to ignore these people because no matter how many facts you give them: their minds are made up. They are suffering from conformation bias.

    I’ll wrap up my waffle by saying that the liberalism of free speech has swung too far to the left. Saying “I’m offended” now requires a sorry instead of a ”why?”. The far right has jumped on this vacuum and gained shocking amounts of supporters. It abhor both side in regards to this but the far right most of all.

    0|1
    0|0
  • That's not a logical argument. No one is saying a person who is flying a Nazi flag isn't a piece of shit human being (also I would point out that you have plenty of others, mainly out of touch professors and college students who have never been in the real world who fly the USSR flag or wear it on shirts and Stalin killed far more people then Hitler did yet some how people like yourself don't ever question that), what is being said is that both are allowed to do as they wish, but both are pieces of shit, the Nazi for the very obvious reason of them wearing the symbols and having the ideology of a racist socialist, fascist tyrant, and the other because he is ridiculing the very nation that has given him fame fortune, protected him and protected his right to kneel and ridicule it by claiming things that are provably false. Both are protected under free speech laws, that doesn't mean people like it, it doesn't mean that they don't hope that person gets theirs, it just means that the government is not allowed to intervene and prevent that speech. So let me ask you this, why do you think its okay to arrest people who say things you personally don't like? Because that's what is happening in many places in the world, specifically in Europe and Canada, yet we don't hear any one on the left protesting it, primarily because its the left that is doing this. Why are you okay with "protestors" like Antifa claiming people are Nazi's without any kind of evidence and usual substantial evidence to the contrary (like when they called Ben Shapiro a Nazi despite the fact that he is a devout jew) and then using that as an excuse to violently assault, riot, and censor that person/group? Any one who tries to prevent some one from speaking is in the wrong, plain and simple. However that doesn't mean we have to pretend like what they say is valid, Colin Caepernik for instance is claiming that blacks are being mistreated by police even though all statistical data shows that not only is police brutality incredibly rare, even though in every incident that we can see it having happened the police officer in question was at the very least fired, but that in fact police officers are LESS likely to use violence against a black suspect not more even though the black suspect is statistically more likely to resist arrest and more likely to assault the officer and 20% more likely to shoot the officer. No one is saying he can't make the claim, we are just saying he is an idiot for saying it

    0|0
    0|0
  • If I use the n-word should that speech be protected? What if I am playing Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn in a play? I am a strong advocate for free speech, except when the intent is to incite violence. I don’t get to intentionally call a black person the n-word to his face any more than he gets to call me a “cracker”, “home boy”, “momma’s boy” or whatever. If the intent is to incite violence it’s hate speech and it’s a crime. The kneeling issue is a private matter between the NFL and it’s players. The NFL is not a government entity, it is a private league, and makes its own rules. If the leadership decides that players must take the field and cannot kneel for the National Anthem, and they do in defiance, it is stupidity and not free speech. Players are bound by an agreement written between their Union (their leaders) and the leaders of the NFL. If I work for IBM, I don’t get to go around saying “IBM sucks” because I disagree with them providing IT for defense companies or intelligence agencies, or foreign governments. If the players want to kneel in defiance of the rule, the player’s union needs to challenge the rule, and players need to strike or leave the league for the CFL or form their own league if they don’t like it. By the way, the US military pays the NFL millions per year to have the players take the field and stand for the National Anthem, which is how dumb this issue really is. The NFL “pretends” to support the military because they are PAID to! How about the US military spending those millions on better combat gear for soldiers instead!!! How about the NFL just refuse the money and keep the players in the locker room until game time. If a player chooses to come out and STAND FOR the National Anthem, let it be their CHOICE!!! That would project a far better image!!!

    0|0
    0|0
  • The people who dislike football players taking a knee are, overwhelmingly, *NOT* the same people displaying Nazi flags on their lawns. The overwhelming majority of people I know and conservative commentators who I listen to agree that Kaepernick has every right to kneel... AND THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DISLIKE THAT. Furthermore, every single conservative commentator that I listen to would similarly hate seeing a Nazi flag flying on their neighbors lawn (in fact, two commentators I listen to are Jewish), yet they would defend the person's right to display that flag.

    I believe Kaepernick has every right to take a knee. I also believe people have every right to call him whatever names they want to. I also believe my neighbor has every right to display a Nazi flag. I believe I have every right to believe my neighbor is a goddamn fucktard for doing so. I don't have a strong opinion about football players taking a knee. I don't do it, nor would I do it if I were a football player.

    "Who do we want to have free speech?"
    I personally want everyone to have free speech. Here's the thing. Of every single individual I know personally who dislikes football players taking a knee, NOT ONE OF THEM DENIES HIS RIGHT TO DO SO. Not one. The same is true of every single conservative commentator I listen to.

    "When do we think protesting is Okay?"
    That's where things might get a bit tricky. The players are on the clock. When you're working for someone else, it isn't always appropriate to protest. Would you think it's OK for me to stop teaching in the middle of class to protest something? I certainly don't. If the NFL wants their players to stand during the anthem, and they've made it clear in the contract, they have every right to fire them for not doing so. Similarly, if the NFL wants the players to give a Hitler salute while they sing Deutcheland Uber Alles, and they make it clear in the contract, they have every right to fire players for not doing so. On your own time, providing you're not disrupting the business of others, I believe your right to peacefully protest is almost absolute.

    Kaepernick is free to express himself, but that doesn't mean freedom from consequences of doing so.

    "Answer if you will, in a civil manner."
    Why?

    0|0
    0|0
  • Y''know if someone simply states facts, then in my opinion that should never be deemed hate speech, should never be deemed illegal, shameful, bigoted, racist or any such thing. It should certainly not be oppressed. Seriously I believe that oppressing truth is more dangerous than people stating facts that some people might find offensive.

    I have a problem with people being labelled far right, bigot and such for stating facts and using said facts to back up their argument that there are inherent problems in society that need addressing rather than covering up or suppressed due to fear of the scandal and controversy it may cause, offence it may cause, and of course fear of being labelled in such a way by simply allowing that truth to be made public. Most of all I am referring to the rampant epidemic of white and Sikh girls being systematically gang raped by predominantly Pakistani men in every city and the vast majority of towns in the UK. This was suppressed for maybe 20 years and quite possibly more, because of the fear of scandal, controversy, offence, and being deemed a bigot or a racist for simply publicising this factual information.

    The suppression of this truth had catastrophic consequences for multiple generations of female children. So stating facts for a righteous cause, that should never be suppressed because that in itself is highly dangerous. Protection of people, particularly the vulnerable, and supporting the people's rights (ranging from right to drive to right to not be systematically repeatedly gang raped) in an effort to progress to a safer, happier and healthier society should be an immense focus in society.

    Okay I went off on a tangent relating to my passionate opinion on the matter, a particular issue I feel strongly about.

    Talking more about the content of your question, I do think that if someone owns the property, especially if they own the land, it seems kind of wrong to tell them they can't put a certain image there. If they are renting then it's up to the landlord. The issue arises when considering neighbours, and you can theorise that the neighbours are antagonised, perhaps intimidated by that outward expression of their views. It does make me furious that people support or even deny the holocaust, however to be truly fair this is their right to believe this. It's horrible, but we cannot tell people they cannot be anti-semitic. That is a denial of the basic freedom to have your own beliefs and opinions.

    0|0
    0|0
    • The flag is a particularly tricky issue though. Commenting on your comparison I will say that NFL players do not have the degree of free expression, when representing their franchise (employers), that a person has on their own property. Kap was representing a franchise, his employers. He had a code of conduct, he was in the public eye. I think if the 49ers felt they weren't happy with their employees behaving in such a way when representing them, unless otherwise stated in a contractual agreement I would say the 49ers have the right to make that employee redundant.

      Assuming they own the property.. A case can be made that hanging the flag on the exterior of the house is antagonistic, provocative. There is no need for it, but I do think they should be able to hang it inside their house, even on their wall where it could be seen through the window if one approaches the window and looks for it, if they're offended it's their fault for looking through someone else's window.

    • In plain sight on the exterior though, I think this can be seen as taking the freedom of expression for granted, and using it to antagonist and provoke.. I think it's reasonable to ask someone to take it down even on their own property. Except if they're house is on a huge part of land and you can't really see the flag from public property without actively looking for it.

      I hope this doesn't seem like I'm supporting these people, I just think it's important to allow freedom of expression as long as it does not cause actual harm to someone, and to not have double standards.

  • Everyone gets free speech, and everyone deals with the fallout of their choices. No one is calling for the football player to be arrested, they just vehemently disagree with what they've done as a protest.

    It's like flag burning, I understand that you have a legal right to do it as a protest, but I'm going to break your legs for it anyway. And yes I understand I will be in the wrong and be committing the crime, I just dont care lol

    1|2
    1|0
  • Well, both are obviously protected speech under the 1st amendment. The reason people are so pissed at the flag protest is because it actually reflects a mainstream view. Whereas the number of non-troll Nazis in the United States is probably in the double digits.

    In answer to your ending questions, everyone has free speech, period. Protesting is usually a really dickish thing to do, but I wouldn't dream of telling the govt to stop them.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Free speech is supposed to be what it is. From my moral view that is. Uou sould be able to express your self in any way possible without law preventing you or censoring you. I believe it is up to the individual to say it out loud and judge his own safety.

    0|0
    0|0
  • You're messed up seriously to compare a man that has been struggling and is still struggling to some racist bigots who call themselves nationalist. The new term they call themselves in U. S..
    This struggle for black freedom hasn't been brought to the mass media before. Thanks to sports players it's now possible to change people's perception on what race is about in U. S.

    0|0
    0|1
    • I'm actually talking about how nobody actually pays attention to the people who actually are spreading hate through display of a a flag.

    • Show All
    • Kapernick is fighting for a struggle to stop police Brutality. His not struggling lol.

    • He was pissed because he was riding the bench.

  • This is becoming more common, but I think I dig it. You've actually asked multiple questions. I'm going to do my best to answer them all.
    Everything that doesn't result in hurting or killing other people, or taking something from those who would otherwise choose to keep it should be protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution.
    "People yell... it's disrespectful to (US) troops right?" Yep... freedom of speech, and many US veterans support that. Snowflakes can burn.
    For the record, I'm pretty sure most people who cry foul when athletes kneel during the US National Anthem also condemn those who would fly a Nazi flag. Nevertheless, freedom of speech! Snowflakes can go burn!
    Everyone who isn't actually hurting or killing someone, or trying to take something away from someone who otherwise intends to keep their stuff should be protected by the first amendment to the US Constitution.
    Protesting is ALWAYS okay. This too is fully protected by the first amendment. Get over it.
    Unfortunately, we live in an age overly conformed to sensitivities and more overly subject to subjugation. Everyone seems to think everyone who disagrees with them should be censored, while everyone else should be protected by the Constitution. It's fucking disgusting. I only pray that everyone comes to their senses before the next civil war breaks out.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm fine (legally) with flying the Nazi flag and refusing to stand for the national anthem to protest police brutality or wars or whatever your rationale is. Maybe I'll disagree with what you're doing, maybe I'll call you a cunt, maybe I'll boycott your goods and services if I find you to be hateful, but voting with your wallet and having the government come arrest people you dislike are two different acts.

    People who threaten other peoples speech are like, human leeches to me, festering the gaping wounds of hate to kill hosts because there's nothing going on in their lives so they have to try to find meaning by destroying and censoring people.

    Somebody who is a Nazi has a virus in their mind of memetic proportions and fucking with them helps nothing, even if it helps ease the hurt feelings of the people arond them, that sends the message that we live in a remotely fair world where people have the right not to be offended. That's just not realistic.

    Somebody who risks their careers to stand up for causes is already more courageous than the average bear and they should be applauded when its a powerful or rich person sticking up for the poor or persecuted. I kind of think Kaepernicks statement on the issue was a little basic, it kind of frames police brutality as a black people issur rather than a civil righrs issue for all races currently being fucked over by abusive cops, and it did little to suggest solutions or bring up cases like what happened to Eric Garner, but it was still a good thing he did. Even if he was protesting Mondays I still think nobody should be trying to forfe him to stand up just cause, oh, people have died in wars so you could stand up, shut up, and hear the national anthem. They died to give people freedom to stand or sit, at theit discretion, that's how I feel and it's not an uncommon opinion.

    Not saying protesting can't go too far, not saying people aren't disingenuous about conflating rioting with protesting, but non-violent civil disobedience is the most acclaimed cornerstone of our freedom that was bore by sacrifice in protest.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I'm a black male, I'm no fan of Nazis.

    I am also no fan of feminism in its current form.
    Many of the men defending it believe they are chasing equality, the women defending it insist that equality will not be there until they have all the power.

    They also never hold themselves accountable, and resort to name calling and doxxing when things don't go their way.

    Also, I see the word : "incel" get tossed around a lot, but it seems no one really understands WHAT it is.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Show more from Guys
    95

Recommended myTakes

Loading...