The left's attack on freedom of speech. Poll.

Do you think the left has recently been pushing against freedom of speech?

  • Yes, they have.

    Votes: 2 50.0%
  • No, they have not.

    Votes: 2 50.0%

  • Total voters
    4
Status
Not open for further replies.
Have you guys noticed the increasing incidences of attacks on freedom of speech from the left? Some on news networks call right wing people they disagree with nazis and white supremacists who's ideas should be disregarded. They won't tell you what makes them nazis/white supremacists though, they'll just say they support trump therefore they want white supremacy. Half of the population of America who voted for trump are apparently white supremacists, despite those same people electing a black man for 8yrs. Others take it up a notch and use violence against trump supporters and justify their actions by claiming they're nazis out to genocide people of color. There is not clearer example if this than the raise of ANTIFA, most news networks dismiss antifa as a bogus boogie man the right has invented and refuse to cover attacks by ANTIFA. It's insane. What do you think?
This attack on freedom to say what you wish to say is no where as visible as it is across colleges, constant shut down of republican speakers. Constant attacks on audiences who pay to hear the speaker.
It's a basic freedom. Let people say what they want to say. You disagree with their views we understand, but that doesn't mean you have a right to make them shut up. It's really not asking much, let people say what they wish to say. Freedom of speech is a delicate balanced right. If you restrict frieedom of speech from others, tomorrow it will be restricted from you.

"I might not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to death for your right to say it."
 
Have you guys noticed the increasing incidences of attacks on freedom of speech from the left? Some on news networks call right wing people they disagree with nazis and white supremacists who's ideas should be disregarded. They won't tell you what makes them nazis/white supremacists though, they'll just say they support trump therefore they want white supremacy. Half of the population of America who voted for trump are apparently white supremacists, despite those same people electing a black man for 8yrs. Others take it up a notch and use violence against trump supporters and justify their actions by claiming they're nazis out to genocide people of color. There is not clearer example if this than the raise of ANTIFA, most news networks dismiss antifa as a bogus boogie man the right has invented and refuse to cover attacks by ANTIFA. It's insane. What do you think?
This attack on freedom to say what you wish to say is no where as visible as it is across colleges, constant shut down of republican speakers. Constant attacks on audiences who pay to hear the speaker.
It's a basic freedom. Let people say what they want to say. You disagree with their views we understand, but that doesn't mean you have a right to make them shut up. It's really not asking much, let people say what they wish to say. Freedom of speech is a delicate balanced right. If you restrict frieedom of speech from others, tomorrow it will be restricted from you.

"I might not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to death for your right to say it."
You make a mistake by equating freedom of association with freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech in most constitutions is limited to a negative right against government interferences, most times to a formal protection (against censorship) but not against material liability.

All persons have freedom of association, and when non-governmental agencies and their constituents makes the decision to not hire certain speakers it does not violate freedom of speech, which is only directed at government.

The only time when freedom of association may violate freedom of speech is in election coverage of parties, and as such your examples fail to materialize any breach of the freedom contained in freedom of speech.
 
You make a mistake by equating freedom of association with freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech in most constitutions is limited to a negative right against government interferences, most times to a formal protection (against censorship) but not against material liability.

All persons have freedom of association, and when non-governmental agencies and their constituents makes the decision to not hire certain speakers it does not violate freedom of speech, which is only directed at government.

The only time when freedom of association may violate freedom of speech is in election coverage of parties, and as such your examples fail to materialize any breach of the freedom contained in freedom of speech.
I agree that non-federally funded private agencies/companies have a right to hire who they want, but that is not what I wrote about above. The example I gave of the left trying to violate conservatives freedom of speech was about public colleges which are federally funded via tax payer money.This is a violation of the first amendment.
 
I agree that non-federally funded private agencies/companies have a right to hire who they want, but that is not what I wrote about above. The example I gave of the left trying to violate conservatives freedom of speech was about public colleges which are federally funded via tax payer money.This is a violation of the first amendment.
No, it is not. A college is not an integral part of the government. Instead it is a private organization with state funding and a for-profit one, which is different from a government that is not for-profit. This scheme it is also pratical to ensure freedom of scientific research.

Secondly not hiring specific speakers is not a violation of freedom of speech, it only becomes a breach once material is subject to censorships or special approval before it becomes public. You've misunderstood the meaning of freedom of speech.

Thirdly funding does not mean an organization is a part of government, look at planned parenthood. Wether such colleges should continue recieving federal funding because they show political bias is a legitmate question but it comes problematic when christian/conservative school also use same tactics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trending

Top