A violation of the first amendment?
Posted by LennoxStudios 5 years, 5 months ago to Government
I've seen a lot in recent times about "hate speech" and people being offended. As such posts on different social media platforms are being deleted and accounts banned. Is this not a violation of the freedom of speech? Is it not unconstitutional?
The reason is that only the government can violate freedom of speech.
Private enterprise (like social media) has every right to ban, kick, de-platform, etc.
That IS free speech and to try and stop them using the government, as many conservatives are sadly suggesting, would be an actual violation of free speech. Along with many other rights.
Private establishments used to post signs saying they can refuse service to anyone, but that no longer holds true, and lawsuits have been successful in punishing establishments who've refused service to law abiding customers as an act of discrimination. Case in point: the Colorado baker sued for not baking a cake celebrating gay marriage. He won that case as a violation by the state of his religious freedom. However, he only won because the Colorado board that oversaw charges of rights violations made blatantly antireligious statements for the record.
Some states have considered abolishing gun free zones created by private entities as a violation of the 2nd amendment, but no one has so far enacted any legislation to that effect. I suspect they've left that one alone for fear state government might be challenged for gun free areas they establish. Lawsuits against the principle of gun free zones I suspect would fail because the SCOTUS has declared it lawful to establish "prudent" refinements to the conditions under which bearing arms is lawful.
Perversely, back in the 1960s, students at Berkeley were successful in a suit against the college for its obscenity laws as a violation of free speech. Now the students want any non-progressive speech banned by the same university.
Ethnicity, race, 'hate speech', and 'discrimination' laws all violate the rights of the individuals they control. Don't accept their statist premises.
You can read Ayn Rand's analysis in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, especially "The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion'". and much more.
I agree with you actually although I would Find a different argument than that
Free speech deals specifically with the issue of state controlling what you can or can't say.
Murder is completely unrelated and is not in any way analogous to the issue of free speech.
Whether or not it is proper to "stand on principle" depends on what the principle is and how it is being applied. Correct principles should always be followed.
There is no (proper) principle that says not to vote or to always vote, but if you can't support any of the candidates then it is proper to not vote. If you don't support any of the candidates but it makes a difference who wins then it is proper to vote to stop the worst. That is not a violation of principle because principles are to be applied in context for living, not following duties.
Shapiro attempts to reduce Ayn Rand's significance to politics, denounces the philosophy as "garbage". Early this year he said there are "very few expositors of capitalism who I think are better than Ayn Rand” but “as far as her life philosophy, and her relationship philosophy, I think that’s pretty garbage. I don’t think Objectivism applies in personal relationships.”
Substituting on the Mark Levin Show of August 10, 2017, in a segment Shapiro called "talking deep philosophy", he calls faith the "foundation of science" and claims that "if you lose faith, science becomes nothingness, becomes solipsism, becomes examination of your own belly button". I have that podcast and the transcript of Shapiro "talking deep philosophy", but it doesn't seem to be online anymore.
That segment is one of the reasons that I refer to conservatives today as the religious and politically illiterate arm of the left wing. Shapiro simply has no idea.
Deep philosophy!
I will watch levin some more. They are both good on current events but the philosophy stuff I will ignore
Better than Schumer and Pelosi and the bunch of millennial socialists whose philosophy is based on emotion and no reason at all
He uses reasoned argument in many aspects of politics, but as an advocate of faith he is no defender of reason philosophically and is incapable of defending the rights of the individual. In 2015 he said:
"Where do these unalienable rights come from? These inviolable rights, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? They don't come from man, they don't come from the collection of men we call government. These are rights, you're born with these rights. They don't come from reason. They don't come from logic. They are. Period."
That is pure "intrinsicist" mysticism.
But he sets himself up for defeat by collectivists who could just claim that other rights just “are”, like universal health care etc
Think about it, what Shapiro et al advocate is religious/traditionalist collectivism and that's not an alternative to the secular versions of collectivism from the Schumer and Pelosi's of the world.
But at least Schumer and Pelosi aren't claiming to be an alternative to the left.
More and more I think the conservatives are actually doing more harm than good.
The more money the leftists get, the more they take away our freedoms.
It's not hate unless followed with a punch in the face!
But since it is the left doing it, it is considered legitimate.
CNN is suing the WH to reinstate Acosta's status.
He has clearly been a rude promoter of hate about everything the president does. But that does not make CNN think that the WH was right banning him.
I hope at least they put him in the BACK of the room and FOR GAWD's sake don't call on him!
It is not clear to me how that applies.
The judge was appointed by Trump.
It is obvious that the judicial system acts as if they were in control of the country.
Also, this is just a preliminary ruling, not a verdict, so it results in the re-issuance of the pass, but that doesn't make it forever. Time will tell. And -Fifth amendment? Nuts.
Let him scream but ignore him.
Then they can sue for being ignored. Is that a Constitutional violation?
A-ha! Here's how seating is determined:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/he...
this is an old article, but go ahead and read down a bit, and you will find this: "Though President Trump has gone on the attack against organizations like CNN and The New York Times, labeling them "fake news" in response to unflattering stories that often depend on leaks, the White House has allowed the WHCA to choose the seating chart for the past two administrations."
I had a feeling - now confirmed - that the plot was a LOT thicker than I figured. That's true in almost everything political, isn't it? Nevertheless, it doesn't explain why they continue to call on Acosta. I'm sure there's a reason for that I don't understand, either!
I bet the WHCA is studded with Obama appointees with predictable outcome.
Even though there is a seating arrangement according to ratings (CNN is at the bottom so why is it in the front row?) the "rules" say nothing about being called on.
I'd love to see the self-congratulatory smirk disappear from the face of this bully when he is being shunned.
If a person is grounded in the truth, no form of speech can turn him/her into a snowflake. It is merely an excuse for censorship.
The libs are saying tht people with uncontrollable emotions will be hurt by words. Maybe they should learn how to deal with their emotions.
Call Judge Jeanine a murderer and see how much that distresses her- she would probably just consider you crazy and that would be the end of it.
"Words" have meaning and implications in reality, which if put into practice can hurt you, which is why ideas matter. Spreading false ideas as libel or for a "sticks and stone" purpose in action while denying your right to freedom of speech to respond is a deadly combination that shouldn't be dismissed with a child's nursery rhyme.
That doesn't mean you should or should be allowed to poke someone in the eye every time he says something you don't like, and it doesn't justify the left's suppression of freedom of speech on principle against those who contradict or who do not pander to their political correctness, multiculturalism and politics. Freedom of speech is important because ideas and thinking for yourself are important. That leftists -- like most of those at Google and Facebook -- have the same right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that what they say and promote shouldn't matter to us.
The logic of leftists is that words (emotionally) hurt and even kill people. They look to the past to determine this. With this excuse they seek to stop people from speaking words that they see could (emotionally) hurt or killed people. They have their morally superior excuse to prevent their targets from speaking by any means necessary. They even stop certain books from being read or published.
Imagine the world were a book was never published called, The Communist Manifesto? The leftist imagines a world where wrong words are never spoken, published, read, or thought.
It bothers me somewhat that the government actually knows who we are and where we live when we vote. Can’t they then single out all people for “special treatment” based on voting? They have the information after all
https://pix11.com/2018/11/02/proposed...
Wasnt being freiendly with jews in nazi germany sufficient reason to have the SS visit you?
https://www.senate.gov/reference/reso...
Ayn Rand's "Global Balkanization" on the 'ethnicity' movement, and a good essay by Peter Schwartz, "Multicultural Nihilism", are both in the expanded edition of Ayn Rand's The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution. https://www.amazon.com/Return-Primiti...
Two books worth reading specifically on Indian history are
1. Tom Bowden's The Enemies of Christopher Columbus 2003, which provides an exceptional philosophic overview of pre-colonial and colonial Indian history https://estore.aynrand.org/p/465/enem...
https://www.amazon.com/Enemies-Christ...
2. James A. Clifton, ed, The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government Politics 1990, which is a collection of articles by professionals in Indian affairs debunking the academic trends and government policies. https://www.amazon.com/Invented-India...
Recent scholarship on the history of the American Constitution has uncovered some interesting insights into the role that various Native American tribes may have had on the formation of the Constitution. James Mann, one of the leading writers on this topic, has stated the following with regards to this provocative Constitution/Native American connection:
So vivid were these examples of democratic self-government [from colonial Indian history] that some historians and activists have argued that the [Indians'] Great Law of Peace directly inspired the American Constitution. Taken literally, this assertion seems implausible. With its grant of authority to the federal government to supersede state law, its dependence on rule by the majority rather than consensus and its denial of suffrage to women, the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law. But in a larger sense the claim is correct. The framers of the Constitution, like most colonists in what would become the United States, were pervaded by Indian images of liberty.
Skeptics of course point out that the overwhelming majority of written material from the Founders present at the Constitutional Convention contains nothing of their debates regarding the Iroquois Indians. In addition, there are no records or written documents from the Iroquois Confederacy that could substantiate any claim as to their similarities with the government established in the Constitution. With that said, keep in mind two things: first the surviving written record of the Constitutional Convention is relatively small -- most of which is found in the writings of James Madison. The delegates agreed to keep it as such in order to protect the "legacies" of the various participants. Second, the Iroquois Confederacy was predominantly illiterate, meaning that a search for a written historical document would prove futile. However, if oral history is taken into account, some scholars of the Iroquois argue that the confederation they established has a very close resemblance to the Constitution.
Your dismissive attitude is annoying. Why don’t you knock that chip off your shoulder.
The truth doesn’t care what you say or think. The truth is the minds of many , all who had participated in framing the constitution were individuals bringing their wisdom and knowledge together.
That included the reality around them and expiriences observed by each individual. As well as their studies.
Truth is correspondence between an assertion and the facts, not the "minds of many".
Your angry personal attacks do not belong here.
What Dobrien meant to convey was, "The truth is that many helped to author the constitution."
Iroqouis and dispute that. I am not an expert on them. That doesn’t mean scholars of Iroqouis don’t argue of a close resemblance.
A strained attempt to force a "resemblance" without regard to essentials, context, and what else anywhere can also be similarly imagined as "resemblance", is not scholarship and is not all that you and Herb wrote that I rejected.
This began with Herb's preposterous and sweeping claim that "the framers based their rules of the country on an Indian tribe that had many years of peaceful prosperity" (the last of which is standard euphemism for 'noble savage' rhetoric misrepresenting the characteristic continuous tribalist wars and subjugation of individuals in primitive tribes). You began by defending it: "This influence by the Iroquois is noted by congress". You linked to a Democrat 1988 "Congressional Resolution", as if that is the standard of history, which was radical left propaganda pandering to multiculturalism and balkanization (the text of which implies a radical ethnic theory of tribal sovereignty that does not exist within this country).
You also wrote "the Constitution as originally enacted was not at all like the Great Law" and then contradicted yourself: "But in a larger sense the claim is correct. The framers of the Constitution, like most colonists in what would become the United States, were pervaded by Indian images of liberty." Indian "images" and ideals were primitive tribalism, not individual liberty, and the ideas of the framers of the Constitution and the colonists were not "pervaded" by Indians' "images".
The lack of evidence for the preposterous contradictory speculations was explained away by saying evidence would be impossible: "the Iroquois Confederacy was predominantly illiterate, meaning that a search for a written historical document would prove futile." Lack of evidence left by illiterate primitives is not evidence, and neither is the lack of evidence of the alleged fundamental influences on the literate framers and colonists. It does not become plausible by its impossibility and a romanticized "oral tradition".
You then tried to argue for taking all this seriously as "wisdom and knowledge" by obliquely referring to contradictory "debates" and "discussions" ranging from Locke to the Bible -- as if all such "debates" and "discussions" have equal validity -- and merged them all together with the claim that "The truth is the minds of many". It is not. Contradictory "minds of many" are not facts and not the standard of truth, and neither are romanticized speculations that primitives were the source for "the rules of the country". Rejecting all of it is not a "chip on a shoulder" whether or not you find the dismissal of the preposterous to be "annoying".
You keep grandstanding here by posting dissertations that are useless collections of words that make sense only to you.
You seem to be enjoying yourself in your haughty superiority against the unwashed.
Remember, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication".
I have no doubt that your extensive erudition extends to identifying the author of these words.
It is an opinion on your post which is what the guidelines postulate: reply to the contents of the writer.
That is exactly what it was.
Simply stating facts.
REMINDER: Attack the argument, not the man. NO AD HOMINEM.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...
REMINDER: Attack the argument, not the man. NO AD HOMINEM.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...
If I am attracted by the Mormon religion’s concerns with family or preparedness, it doesn’t mean I blindly believe in the rest of their dogma.
Most cultures incorporate some rational thinking in varying percentages. Doesn’t mean just because a different culture thought of it that we need to discount it
But in the multicultural world of ethnicity over logic anything goes, and the "anything" does nothing to help understand the ideas that made this country possible and what it will take to restore it. That won't come from its opposite in the "return of the primitive". https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... You would have thought that this could be discussed seriously on an Ayn Rand forum without the outbursts of emotional hostility and personal denunciations.
Not sure how one brings that back now. Maybe a revolution to escape the shackles of collectivism will be the spark. Interesting thought how we can rekindle the spirit that started this country when so many people are beholden to the idea government control. The world is so different now.
American colonists were accustomed to much more freedom despite the nominal British rule -- they already had a "fire of independent thinking" as a common attitude. At the beginning of the break in response to British ratcheting up the controls and taxes, they still intended to remain as part of Britain with the "rights of Englishmen". England cracked down and that was the beginning of the end for British rule. It lit a fire, but they already had the intellectual fuel and were not about to give it up.
As for us now, it takes the same kind of sweep of ideas of reason and individualism as the Enlightenment, but better formulated and developed (Ayn Rand) in response to the centuries of the intellectual counter Enlightenment. Appeal to what is left of the American sense of life to stop the worst of the socialists and otherwise spread the right ideas for the longer term and to buttress the current resistance.
Britain is far worse off, already succumbing to socialism long ago under the intellectual pounding of the Fabians. Their economy is in bad shape and people are suffering under the British socialized medicine and more. But there is little resistance because most of them are too frightened to break with the collectivism they now take for granted. And that is already happening here.
Lawyer and talk radio show host Mark Levin (formerly of the Justice Dept under Reagan and Meese) seems to be the leading conservative intellectual spokesman now. He can be very good on daily political analysis but mixes freedom with religion and welfare statism, and has a bad tendency to yell and belittle people. He occasionally mentions Ayn Rand but not in any fundamental way in contrast to the way he lauds Bill Buckley, etc. He has recommended and quotes from Ayn Rand's Return of the Primitive several times (and he's getting closer to pronouncing her name correctly.)
Bill O'Reilly has never impressed me as anything other than everyone's pompous Victorian grandfather, with no philosophical value at all. Ben Shapiro is a bright but snarky young conservative belligerent who vastly overrates his own philosophical understanding, is antagonistic towards Ayn Rand's philosophy that he does not understand, and frequently gets things dead wrong while he basks in imagined intellectual silver bullets.
Someone recently recommended One America's News Network https://www.oann.com/ as an independent news source, but its cable availability is limited and I haven't seen it.
The best source of 'inside' political news and information (though not particularly philosophical) is to ally with grass roots activists with a record for being a major influence in some specific area (like property rights) and who know what they are doing and talking about, even though most people have never heard of them. They tend to be from the better conservatives.