4 ms·

You would prefer that, after being beaten up, they were also arrested and convicted of spreading "gay propaganda"? You are intentionally conflating homophobic

You would prefer that, after being beaten up, they were also arrested and convicted of spreading "gay propaganda"? You are intentionally conflating homophobic violence with 1st amendment protections, to make it seem like they didn't have the latter. Please debate more honestly in the future.

bachmeier 6y ago
Traditionally free speech was a 1st amendment issue. In recent years, the term has been used more broadly to mean there should be no consequences of any kind for any form of speech. Consider the examples in the article: > Universities have faced demands to rescind admissions offers for incoming students and discipline professors over disparaging remarks (such as those of a Cornell professor who faulted a protester injured by police officers in Buffalo, N.Y., for not getting out of the way). This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It appears the concern of the author is that people have encouraged universities to take action. > A controversial (and, some said, fascistic) New York Times op-ed piece by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) fed a clamor that cost two top editors their jobs. In this case, readers cancelled their subscriptions because the editors approved a piece that contained misleading information and lies. The editors (not the guy that wrote it) were fired. > Philadelphia Inquirer Executive Editor Stan Wischnowski resigned under pressure — apparently for many reasons, but the proximate cause was an egregious three-word headline equating looted buildings to lost lives. In this case, it's a free speech issue for a private business to fire someone for incompetence. I do wish we'd return to the narrower interpretation as being a 1st amendment issue, but that's not the reality now, and it's not what the article was talking about. Free speech today refers to any negative consequences for expressing your views. I can't think of any recent cases where free speech came up and the 1st amendment was relevant.
- raxxorrax 6y ago
  While mostly true, I think there is a social contract of modern democracies to let people have their opinion, even if it is bigoted and wrong. Don't you think consequences have increased significantly? Associating an employer with the opinion of employees if prejudice itself for example. Not wanting to drive that point of course. Should I be more offensive with my indictments?
- rbecker 6y ago
  I don't understand what the distinction between free speech and the 1st amendment has to do with your point (which I don't think you've explicitly stated, so I'm left guessing). Both state and non-state suppression of gay advocacy would/did impede gay advocacy, just as it today impedes racist ideas, so despite the tone of your post, you don't actually disagree with that? More importantly > Traditionally free speech was a 1st amendment issue. [..] I do wish we'd return to the narrower interpretation as being a 1st amendment issue I strongly disagree. The 1st amendment shields speech from state suppression, but that is not remotely the only threat to free speech - as your example of the guys that got beaten up shows. While the line where people's reactions to speech can be labeled "against free speech" is very blurry, claiming it's only a free speech issue if the government is involved is absurd. I'm sure if Visa and MasterCard refused to do business with anyone that voiced pro-LGBT views, or if social media giants censored those views, you'd agree their ability to speak freely was being limited - the definition of a "free speech" issue.

bachmeier 6y ago

Traditionally free speech was a 1st amendment issue. In recent years, the term has been used more broadly to mean there should be no consequences of any kind for any form of speech. Consider the examples in the article: > Universities have faced demands to rescind admissions offers for incoming students and discipline professors over disparaging remarks (such as those of a Cornell professor who faulted a protester injured by police officers in Buffalo, N.Y., for not getting out of the way). This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It appears the concern of the author is that people have encouraged universities to take action. > A controversial (and, some said, fascistic) New York Times op-ed piece by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) fed a clamor that cost two top editors their jobs. In this case, readers cancelled their subscriptions because the editors approved a piece that contained misleading information and lies. The editors (not the guy that wrote it) were fired. > Philadelphia Inquirer Executive Editor Stan Wischnowski resigned under pressure — apparently for many reasons, but the proximate cause was an egregious three-word headline equating looted buildings to lost lives. In this case, it's a free speech issue for a private business to fire someone for incompetence. I do wish we'd return to the narrower interpretation as being a 1st amendment issue, but that's not the reality now, and it's not what the article was talking about. Free speech today refers to any negative consequences for expressing your views. I can't think of any recent cases where free speech came up and the 1st amendment was relevant.

raxxorrax 6y ago
While mostly true, I think there is a social contract of modern democracies to let people have their opinion, even if it is bigoted and wrong. Don't you think consequences have increased significantly? Associating an employer with the opinion of employees if prejudice itself for example. Not wanting to drive that point of course. Should I be more offensive with my indictments?
rbecker 6y ago
I don't understand what the distinction between free speech and the 1st amendment has to do with your point (which I don't think you've explicitly stated, so I'm left guessing). Both state and non-state suppression of gay advocacy would/did impede gay advocacy, just as it today impedes racist ideas, so despite the tone of your post, you don't actually disagree with that? More importantly > Traditionally free speech was a 1st amendment issue. [..] I do wish we'd return to the narrower interpretation as being a 1st amendment issue I strongly disagree. The 1st amendment shields speech from state suppression, but that is not remotely the only threat to free speech - as your example of the guys that got beaten up shows. While the line where people's reactions to speech can be labeled "against free speech" is very blurry, claiming it's only a free speech issue if the government is involved is absurd. I'm sure if Visa and MasterCard refused to do business with anyone that voiced pro-LGBT views, or if social media giants censored those views, you'd agree their ability to speak freely was being limited - the definition of a "free speech" issue.