6 ms·

you mean hes exercising freedom of speech? Regardless of views, he has that right.

wk_end 11y ago
No one (here, anyway) is trying to take away that right. Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too.
- stinkytaco 11y ago
  >Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too. I sometime feel like people forget this. It comes up every time someone gets dropped by sponsors or their TV network for saying something outrageous (Duck Dynasty, Donald Trump, etc.). Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it. It doesn't mean you get an automatic criticism free platform to say whatever you want. All of us (media owners included) are allowed to make our own assessments or business decisions about it as well.
  - akilism 11y ago
    People only "forget" this when they are trying to be disingenuous about how freedom of speech works.
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    > Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it As I mentioned above, that's overly simplistic to the point of being wrong. Yes, there are statutes in various legal systems throughout history preventing the government from limiting expression. No, that doesn't mean that freedom of speech only exists in that regard.
eropple 11y ago
Man...I'm really, really sick of this lame, lame, lame defense of lousy behavior. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anybody other than the government has to have anything to do with you and doesn't apply to anybody here in their personal judgments of somebody who's choosing to act shitty. And maybe it's just me, but it strikes me that, when the best defense or excuse that you can trot out is that hey, it's actually going to get you arrested to do it, the moral argument is not exactly strong.
- eertami 11y ago
  I agree that it's obviously nothing to do with free speech. But it's entirely disingenuous to claim somebody is acting shitty when writing satirically.
  - eropple 11y ago
    Sure, if you think it's satire. I am intensely skeptical of the idea that it's an attempt at satire--both from reading his stuff and from knowing people in the circles he's traveled in--and have never seen anything to convince me otherwise.
- joshuapants 11y ago
  > Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anybody other than the government has to have anything to do with you and doesn't apply to anybody here in their personal judgments of somebody who's choosing to act shitty. Man... I'm really sick of this lame, lame, lame misunderstanding of free speech. The first amendment of the US Bill of Rights is a legal embodiment (among many others throughout history) of the ideal of free speech, but that's not where it ends. Attempts to shame (or otherwise coerce) unpopular speakers into silence is still a violation of that ideal.
  - eropple 11y ago
    You are wrong both in the textual sense and the historical sense of it. "Freedom of speech" has never in the history of the United States been anything but a governmental restriction; it has never been a moral calling for the citizenry. Nor should it be: while there is a compelling argument for the government's agnosticism with regards to the viewpoints of the citizenry, there is no serious or compelling argument for the citizenry's agnosticism with regards to the viewpoints of each other. Shame is a tool for fixing shitlords or, if they are unfixable, rendering them powerless. It's a good tool. It gets a bad rap when the powerful are powerful no longer, but--strangely enough--never does when the powerful are powerful.
    - joshuapants 11y ago
ruacartoon 11y ago
It's not a ringing endorsement when one's supporters best argument is "it's not illegal to say what he said in this particular point in time and space."
- drunkcatsdgaf 11y ago
  pretty sure we live in this time and space, though.
  - ruacartoon 11y ago
    Pretty sure you're a mouth-breathing moron.
vonklaus 11y ago
Apalled that this was downvoted. Either you are attacking the poster directly or you are against freedom of speech, either way, poor form.

No one (here, anyway) is trying to take away that right. Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too.

stinkytaco 11y ago
>Freedom of speech also means that others have the freedom to criticize that speech, too. I sometime feel like people forget this. It comes up every time someone gets dropped by sponsors or their TV network for saying something outrageous (Duck Dynasty, Donald Trump, etc.). Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it. It doesn't mean you get an automatic criticism free platform to say whatever you want. All of us (media owners included) are allowed to make our own assessments or business decisions about it as well.
- akilism 11y ago
  People only "forget" this when they are trying to be disingenuous about how freedom of speech works.
- joshuapants 11y ago
  > Freedom of speech means the government can't arrest you for saying it As I mentioned above, that's overly simplistic to the point of being wrong. Yes, there are statutes in various legal systems throughout history preventing the government from limiting expression. No, that doesn't mean that freedom of speech only exists in that regard.

eropple 11y ago

Man...I'm really, really sick of this lame, lame, lame defense of lousy behavior. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anybody other than the government has to have anything to do with you and doesn't apply to anybody here in their personal judgments of somebody who's choosing to act shitty. And maybe it's just me, but it strikes me that, when the best defense or excuse that you can trot out is that hey, it's actually going to get you arrested to do it, the moral argument is not exactly strong.

eertami 11y ago
I agree that it's obviously nothing to do with free speech. But it's entirely disingenuous to claim somebody is acting shitty when writing satirically.
- eropple 11y ago
  Sure, if you think it's satire. I am intensely skeptical of the idea that it's an attempt at satire--both from reading his stuff and from knowing people in the circles he's traveled in--and have never seen anything to convince me otherwise.
joshuapants 11y ago
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean that anybody other than the government has to have anything to do with you and doesn't apply to anybody here in their personal judgments of somebody who's choosing to act shitty. Man... I'm really sick of this lame, lame, lame misunderstanding of free speech. The first amendment of the US Bill of Rights is a legal embodiment (among many others throughout history) of the ideal of free speech, but that's not where it ends. Attempts to shame (or otherwise coerce) unpopular speakers into silence is still a violation of that ideal.
- eropple 11y ago
  You are wrong both in the textual sense and the historical sense of it. "Freedom of speech" has never in the history of the United States been anything but a governmental restriction; it has never been a moral calling for the citizenry. Nor should it be: while there is a compelling argument for the government's agnosticism with regards to the viewpoints of the citizenry, there is no serious or compelling argument for the citizenry's agnosticism with regards to the viewpoints of each other. Shame is a tool for fixing shitlords or, if they are unfixable, rendering them powerless. It's a good tool. It gets a bad rap when the powerful are powerful no longer, but--strangely enough--never does when the powerful are powerful.
  - joshuapants 11y ago

ruacartoon 11y ago

It's not a ringing endorsement when one's supporters best argument is "it's not illegal to say what he said in this particular point in time and space."

drunkcatsdgaf 11y ago
pretty sure we live in this time and space, though.
- ruacartoon 11y ago
  Pretty sure you're a mouth-breathing moron.

vonklaus 11y ago

Apalled that this was downvoted. Either you are attacking the poster directly or you are against freedom of speech, either way, poor form.