Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

easybronc

Free speech rally shut down in Boston

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

If it's Hamilton who wrote 51 then someone should tell the Bill of Rights Institute

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/the-federalist-papers/federalist-papers-no-51/

 

 

In this Federalist Paper, James Madisonexplains and defends the checks and balancessystem in the Constitution. Each branch of government is framed so that its power checks the power of the other two branches; additionally, each branch of government is dependent on the people, who are the source of legitimate authority.

The quote is from Federalist No. 84:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp#3

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved''? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm enjoying this historical context of Hamilton and Madison arguing about free speech.  Good stuff.

I'm also nervous about the fine and subtle differences between real life consequences of free speech, which should definitely exist, and the intemperate mob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

The quote is from Federalist No. 84:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed84.asp#3

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved''? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

Your correct.  I had multiple papers open and mixed them up.  I apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bluerules009 said:

Your employer has a right to free speech too.

He does not have to pay you for exercising something he doesn't like.

No was is abridging the employers right.  Although I question why corporations who are people have rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, mugtang said:

Well yes, but the term Nazi is thrown around like candy.  You voted Trump?  You're a Nazi!  You're a member of the GOP?  Nazi!  When you call everybody/everything a Nazi, the term loses its meaning.  Shit, I got called a Nazi sympathizer on Twitter for saying that Student from Nevada shouldn't be expelled unless it is proven he committed a crime.  I support his right to be stupid, despite vehemently disagreeing with his positions.  

See, but just expressing that sentiment leads people to assume you are a sympathizer.  That's what is so ridiculous about this.

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

No was is abridging the employers right.  Although I question why corporations who are people have rights.

If you are an employee your continued employment depends on you meeting the employer's standards.  If you want freedom from your employer's standards you are free to quit.   Freedom of speech is just the right to be free of government interference.

 

I realize you hate capitalism and will not ever understand the obvious needs and advantages corporations provide the world.   The fact that corporations have rights also means they have responsibilities, can be sued and held accountable for their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

That is not what he believed at all. Why Publius? Virginia's constitution already protected his freedom of speech, why the pseudonym? Because they understood damn well free speech was not freedom from consequences. Advocating radical ideas, like white nationalism or usurping sovereignty from the state governments, could have serious consequences for a persons career and reputation.

Reputation yes.  Career no.  

The industrial revolution and transition to large scale manufacturing didn't occur until the 1800's.   I have no problem with speech having consequences but if the consequences are so severe as to lose ones freedom or ability to maintain a livelihood that right becomes extinguished.   In the 1700's people largely couldn't take away your ability to make a living or feed yourself.   You could move west to farm or trap.  

It's simple to say speech has consequences.  But the reason the first amendment exists is to prevent those consequences from being so onerous that speech stops.   If that balance isn't carefully weighed, we will be the generation that killed free speech in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Reputation yes.  Career no.  

The industrial revolution and transition to large scale manufacturing didn't occur until the 1800's.   I have no problem with speech having consequences but if the consequences are so severe as to lose ones freedom or ability to maintain a livelihood that right becomes extinguished.   In the 1700's people largely couldn't take away your ability to make a living or feed yourself.   You could move west to farm or trap.  

It's simple to say speech has consequences.  But the reason the first amendment exists is to prevent those consequences from being so onerous that speech stops.   If that balance isn't carefully weighed, we will be the generation that killed free speech in the US.

Yes, we need a new frontier to escape to

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

If you are an employee your continued employment depends on you meeting the employer's standards.  If you want freedom from your employer's standards you are free to quit.   Freedom of speech is just the right to be free of government interference.

 

I realize you hate capitalism and will not ever understand the obvious needs and advantages corporations provide the world.   The fact that corporations have rights also means they have responsibilities, can be sued and held accountable for their actions.

Try not to project things you know nothing about.   You don't have the first clue about what I believe.   

I have no problem about meeting the employers standards in the course of the job.  I have a major problem with employers being able to dictate what you do and say separate from your job.   We are quickly devolving to a corporate dominated state.

Not to derail the thread but I don't believe Corporations should be sued either.  Nor do I believe they should be taxed.  Corporations don't make decisions or have earnings, people do.   Shareholders should not be liable for the malfeasance of senior management.  Senior management or majority owners who decide to commit fraud or hide known dangers should be personally responsible and quit hiding behind corporate shields which lets them often do whatever they damn well please. They get the rewards but rarely bare the risk.  The risk is borne by stockholders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sactowndog said:

Try not to project things you know nothing about.   You don't have the first clue about what I believe.   

I have no problem about meeting the employers standards in the course of the job.  I have a major problem with employers being able to dictate what you do and say separate from your job.   We are quickly devolving to a corporate dominated state.

Not to derail the thread but I don't believe Corporations should be sued either.  Nor do I believe they should be taxed.  Corporations don't make decisions or have earnings, people do.   Shareholders should not be liable for the malfeasance of senior management.  Senior management or majority owners who decide to commit fraud or hide known dangers should be personally responsible and quit hiding behind corporate shields which lets them often do whatever they damn well please. They get the rewards but rarely bare the risk.  The risk is borne by stockholders. 

You have made it pretty obvious you hate capitalism with your posts.  You have also made it obvious you don't understand economic systems or issues.

 

If you don't want to be subject to your employers standards quit.  You are not a slave this isn't a communist state yet you have all the freedom you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Shareholders should not be liable for the malfeasance of senior management.  Senior management or majority owners who decide to commit fraud or hide known dangers should be personally responsible and quit hiding behind corporate shields which lets them often do whatever they damn well please. They get the rewards but rarely bare the risk.  The risk is borne by stockholders. 

Not sure you understand the difference between a privately held vs a publicly held corporation. How the heck can someone be a "majority owner" and not be a shareholder?

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Not sure you understand the difference between a privately held vs a publicly held corporation. How the heck can someone be a "majority owner" and not be a shareholder?

While not an exact characterization I'm thinking of a Hewlett or Packard that had a controlling interest of shares.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

You have made it pretty obvious you hate capitalism with your posts.  You have also made it obvious you don't understand economic systems or issues.

 

If you don't want to be subject to your employers standards quit.  You are not a slave this isn't a communist state yet you have all the freedom you want.

When the Corporations set the standards of thought and behavior you have entered your own Animal Farm.   We moving in that direction.  God forbid we go there completely.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Not sure you understand the difference between a privately held vs a publicly held corporation. How the heck can someone be a "majority owner" and not be a shareholder?

He has no understanding of what corporations do or are for, or any economic issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

When the Corporations set the standards of thought and behavior you have entered your own Animal Farm.   We moving in that direction.  God forbid we go there completely.    

It isn't possible for corporations to set the standards of thought and behavior they are controlled by people.  They have no police power or military power.  You are delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Reputation yes.  Career no.  

The industrial revolution and transition to large scale manufacturing didn't occur until the 1800's.   I have no problem with speech having consequences but if the consequences are so severe as to lose ones freedom or ability to maintain a livelihood that right becomes extinguished.   In the 1700's people largely couldn't take away your ability to make a living or feed yourself.   You could move west to farm or trap...  

A person who is willing to work will find it in America. They may take a hit as to what lifestyle they can maintain, but that's consequences for you. They'll be fine. The government will even feed them and pay them for two years. People who lost their jobs and were shunned from a community were in much worse shape in the 18th century than now, let's be real. 

Quote

It's simple to say speech has consequences.  But the reason the first amendment exists is to prevent those consequences from being so onerous that speech stops.   If that balance isn't carefully weighed, we will be the generation that killed free speech in the US.

This just isn't true. The first amendment exists to protect free speech from the government. The from is the key, not the free. Free speech exists with or without the amendment. All the amendment does is stop an institution from punishing you for it.

 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Just call it what it is.  Sactown hates the "evil corporations" and capitalism in general.

No I worry about the Corporate dystopia invisioned by tools where workers are leeches who speech and actions are controlled by corporations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

I kind of see his point. My great-grandfather helped lead a strike against the rubber companies in Akron in the early 1900s and got blackballed forever after that, which kind of relegated him to odd jobs considering he had 10 kids and Akron was dominated by the rubber companies. 

Exactly but now it's not just labor.  It can be whatever thought the majority deems offensive and pressures corporations to blackball people for that thought or religion.   Granted we aren't there yet but we are walking down that path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sactowndog said:

Your correct.  I had multiple papers open and mixed them up.  I apologize.

Oh it's all good man. I'm sure most on here at one time or another have had half a dozen windows open reading texts and links pertaining to aspects of the overall conversation. It's one of the great things about this board. 

3 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Exactly but now it's not just labor.  It can be whatever thought the majority deems offensive and pressures corporations to blackball people for that thought or religion.   Granted we aren't there yet but we are walking down that path.

The fault here lies not with the corporations, but the consumers, the majority as you refer to them. Punishing the corporations by forcing them onto a policy the consumers find distasteful isn't right. When they start losing market share because too many of their customers disagree with their association of an employee, it will eventually lead to more people than just that employee losing their livelihood. The business owners are not in the wrong here. Punishing them is like handicapping the entire herd from running because a sick gazelle has drawn the lions in. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...