4
4
0
Many people are asking "What does Free Speech Mean?" Here is a link to that begin this discussion, which I am sure is taking place in other differently worded posts on RP:
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
{Note: As you respond to this post please respond with respect to others. This is a HOT issue and for many of here on RP the heart and soul of why we are on RP. Also, if you are going to make a quip about free-speech please back your "quip" up with something fact-based. I am interested in learning about situations (your lived experiences) where you were witness to FREE speech being denied when common sense defined that it was being presented in a responsible and respectful manner.}
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does
{Note: As you respond to this post please respond with respect to others. This is a HOT issue and for many of here on RP the heart and soul of why we are on RP. Also, if you are going to make a quip about free-speech please back your "quip" up with something fact-based. I am interested in learning about situations (your lived experiences) where you were witness to FREE speech being denied when common sense defined that it was being presented in a responsible and respectful manner.}
Freedom of Speech
Education
Constitution
Law
Human Rights
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
Who gets to define "responsible"? As soon as you put a human-determined qualifier on it, it's no longer free speech...
As soon as you label anything you don't like as "Not responsible" it is no longer free speech, it's speech YOU approve of...
As soon as you label anything you don't like as "Not responsible" it is no longer free speech, it's speech YOU approve of...
(3)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
MSgt Steve Sweeney - You and I do not agree often, But we are in compleate agreament here.
(0)
(0)
CPO Nate S.
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Well we have both proven that FREE speech is still intact, but our responsibility is to challenge "real" or "perceived" attacks, to uncover the subtle and/or insidious threats and discuss them in the open!!!
As to the word "should". Had I used the word "must", "could", etc. I am not sure you would have been satisfied and would have found such a manner of language to wrap your mind around as to desire your need to have the "last word".
If you believe in God, then here is your simple guidance to your words "...according to whom and who's interpretation...". Luke 6:31 seems to be quite clear!!!
Luke 6:31- Do to others as you would have them do to you.
If we desire respect, then we must give respect. Demanding respect in the absence of giving respect is the first step toward tyranny! E.g., like you I am sure there were officers in charge whom you have little to no "personal" respect for. However, rendering a sharp salute was required in public spaces because we had an example to set. Saluting the "rank" was I required to do for good order and discipline. However, putting that "it" factor in my salute that only the most astute could distinguish knew I was not only saluting the "rank" but the "person" who had earned my respect. They and I knew!!!
So, I "should" always respect the "rank", etc., but I DO NOT have to respect the individual person (man, woman, gay, straight, black, white, etc.), especially if they have proven they are not worthy of my trust, per their "OBSERVED Actions". I cannot evaluate a person's capacity to be trusted if I cannot OBSERVE their direct actions or observe the impact of those actions in the open toward others when such decisions were made behind closed doors - as it were. I believe it was MLK who used the words "...content of their character...". Of course, I "could" be mistaken!
In Luke 6:31 God (however you may call him, or not!) is sharing that to understand how to live with others - this is something we "Should" do as part of the human-to-human evaluations we all make about the "...content of anyone's character...". If we want to be treated with kindness and respect, then we "should" first learn to treat others in that same manner regardless! Notice that the words "must" or "shall" are not used! Why, because the actions to "Do to others as you would have them do to you" is about exercising your "free will" to act on these words as you see fit. Again, the Founders understood this, as "imperfect" as they were when right after the words "We the people..." comes "...in order to form a more perfect union...".
So, how do you think I am defining "should"? I am not so sure from your lofty perch that you have fully evaluated your understanding of the English language, or the word "should", should is a word implying - choice!!!
Just my 'observation'..................................................
Oh, the whole section of Luke 6 27:49 is instructive. Just saying...............as those words are things, we "should" do, but as human beings have a challenging time doing with any level of humble consistency. So, admitting our "human imperfections" is the first step we "should" take toward - grace.
Just a thought...........................................................
As to the word "should". Had I used the word "must", "could", etc. I am not sure you would have been satisfied and would have found such a manner of language to wrap your mind around as to desire your need to have the "last word".
If you believe in God, then here is your simple guidance to your words "...according to whom and who's interpretation...". Luke 6:31 seems to be quite clear!!!
Luke 6:31- Do to others as you would have them do to you.
If we desire respect, then we must give respect. Demanding respect in the absence of giving respect is the first step toward tyranny! E.g., like you I am sure there were officers in charge whom you have little to no "personal" respect for. However, rendering a sharp salute was required in public spaces because we had an example to set. Saluting the "rank" was I required to do for good order and discipline. However, putting that "it" factor in my salute that only the most astute could distinguish knew I was not only saluting the "rank" but the "person" who had earned my respect. They and I knew!!!
So, I "should" always respect the "rank", etc., but I DO NOT have to respect the individual person (man, woman, gay, straight, black, white, etc.), especially if they have proven they are not worthy of my trust, per their "OBSERVED Actions". I cannot evaluate a person's capacity to be trusted if I cannot OBSERVE their direct actions or observe the impact of those actions in the open toward others when such decisions were made behind closed doors - as it were. I believe it was MLK who used the words "...content of their character...". Of course, I "could" be mistaken!
In Luke 6:31 God (however you may call him, or not!) is sharing that to understand how to live with others - this is something we "Should" do as part of the human-to-human evaluations we all make about the "...content of anyone's character...". If we want to be treated with kindness and respect, then we "should" first learn to treat others in that same manner regardless! Notice that the words "must" or "shall" are not used! Why, because the actions to "Do to others as you would have them do to you" is about exercising your "free will" to act on these words as you see fit. Again, the Founders understood this, as "imperfect" as they were when right after the words "We the people..." comes "...in order to form a more perfect union...".
So, how do you think I am defining "should"? I am not so sure from your lofty perch that you have fully evaluated your understanding of the English language, or the word "should", should is a word implying - choice!!!
Just my 'observation'..................................................
Oh, the whole section of Luke 6 27:49 is instructive. Just saying...............as those words are things, we "should" do, but as human beings have a challenging time doing with any level of humble consistency. So, admitting our "human imperfections" is the first step we "should" take toward - grace.
Just a thought...........................................................
(0)
(0)
CPO Nate S.
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Dear Sir,
Now you are calling me paranoid! Seriously?!?!?!
Were you in someone else's military? The nation has operated on "perceived threats / attacks" since GW and the Culper ring during the American Revolution. And governments and people who know human nature have exercised caution and at times extreme caution for years. So, for the sake of satisfying your need to be a wordsmith let's change "perceived" to "scenarios requiring informed concern". Whatever word salad you desire!
I "feel" you are unreasonable and just like playing with people. You don't have the courage to show your face, it is your right of course to not provide a picture in your profile, but it tells me a great deal about your character and your particular form of - "paranoia". Shows your weakness.
For the life of me I am not sure why I continue to engage. Perhaps, I enjoy listening to your insanity!!! Frankly, I don't know.
I "feel" a great number of things, paranoid is - not one!!! Reasonably cautious, or reasonably concerned. Don't play would-be psychologist, you are not qualified!!! You try to be, but you are not even close to being capable of such a responsible role! I have worked with several good psychologists/psychiatrists to help those truly paranoid who need help. You don't, trust me, have the skills!
Again, your lack of transparency by not showing your face is a lack of courage on the 1st order and a level of paranoia that is obvious even to a blind man! Just saying...............
Now you are calling me paranoid! Seriously?!?!?!
Were you in someone else's military? The nation has operated on "perceived threats / attacks" since GW and the Culper ring during the American Revolution. And governments and people who know human nature have exercised caution and at times extreme caution for years. So, for the sake of satisfying your need to be a wordsmith let's change "perceived" to "scenarios requiring informed concern". Whatever word salad you desire!
I "feel" you are unreasonable and just like playing with people. You don't have the courage to show your face, it is your right of course to not provide a picture in your profile, but it tells me a great deal about your character and your particular form of - "paranoia". Shows your weakness.
For the life of me I am not sure why I continue to engage. Perhaps, I enjoy listening to your insanity!!! Frankly, I don't know.
I "feel" a great number of things, paranoid is - not one!!! Reasonably cautious, or reasonably concerned. Don't play would-be psychologist, you are not qualified!!! You try to be, but you are not even close to being capable of such a responsible role! I have worked with several good psychologists/psychiatrists to help those truly paranoid who need help. You don't, trust me, have the skills!
Again, your lack of transparency by not showing your face is a lack of courage on the 1st order and a level of paranoia that is obvious even to a blind man! Just saying...............
(0)
(0)
CPO Nate S.
MSgt Steve Sweeney - You are a funny guy (person)!
You ask indirect questions in hopes of an answer you want so that you can direct and manipulate it as an attack. Nice try!!! Your selections of words and their removal from context is a tactic I have seen before. So, please continue to delude yourself. It is amusing!
Like all people who prefer "masks" to eyeball contact have a desire to remain in the shadows to hide pain. How deep, I don't know.
I have to ask - are you a chess player?
You ask indirect questions in hopes of an answer you want so that you can direct and manipulate it as an attack. Nice try!!! Your selections of words and their removal from context is a tactic I have seen before. So, please continue to delude yourself. It is amusing!
Like all people who prefer "masks" to eyeball contact have a desire to remain in the shadows to hide pain. How deep, I don't know.
I have to ask - are you a chess player?
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
To the guy who challenged us to come up with "just one law on the books", I perceive that as a dodge. Biden last year attempted to set up the Disinformation Governance Board run by a known lib activist. Now Minnesota is trying to set up a bias registry. The point is there doesn't need to be a 'law on the books' when you have scumbags in the white house making decrees (executive orders) to enforce laws that are not on the books.
(1)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
There's also the guy convicted of making a meme. No the law was not about meme-making, but he got nailed for "election interference."
And we see it all the time. There is no specific law about restricting speech (although there are now laws about COMPELLED speech in certain leftist states). There is just ENFORXEMENT of laws to restrict speech.
Election interference
Misinformation
Abortion "access"
Conspiracy
Disturbing the Peace
Unlawful protest
Just off the top of my head.
And we see it all the time. There is no specific law about restricting speech (although there are now laws about COMPELLED speech in certain leftist states). There is just ENFORXEMENT of laws to restrict speech.
Election interference
Misinformation
Abortion "access"
Conspiracy
Disturbing the Peace
Unlawful protest
Just off the top of my head.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google