ADVERTISEMENT

59 police officers injured in Seattle this weekend

He didn’t use speech laws to silence his critics though. He used national security laws, and straight up covert violence. Not sure why anyone who follows history would not support such a thing.

Nazi Censorship mainly occurred AFTER Hitler used his hate speech to form the SA and to overthrow the German legislature via the burning of the Reichstag and to gain his emergency powers.

The problem wasn’t the fact that he censored people AFTER he came to power, it’s that he came to power at all. In many ways the Weimar Republic’s views on free speech mirrored the US’s today. Free speech isn’t going to hinder an heir apparent to Hitler if they ever might rise in our country, if anything free speech will drastically help them as they use our very protections against us.

One doesn’t have to look far beyond Trump to see where hate speech could severely detriment our society. If someone with similar rhetoric who was only slightly smarter than Trump and slightly more subversive got into office, we’ve already proved that there’s essentially no way to get them out if they take drastic action.

Free speech is always the number one enemy (and protection) of dictator and others who oppress others. What was the first thing the communist did in every country where they rose to power? What is the first thing dictators do when they come into power? There's a common theme throughout history which has been repeated hundreds of times. The oppressor silences speech with which he/she disagrees. The reasons are obvious. What is being supported by "progressives" at the current time should give shivers to all of us who favor our personal freedoms.

Remember, I was the one who said the "progressives" wouldn't stop at the tearing down of the confederate statues but would expand their "outrage' to Presidents and other historic figures. You disagreed. Speech is following a similar path as the same people are silencing it as well. My track record on this matter speaks for itself.

As I stated in my example, speak out against the BLM agenda on a college campus and see how quickly your freedom of speech is taking from you. Not because it’s hate speech but because those in power and in the majority at those places disagree with the content. Quite progressive of them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: shon46
Free speech is always the number one enemy (and protection) of dictator and others who oppress others. What was the first thing the communist did in every country where they rose to power? What is the first thing dictators do when they come into power? There's a common theme throughout history which has been repeated hundreds of times. The oppressor silences speech with which he/she disagrees. The reasons are obvious. What is being supported by "progressives" at the current time should give shivers to all of us who favor our personal freedoms.

Remember, I was the one who said the "progressives" wouldn't stop at the tearing down of the confederate statues but would expand their "outrage' to Presidents and other historic figures. You disagreed. Speech is following a similar path as the same people are silencing it as well. My track record on this matter speaks for itself.

As I stated in my example, speak out against the BLM agenda on a college campus and see how quickly your freedom of speech is taking from you. Not because it’s hate speech but because those in power and in the majority at those places disagree with the content. Quite progressive of them.
The first thing any dictators typically do is gain control of the military (or paramilitary) and conduct a military coup.

Dictators aren't all communists, and free speech isn't just an enemy of the left. Look at Sadam Hussein, Assad, Erdogan, or Franco. I can go on.

What is being supported by "conservatives" at the current time is the freedom to lie to the public and slander, or even call for violence against innocents all while turning a blind eye to the erosion of the very things that are necessary to keep a republic functioning as a republic. (Like free, open, and most importantly FAIR elections, or judicial and legislative oversight of the executive.) I think that is just as dangerous, if not MORE dangerous than targeted and limited restriction on very specific types of speech, because the things that we're currently seeing from the Republican party are what countries that actually fall to dictators tend to see in the beginning, most specifically the repetition of outright lies.

I don't trust your track record on this issue as far as I could throw you. More importantly, the most egregious example of censorship in America was conducted by YOUR PARTY and the House Un-American Activity Committee, all while making the same types of arguments against communists that you just made a few paragraphs ago.
 
The first thing any dictators typically do is gain control of the military (or paramilitary) and conduct a military coup.

Dictators aren't all communists, and free speech isn't just an enemy of the left. Look at Sadam Hussein, Assad, Erdogan, or Franco. I can go on.

What is being supported by "conservatives" at the current time is the freedom to lie to the public and slander, or even call for violence against innocents all while turning a blind eye to the erosion of the very things that are necessary to keep a republic functioning as a republic. (Like free, open, and most importantly FAIR elections, or judicial and legislative oversight of the executive.) I think that is just as dangerous, if not MORE dangerous than targeted and limited restriction on very specific types of speech, because the things that we're currently seeing from the Republican party are what countries that actually fall to dictators tend to see in the beginning, most specifically the repetition of outright lies.

I don't trust your track record on this issue as far as I could throw you. More importantly, the most egregious example of censorship in America was conducted by YOUR PARTY and the House Un-American Activity Committee, all while making the same types of arguments against communists that you just made a few paragraphs ago.

1). I’m a registered independent thus I don’t have a party.

2). Unlike you (as is usually the case) I don’t look at issues in a partisan manner. See EOs for example. This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s a freedom of speech issue. What many can’t understand is that the speech being silenced changes over time as does the mood of the country. I fail to understand why people can’t see the dangers of setting precedents. Especially where the suppression of free speech is concerned. See my example of the suppression of speech critical of BLM. Whether you agree or disagree with those criticism we all should be in favor of the right to bring and argue them. Sadly, the “progressives” are now only in favor of speech if they agree with the same.

3). As far as lies this is the very reason freedom of speech is so important. Those in power suppress dissent (see progressives on college campuses and around the country). Without the ability to call out lies those telling the some go unchallenged. Something we are sadly now seeing on the left

4). My recent track record on this board of predicting the growth of the outrage culture and attempts to expand censorship has been spot on compared to some :). Throw me all you want but I have been dead on regarding this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noble cane
1). I’m a registered independent thus I don’t have a party.

2). Unlike you (as is usually the case) I don’t look at issues in a partisan manner. See EOs for example. This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s a freedom of speech issue. What many can’t understand is that the speech being silenced changes over time as does the mood of the country. I fail to understand why people can’t see the dangers of setting precedents. Especially where the suppression of free speech is concerned. See my example of the suppression of speech critical of BLM. Whether you agree or disagree with those criticism we all should be in favor of the right to bring and argue them. Sadly, the “progressives” are now only in favor of speech if they agree with the same.

3). As far as lies this is the very reason freedom of speech is so important. Those in power suppress dissent (see progressives on college campuses and around the country). Without the ability to call out lies those telling the some go unchallenged. Something we are sadly now seeing on the left

4). My recent track record on this board of predicting the growth of the outrage culture and attempts to expand censorship has been spot on compared to some :). Throw me all you want but I have been dead on regarding this issue.
Much like the RINO's of old you're an IINO. One of the more fairminded one people here, but still pretty darn conservative overall.

The thing that perturbs me most about all of this, is that, your idea of freedom of dissent is fine if that dissent can actually mean something. We've now established, through the impeachments of two presidents that our government is not built to remove people from office for anything but the most clearcut violations of law, and moreover there is a serious hesitation of certain parties to even allow a legitimate investigatory trial. If our society was built where we could actually DO SOMETHING to remove officials who violated the best interests of their constituents by say, repeatedly behaving immorally (Clinton) or repeatedly lying and obfuscating on issues to the American people to the tune of ~20,000 lies in just under 1,200 days (Trump). Then I'd say, sure.... our voice of dissent actually means something. But the fact that our government is so stacked against removing bad employees from public office tells me that if someone gets in that office who is able to misuse that freedom of speech to sow division, and if they were actually cunning enough to find a way to justify staying in office longer than they were supposed to, then it's already game over.

There's no way we're going to be able to remove a strongman along the lines of Putin if a man like him ever was able to get into office here. I think you have to be able to nip overreaching executives and the fundamentalist supporters of overreaching executives in the bud before they get into office where they can excuse away all kinds of actions that should (if we actually interpreted the constitution like the Framers intended) have them thrown out. And it's even worse if they come to power via shady means (burning down the Reichstag) after having already gained a large following through hateful rhetoric.

People are willing to explain away a lot of bad behavior when they feel that their guy is standing up to the (insert minority here) that they don't like. Look at Bush vs. Islam allowing him the Patriot Act. Or Nixon vs. the Commies almost getting away with Watergate.
 
Last edited:
Now we're arguing to not teach history


(CNN)An Illinois lawmaker and community leaders are calling for the immediate removal of history books and suspension of history lessons in their school districts because they say current materials and lesson plans "lead to white privilege and a racist society."

State Rep. LaShawn K. Ford joined a group of Evanston leaders Sunday to ask the state to cease its current history lessons, saying current history books and curriculum practices "unfairly communicate our history" and "overlook the contributions by Women and members of the Black, Jewish, LGBTQ communities and other groups," Ford said in a statement to CNN.
"Until a suitable alternative is developed, we should instead devote greater attention toward civics and ensuring students understand our democratic processes and how they can be involved," he said. "I'm also alarmed that people continue to display symbols of hate, such as the recent display of the Confederate flag in Evanston."
The call to action isn't new for Ford and community leaders. It's an ongoing initiative that started in February when Ford helped introduce HB 4954, which calls for amending the school code to include commemorative holidays to observe the principles of non-violence and human and civil rights.
 
Now we're arguing to not teach history


(CNN)An Illinois lawmaker and community leaders are calling for the immediate removal of history books and suspension of history lessons in their school districts because they say current materials and lesson plans "lead to white privilege and a racist society."

State Rep. LaShawn K. Ford joined a group of Evanston leaders Sunday to ask the state to cease its current history lessons, saying current history books and curriculum practices "unfairly communicate our history" and "overlook the contributions by Women and members of the Black, Jewish, LGBTQ communities and other groups," Ford said in a statement to CNN.
"Until a suitable alternative is developed, we should instead devote greater attention toward civics and ensuring students understand our democratic processes and how they can be involved," he said. "I'm also alarmed that people continue to display symbols of hate, such as the recent display of the Confederate flag in Evanston."
The call to action isn't new for Ford and community leaders. It's an ongoing initiative that started in February when Ford helped introduce HB 4954, which calls for amending the school code to include commemorative holidays to observe the principles of non-violence and human and civil rights.
Do I post every time a Republican state House member says something insane? If I did, that's all you'd see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bendman
It was a lead story on the CNN web page. As such I figured it was post worthy since CNN obviously does.
It was a headline worthy story on several media services. Some even gave merit to the suggestion.
 
Now we're arguing to not teach history


(CNN)An Illinois lawmaker and community leaders are calling for the immediate removal of history books and suspension of history lessons in their school districts because they say current materials and lesson plans "lead to white privilege and a racist society."

No, that's not the proposition. It says current materials misrepresent history so teach civics for the moment. For example, Tit takes a 100 years for the Tulsa massacre to be even mentioned in school curricula. I've asked my high school classmates if they knew about it when we were in high school and the best we could come up with was some sense that there had been a "race riot" in the 20's but it was no big deal.

Anyway the quotes from some elected and appointed officials these days underscores the value of teaching more civics.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT