Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #40 on: December 20, 2013, 09:59:25 PM »
How can the government protect someone from public opinion based on their own statements?  That's an idiotic idea.
Exactly.

Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion.
How can it be free if it's only free from one entity, especially when the elected officials are there based on public opinion?

It's a freedom of expression only.
The first amendment clearly says speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #41 on: December 20, 2013, 10:06:12 PM »
Are you trying to make the point that the backlash he is receiving is also freedom of speech?

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3143
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #42 on: December 20, 2013, 10:32:14 PM »
LD, I have no idea what you're saying or where you're going with it.

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5687
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #43 on: December 20, 2013, 10:46:38 PM »
How can the government protect someone from public opinion based on their own statements?  That's an idiotic idea.
Exactly.

Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion.
How can it be free if it's only free from one entity, especially when the elected officials are there based on public opinion?

It's a freedom of expression only.
The first amendment clearly says speech.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


Nothing you have cited prevents A & E from ceasing business activities with a party they deem to be damaging to their brand.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #44 on: December 20, 2013, 11:35:41 PM »
I don't understand what's even being argued here.

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #45 on: December 21, 2013, 12:22:01 AM »
Are you trying to make the point that the backlash he is receiving is also freedom of speech?
No.  I'm saying that freedom means lack of consequences.  All speech has consequences.

LD, I have no idea what you're saying or where you're going with it.
I am trying to argue that the larger your audience, the less freedom you have when you speak.  At a national level, you have very little if any at all as the consequences are not only immediate but usually grand.


Nothing you have cited prevents A & E from ceasing business activities with a party they deem to be damaging to their brand.
I never said it didn't.
As far as I'm concerned, he screwed himself over.



Here, let me try to simplify what I'm saying:
Every word you speak to someone has consequences.  Sometimes those consequences are so little, they're virtually irrelevant.  Other times, not so much.
Also, as the number of people who see/hear/read those words increases, so do the consequences.  If he were to speak to his family only on the subject, it's likely nothing bad would happen to him.  If he were to speak to his church, he may have some murmers but nothing life style changing.  Town hall meeting: Maybe a petition.  State level: maybe some protests.  National level: Well.. you get the idea.

He did not have the freedom to speak his mind to that reporter anymore than I have the freedom to tell his boss off (assuming he needs the job).

In fact, that may be simpler to say:
Why do we not speak our minds to our superiors if we dislike them? 
Because we don't want to deal with the consequences.  We are restricted from speaking our opinion.  From expressing our feelings. 

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3143
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #46 on: December 21, 2013, 12:33:32 AM »
I think you're getting literal and legal definitions confused here.

Offline spank86

  • *
  • Posts: 252
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #47 on: December 21, 2013, 12:51:54 AM »
Freedom of speech means without consequences from the government, not from public opinion.
How can it be free if it's only free from one entity, especially when the elected officials are there based on public opinion?

How could it be otherwise?

If you run a shop you are free to call me a retard when I walk in but that doesn't mean I have to keep shopping with you.

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #48 on: December 21, 2013, 12:56:55 AM »
You have the ability to say whatever you want to, nothing is stopping you from speaking your mind about whatever to whomever.  No police are going to come arrest you for telling off your boss, speaking for/against gay marriage, etc. (except where your speech constitutes a real or perceived danger to people).  Just because there is the consequence of losing your job for telling off your boss doesn't mean you can't do it.  That is the crux of freedom of speech, you have the ability to say it but you have to ask yourself if you really should say it because of the social ramifications.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #49 on: December 21, 2013, 02:53:20 AM »
Is Lord Dave trolling?  ???
Electro-Theologist, Poet, Philosopher, Musician, Etymologist, Egyptologist, Astro-Theologist, Geocentrist, Flat Earther, and Collector of Rare Books.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3143
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #50 on: December 21, 2013, 03:07:08 AM »
Is Lord Dave trolling?  ???
That's what it seems like. 

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #51 on: December 21, 2013, 04:39:16 AM »
In this troll argument Dave lost.
I don't even care to find out what you're doing wrong, but I'm sure you're doing something wrong.

Offline Socker

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #52 on: December 21, 2013, 07:33:24 AM »
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #53 on: December 21, 2013, 07:41:12 AM »
Being unprofitable for the company you work for is a valid reason for firing if you ask me.

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3143
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #54 on: December 21, 2013, 02:59:57 PM »
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Say whatever you want without offending someone? And how do you imagine that could work in reality?

Offline Socker

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #55 on: December 21, 2013, 04:53:23 PM »
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Say whatever you want without offending someone? And how do you imagine that could work in reality?
I guess that's what makes me different from other people, it is literally impossible to offend me, and I'm confused when others are offended by trivial things.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #56 on: December 21, 2013, 05:08:30 PM »
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.

But that's not what the First Amendment is about.  It's about the government not being able to restrict your freedom of speech.  It doesn't say anything about employment with private companies

*

Offline rooster

  • *
  • Posts: 3143
  • cock-a-doodle-doo, darlin'
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #57 on: December 21, 2013, 05:09:46 PM »
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Say whatever you want without offending someone? And how do you imagine that could work in reality?
I guess that's what makes me different from other people, it is literally impossible to offend me, and I'm confused when others are offended by trivial things.
I'm sure that's not true.

*

Offline Ghost Spaghetti

  • *
  • Posts: 908
  • Don't look in that mirror. It's absolutely furious
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #58 on: December 21, 2013, 05:39:29 PM »
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.

He didn't lose his job for having an opinion. He lost his job for causing damage to his employer's reputation. If you work in a shop and decide to tell all the customers about your mysoginistic opinion of women the shop is likely going to fire you because they don't want their female customers driven away.

Offline Socker

  • *
  • Posts: 213
    • View Profile
Re: Duck Dynasty Controversy
« Reply #59 on: December 21, 2013, 07:08:59 PM »
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.

He didn't lose his job for having an opinion. He lost his job for causing damage to his employer's reputation. If you work in a shop and decide to tell all the customers about your mysoginistic opinion of women the shop is likely going to fire you because they don't want their female customers driven away.
I suppose so, perhaps I misunderstood the reason. Everyone I hear talking about this has been talking about First Amendment stuff, so I assumed that was what it was about. Sorry if I completely missed the point on this one.
Looks like I'm going to be the one going against the bandwagon here. I don't think he should have been kicked from the show. I'm probably one among few who thinks the First Amendment should be as close to an absolute right as possible. (Obviously it can't be a full absolute right, as then it would be legal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded public area) You should be able to express any opinion you want, whenever you want, without needing to worry about PC or offending someone. Losing your job because of an opinion is just as bad as losing a job for being gay.
That is absolutely ridiculous. Say whatever you want without offending someone? And how do you imagine that could work in reality?
I guess that's what makes me different from other people, it is literally impossible to offend me, and I'm confused when others are offended by trivial things.
I'm sure that's not true.
What makes you think that?