Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see.NothingButTheBlood said:
Jacey said:
I'm on the right. Did I ever say Phelps shouldn't be allowed to abuse his right to be an idiot? Of course not. I've seen far more examples of people on the left attacking the right's freedom of speech, and it's a rare occasion to see a liberal pull out the Voltaire quote; that's a conservative line, as much as Edmund Burke's famous quote: "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to think George W. Bush is the real evil."blueapplepaste said:
Borealis said:I'm on the right. Did I ever say Phelps shouldn't be allowed to abuse his right to be an idiot? Of course not. I've seen far more examples of people on the left attacking the right's freedom of speech, and it's a rare occasion to see a liberal pull out the Voltaire quote; that's a conservative line, as much as Edmund Burke's famous quote: "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to think George W. Bush is the real evil."
Okay, I paraphrased it a wee bit.
The claim that the right is opposed to free speech is ludicrous. The real complaint from liberals is that the right is opposed to freedom of consequences resulting from said free speech. You can say whatever you want; that doesn't mean people aren't going to react to it negatively. Look at the Dixie Chicks. No one said they couldn't say something stupid; they just voted with their pocketbooks and made it clear that they would not support anyone who made personal attacks of that nature on the President. So, following the liberal playbook, they screamed "CENSORSHIP!!!!111!" from every rooftop, as if a law had been passed preventing people from buying Dixie Chicks albums.
Look at the very concept of political correctness: certain things cannot be said because they 'offend' people. You can't say 'retarded,' it's now 'mentally challenged.' You can't say 'handicapped,' it's 'handi-capable' or 'physically challenged.' A 'garbageman' is now a 'sanitation engineer.' Freedom of speech is suppressed because it might offend someone. The same applies in universities, with speech codes springing up all across North America. Suddenly certain groups are protected from 'offense' by punishing people who fail to meet certain speech requirements.
So the plaintiff in the case will not be Fred Phelps or Westboro Baptist Church but will rather be "Free Speech"?mhatten said:
That, of course, excludes valedictorians giving speeches that honor God. In that situation, the ACLU would choose to limit speech, which does indeed reveal an agenda for those who claim the ACLU has no political agendaxMinionX said:
Can you point me to a post where I took a position on Phelps and his behavior? When it becomes apparent that I did not, direct your comments instead toward the ACLU which is indeed taking the opposite side from the stance they took in the other case?Jacey said:
MachZer0 said:
MachZer0 said:
So, being unable to substantiate your charge of hypocrisy, and unwilling to make the same charge against the ACLU, you elect instead to set up a tent on my front lawn? How odd.Jacey said:
And they claimed censorship, which was a total crock of something unprintable.blueapplepaste said:
And black people can use the 'N' word all they want, but if a white person dares to use it, the PC police come down on them like a ton of bricks.
Just one?
They pick and choose the 'freedom of speech' cases they'll fight for. They rarely defend Christians, they twist the freedom of religion part of the First Amendment into unrecognizable shapes. I don't hate the ACLU; I merely see no point to their continued existence.
