ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags protest incidents

Reply
Old 14th September 2017, 06:39 AM   #41
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 16,547
Interestingly, federal law explicitly addresses this

18 US Code 227

Quote:
18 U.S. Code § 227 - Wrongfully influencing a private entity’s employment decisions by a Member of Congress or an officer or employee of the legislative or executive branch

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States
Was she trying to influence ESPN? If so, that's against the law.
__________________
I have a permanent room at the Home for the Chronically Groovy - Floyd from the Muppets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 06:39 AM   #42
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I repeat again: The fact that certain people do not understand that free speech is broader than freedom from governmental regulation is *********** baffling.
People understand. They just think you are wrong. "Free speech is broader than" is a value opinion and not some fact.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 06:41 AM   #43
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Interestingly, federal law explicitly addresses this

18 US Code 227



Was she trying to influence ESPN? If so, that's against the law.
But not based on "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation." It is because she said a mean thing, not because of her political affiliation.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 06:43 AM   #44
ahhell
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 615
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Then:
Now:
So for those keeping score at home, sir drinks-a-lot and theprestige think a random collection of black-clad goofballs and CNN are bigger threats to free speech than the government... you know, the only one of those three who can actually threaten free speech.
The prestige illustrates a useful point though, one that even Bill Maher made just before the election. When you some folks call pretty much everyone they disagree with, Hitler or NAZIs, people stop listening.

This latest thing is....a bit of a tempest in a tea pot. No, the white house shouldn't call for journalists to be fired because they criticize Trump. Fortunately its just a stupid thing to do that will only energize his opponents but it is concerning. Sure, the whitehouse can say what ever they want but that doesn't make right and it is the sort of thing a Maduro would do just prior to having the government take over the study and arresting the journalist.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 06:50 AM   #45
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
People understand. They just think you are wrong. "Free speech is broader than" is a value opinion and not some fact.
No, Bob. Free speech is broader than the 1st amendment. That's a fact, not a value opinion. The value opinion is about whether free speech is a good thing or a bad thing, but the thing itself is what it is, regardless of whether you value it.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 06:51 AM   #46
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, Bob. Free speech is broader than the 1st amendment. That's a fact, not a value opinion. The value opinion is about whether free speech is a good thing or a bad thing, but the thing itself is what it is, regardless of whether you value it.
No, the idea that free speech is broader than the first amendment is just that, an idea.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 07:16 AM   #47
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,037
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Yes, they can. Thank you for confirming the thing no one denied.
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Being able to speak publicly and being somehow free from criticism for that speech are two different things.

Being able to speak publicly and infringing on someone's civil rights under color of law are two different things. That hasn't happened in this case, but it's a step towards that if left unanswered.
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Um ... what?
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying we shouldn't discuss the bounds of government interference in speech until the government has interfered with it past the bounds that we set up at some point after discussing it?
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
No, Bob. Free speech is broader than the 1st amendment. That's a fact, not a value opinion. The value opinion is about whether free speech is a good thing or a bad thing, but the thing itself is what it is, regardless of whether you value it.
Guys, just don't...
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 07:22 AM   #48
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
People understand. They just think you are wrong. "Free speech is broader than" is a value opinion and not some fact.
I just gave you a specific factual example where the freedom of speech was broader than the first amendment and you cut it out.

That, as they say, is a fact.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 07:47 AM   #49
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I just gave you a specific factual example where the freedom of speech was broader than the first amendment and you cut it out.

That, as they say, is a fact.
Everything you wrote was an interpretation. Not a statement of fact.

For example, saying people in other countries enjoy freedom of speech is only true to the extent we describe the idea of freedom of speech. If you say they enjoy X, X is freedom of speech, that would be a fact. but freedom of speach can be X, Y, or something else based on interpretation.

There isn't this factual thing called freedom of speech.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 07:53 AM   #50
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Everything you wrote was an interpretation. Not a statement of fact.

For example, saying people in other countries enjoy freedom of speech is only true to the extent we describe the idea of freedom of speech. If you say they enjoy X, X is freedom of speech, that would be a fact. but freedom of speach can be X, Y, or something else based on interpretation.

There isn't this factual thing called freedom of speech.
We are actually taking about applications of law, but it is fine

Quote:
All of this is to say that if someone is arguing that he or she is not violating free speech when attempting to silence an unpopular opinion or if this person says that something was not technically censored because the government wasn’t involved, he or she does not know what he or she is talking about.
Beyond the First Amendment: You’re probably confused about free speech
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:02 AM   #51
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
We are actually taking about applications of law, but it is fine



Beyond the First Amendment: You’re probably confused about free speech
That is just another article with an interpretation on free speech that is only that, an interpretation.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:14 AM   #52
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That is just another article with an interpretation on free speech that is only that, an interpretation.
ahhh, one of those type "arguments" then, is it? You see most people would explain that the interpretation is wrong and cite some support for their position, rather than saying grossly unhelpful things like it is only "an interpretation."

But rather than argue with you further I want to announce to one and all that I 100% agree with Bob here, it is an interpretation... a completely correct, fully documented interpretation that is simply not subject to any possible reasonable counter interpretation and that allows us one and all to fully and finally settle the issue for once and all.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:59 AM   #53
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
ahhh, one of those type "arguments" then, is it? You see most people would explain that the interpretation is wrong and cite some support for their position, rather than saying grossly unhelpful things like it is only "an interpretation."

But rather than argue with you further I want to announce to one and all that I 100% agree with Bob here, it is an interpretation... a completely correct, fully documented interpretation that is simply not subject to any possible reasonable counter interpretation and that allows us one and all to fully and finally settle the issue for once and all.
I reject the author's concept of free speech. Violating free speech and the first amendment are not the same. One can argue that free speech does or does not exist in the US.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:01 AM   #54
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Violating free speech and the first amendment are not the same.
There ya go!
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:05 AM   #55
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
There ya go!
As such, people who don't share your interpretation of free speech are not wrong or missing something.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:10 AM   #56
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
As such, people who don't share your interpretation of free speech are not wrong or missing something.


Dude you just had it! "Violating free speech and the first amendment are not the same." That is exactly the point I made some time ago.

People who think that Violating free speech and the first amendment are the same are wrong! One can violate free speech without violating the first amendment. Don't walk it back, embrace it because you would be correct!

Embrace being right!
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:13 AM   #57
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post


Dude you just had it! "Violating free speech and the first amendment are not the same." That is exactly the point I made some time ago.

People who think that Violating free speech and the first amendment are the same are wrong! One can violate free speech without violating the first amendment. Don't walk it back, embrace it because you would be correct!

Embrace being right!
That means to the extent you define the difference is as arbitrary as anyone else's.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:19 AM   #58
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
No, the idea that free speech is broader than the first amendment is just that, an idea.
Sure, in the trivial sense that all definitions of words and terms are just ideas. That's not actually relevant, though. The existence of ideas can still be a fact, even if the idea itself is wrong. It's a fact that the flat earth theory says the earth is not round. This is true even though it's also a fact that the earth is round.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:32 AM   #59
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure, in the trivial sense that all definitions of words and terms are just ideas. That's not actually relevant, though. The existence of ideas can still be a fact, even if the idea itself is wrong. It's a fact that the flat earth theory says the earth is not round. This is true even though it's also a fact that the earth is round.
Good point. I would add that concepts have greater range in interpretation. Saying what "free speech" is carries about as much weight as any one person's particular definition of "love."
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:35 AM   #60
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Good point. I would add that concepts have greater range in interpretation. Saying what "free speech" is carries about as much weight as any one person's particular definition of "love."
And thus knowledge and objectivity are impossible.

Congratulations: your post is a fine exemplar of what I now call "Denial-Of-Knowledge" attacks.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか


Last edited by Argumemnon; 14th September 2017 at 09:40 AM. Reason: Spelling
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:36 AM   #61
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And thus knowledge and objectivity are impossible.

Congratulations: you post is a fine exemplar of what I now call "Denial-Of-Knowledge" attacks.


I like that.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:41 AM   #62
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And thus knowledge and objectivity are impossible.

Congratulations: you post is a fine exemplar of what I now call "Denial-Of-Knowledge" attacks.
I think it presents some good ideas to the person arguing.

1) don't freak out when others reject your definition and just move on

2) don't accuse people who don't agree to the definition as 'not getting it.'
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:45 AM   #63
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I think it presents some good ideas to the person arguing.

1) don't freak out when others reject your definition and just move on

2) don't accuse people who don't agree to the definition as 'not getting it.'
All those words are just ideas with one person's particular definition, so I'm afraid we can't communicate here.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:46 AM   #64
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
I repeat again: The fact that certain people do not understand that free speech is broader than freedom from governmental regulation is *********** baffling.
Quote:
Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right, and is a constraint on governmental power. Heck, people in other countries not subject to the First Amendment also enjoy freedom of speech.
That's nice in theory, but in practice there are quite a few places in the world where that is decidedly not the case. I think we need to make sure this country doesn't get added to that list.

Quote:
The suggestion that black masked thugs attacking speakers is not a threat to free speech is frankly appalling.
They're really not. They're a threat to the individuals for sure. And should be prosecuted accordingly. But they cannot under any circumstances muzzle the overall message. They're just not strong enough.

Quote:
I have always said, tho, the greatest threat to the freedom of expression comes from the left.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:47 AM   #65
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
All those words are just ideas with one person's particular definition, so I'm afraid we can't communicate here.
And I'm cool with that.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:47 AM   #66
Mumbles
Illuminator
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,704
Well, Toupee Fiasco's bar is basically underground. It's very clear that him, and many of his proponents, are simply reacting to a black president. I see no need to give anything less than that.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:56 AM   #67
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And I'm cool with that.
You're cool with the idea that it is impossible for people to effectively communicate and share objective concepts?

Are you also cool with the fact that it's patently false?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:58 AM   #68
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,923
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That means to the extent you define the difference is as arbitrary as anyone else's.
You do know that the First Amendment is actually a real thing, right?

something that you can read and actually see?

As such, it is most definitely not arbitrary and you actually recognized it!

Embrace being right, and forget the "freedom of speech is just, like, your opinion man" argument!
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 10:00 AM   #69
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You do know that the First Amendment is actually a real thing, right?
You and I don't often agree, but I mean, look at his posts #62 and #65. Nothing is real.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 10:01 AM   #70
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,337
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Interestingly, federal law explicitly addresses this

18 US Code 227



Was she trying to influence ESPN? If so, that's against the law.
Catch 22, wouldn't Sessions be in charge of the decision to prosecute?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 10:01 AM   #71
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You're cool with the idea that it is impossible for people to effectively communicate and share objective concepts?

Are you also cool with the fact that it's patently false?
I'm cool with you not being able to communicate with me because you reject my concepts. It's going to happen, it's fine.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 10:03 AM   #72
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
You do know that the First Amendment is actually a real thing, right?

something that you can read and actually see?

As such, it is most definitely not arbitrary and you actually recognized it!

Embrace being right, and forget the "freedom of speech is just, like, your opinion man" argument!
I agree the first amendment is real. It is one thing that makes it different from the concept of free speech.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 10:06 AM   #73
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm cool with you not being able to communicate with me because you reject my concepts. It's going to happen, it's fine.
The problem lies in your choosing to look at something tangible as a concept. It's not. It's no more a concept than anything else that exists. A road, a cloud, a computer. These aren't concepts. They're things. So is the First Amendment.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 10:09 AM   #74
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
The problem lies in your choosing to look at something tangible as a concept. It's not. It's no more a concept than anything else that exists. A road, a cloud, a computer. These aren't concepts. They're things. So is the First Amendment.
The first amendment is not in dispute here. The issue is free speech as TBD said in post 40

Quote:
I repeat again: The fact that certain people do not understand that free speech is broader than freedom from governmental regulation is *********** baffling.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 10:21 AM   #75
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm cool with you not being able to communicate with me because you reject my concepts. It's going to happen, it's fine.
Wow, talk about deliberately missing the point. Another DOK attack!
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:06 AM   #76
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,771
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Wow, talk about deliberately missing the point. Another DOK attack!
And I'm cool if others thinks it is impossible to communicate.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:09 AM   #77
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,288
Idem.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:17 AM   #78
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,554
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
Interestingly, federal law explicitly addresses this

18 US Code 227



Was she trying to influence ESPN? If so, that's against the law.
Read the law closer; one of these two conditions must be met for it to be illegal:

Quote:
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
There is no evidence that Sarah Sanders was talking about any official acts of the White House. Indeed, it seems apparent that she was simply making an observation that ESPN itself had rules against political speech; that by ESPN's guidelines what the host had said was a fireable offense. The slant the media have taken on this is pretty clearly unfair, and just further evidence of their bias.

But you know how it is, who cares about being fair to a Trump aide?

Of course, they won't fire Jemele for what she said; her comments are already the CW around ESPN these days. They may give her the axe over her ratings however.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 14th September 2017 at 11:18 AM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:22 AM   #79
Tony99
Muse
 
Tony99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 690
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm cool with you not being able to communicate with me because you reject my concepts. It's going to happen, it's fine.
Postmoderism, contributing clarity and understanding for over a 100 years.
Tony99 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:28 AM   #80
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 23,174
Originally Posted by johnny karate View Post
Then:


Now:



So for those keeping score at home, sir drinks-a-lot and theprestige think a random collection of black-clad goofballs and CNN are bigger threats to free speech than the government... you know, the only one of those three who can actually threaten free speech.
Wrong.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.