Diversity: The flip side

Give me one instance where the Federal government curtailed someone’s free speech?

It happened on Twitter, of course, which is a private company, not the government. It happened for very good reasons however, which the Radical Right simply cannot get its head around for some strange reason. The same radical right who complains about “cancelling”, when they cancelled The Dixie Chicks, Disney, Bud Light… The same radical right that is taking away rights for my daughter… The same radical right that is taking away rights for LBGTQ people… The same radical right that is “cancelling” books by banning them from libraries…

And now, the same Radical Right that is threatening election workers, judges, the Supreme Court of Colorado…

The same radical right who attempted mob rule 3 years ago on January 6. And whom I fear will try again.

As they say, every accusation is really just a confession.


Book bans…cancel culture as freedom of speech…


Really just bigotry.


Apologies, but I want to make sure I understand your point of view.

Are you saying that the government should not be able to restrict free speech under any conditions?

Is spitting on someone (to embroil a mob) considered free speech?

Is child pornography free speech?

Is defamatory speech free speech?

Is false advertising free speech?

Are threats to individuals free speech?

I understand the dangers of a slippery slope, but is anarchy the result of no slope?

1 Like

I was not talking about the American government but about the current direction of American culture. Right now there is a movement to curtail voters by denying candidates to be on the ballot. The court battles are going to be interesting.

What exactly are you confessing to? :joy:

The Captain

1 Like

The US Constitution does curtail candidates. This is one of those instances.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

The USSC won’t rubberstamp criminal behavior. That is the interesting part. That has been the demand.

Ironic to discuss voters being curtailed. The voter suppression acts are all over the place.


Meant to say this to you Al. The USSC count is on my side. There are 3 votes versus 2 votes locked left to right respectively. The 4 in the center if they answer Trump’s appeal need to say no to insurrection and all of it. That means the vote should be 7 to 2. There are 3 shots at the odds. Meaning it can be 7 to 2, 6 to 3, or 5 to 4. There is only one shot at 4 to 5 in favor of Trump. Left needs a lock on 2 votes and right needs a lock on 3 votes out of the four.

None of Trump’s appointments in anyway feel they owe him.

The issue of letting people vote has nothing to do with it. The US Constitution is the only issue of law before the court. Letting people vote for Trump is a drawback for Trump if that were before the court. The court is watching other courts be physically threatened which is tyranny, dictatorship. Mitch McConnell did more to get the three justices appointed than Trump did. They certainly do not feel they owe McConnell.

1 Like

Wow! Talk about getting things completely backwards!


I’m not the captain but I would say “it depends”. The college presidents who were fired were completely right on this issue. Cyberbullying or making threatening phone calls are not IMO protected speech. In these cases, the intent to cause harm is pretty clear. Same with waving a machete outside a law firm and yelling “Kill all the lawyers”. But Shakespeare wrote the same phrase in Henry VI and obviously that is not the same thing.

Context matters as do consequences. What makes yelling fire in a theater not protected speech is the potential consequence of injuries. If as a consequence of verbally inciting a crowd violence occurs then IMO there is at least a possibility that what was said is not protected


What was done was not protected. Insurrection never is. The rest of the Bull never stops which just adds on layers of dictatorship fears.


No apology needed! Thanks for the response.

Let me start my reply by referencing Ben Franklin’s famous statement that we have “…a Republic, if you can keep it.” Crucially, Franklin assumes listeners understand that the Republic cannot keep nor sustain itself, that our democratic Republic, made of laws, is too rigid on its own, and needs intelligent civil people who live with mutual respect, restraint, and consideration within it so as to preserve it from harm.

Are you saying that the government should not be able to restrict free speech under any conditions?

Prohibiting the false alarming shout of “fire” in a crowded theater is an excellent exemplar for what sort of conditions require what sort of prohibitions legally.

Is spitting on someone (to embroil a mob) considered free speech?

Some would say so. I would stop at calling it very rude crude behavior, and then (as I did in real life) smilingly wiping the spittle off and looking at him pityingly. That was social civil speech in action, and (luckily for me) it worked.

Is child pornography free speech?

No, child pornography is not protected speech for two reasons: legal consent is impossible for a minor, and any even minimally moral society protects innocence from exploitation. The second is far more important than the first because social knowledge necessarily underpins laws or they become mere words.

Is defamatory speech free speech?

Within limits both yes and no. As I understand it (possibly totally wrong…) the legal essence of prohibitions of defamation is that a good reputation is something like a legitimately held valuable private property of a person, and so defamation is a form of robbery. “…he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.”

Is false advertising free speech?

Yes, and so the gullible must beware. Of course, false advertising can tip over into fraud but that tips one way or the other based on notions of contractual obligations or public nuisances…

Are threats to individuals free speech?

Necessarily, as most humans seem incapable of completely stoppering them. Actions affect material things while words move only the air.

I understand the dangers of a slippery slope, but is anarchy the result of no slope?

Humans wanting to live in a liberal polity must choose to live together in such a way as to allow the laws to work. That is the crux.

david fb


Needs intelligent civil people who live with mutual respect, restraint, and consideration?

We’re screwed.



No, we are not. If it was just us boomers…yeah you’d be right. We have been trying to get screwed since 1981. Fortunately for the rest of us 20 million of us fewer because of old age.

The millennials and zs have better plans. We are lucking out.

Regardless this thing will be a landslide. 14A or not he does not stand a chance.

Ms and Zs want the better things in life. Trump’s $7.25 min wage won’t cut it.

LOLing along with Leap,

But yes, it is a crux reason why Europe was amazed at the success of the USAian Republic, although most of them were prepping to invade the New World (and France did) the moment the prelude to the Civil War made it look like we were toast.

My own belief is that we pulled it off successfully because of the potency of our extremely competitive non-state churches and free non-state press pressing constantly against the politicians and idiots, as well as the strange magic that de Toqueville wrote his book about.

The internet, Murdoch et al, and deathly decayed religiousity seems to have ended that. We need to reinvent ourselves or die.

d fb


Nah the progeny know we are full of it. They are moving on with and eventually without us. We sat there like fools listening to garbage for forty years. Makes us look rather stupid. Does not matter that I have railed about it all along. It WAS what it WAS.

This is going to be a landslide.

Back in 2005 onward I told any 20 year olds I met you will always be able to tell the boomers are full of it. Do not trust us for one minute. We buy into utter crap. That became thunderingly popular among young people. It is refreshing to see young people love the truth. We did not.

Give us a tax cut we will never get and keep as many lies coming our way as possible. The stupidest thing going. Just make sure we dominate others. Ugly.

You still have people so hateful the federal minimum wage is $7.25, 30k people per year die as uninsured or underinsured, going to college allows for usury, and 90% of white male boomers can not afford retirement and voted themselves a pay cut that eventually with job layoffs became effective. Pensions were cut. The pay was cut. Research was cut. Education was cut. There was no tax cut. The nation is now $33 Tr in debt. Dingalings wants to keep it up.

The kids are laughing at us warmly. The kids are a lot better than us. Our crazy uncle types were trying to dominate them. Just do not bring the crazy uncle to dinner.

It has been years since one politico in our country has run on supply-side economics.

1 Like

What’s needed are checks and balances, just what the Founding Fathers created.

Throw them out and you’re screwed.

Utopias don’t exist except in the imagination.

Conclusion, I agree with AlphaWolf, you’re screwed if you don’t bring back checks and balances!

The Captain


14A is that checks and balances.

Do not know if you know this or not but yesterday in court a lawyer said having a political opponent assassinated was legal unless impeachment and a senate guilty verdict happened. We are at that stage of fascist intent. The dingalings still do not get it.

The mob of Athenian society could be correct from time to time. I remember well those who supported supply-side econ pushing everyone aside. Time to push them aside. Respect has not be earned.


American background check

1 Like

Checks and balances are still in place and still functional but more and more frozen due to hostile burn the place down incivility.

Civility is NOT “make nice with the doggy”, but rather a learned response when incivilities lead to sufficiently fierce social punishment. The crucial aspect of the civil rights movement was in forcing incivility to show its true nature.

d fb
(you never met a better trainer/enforcer of civility than my two grannies, civil bruisers both)


That is the mere parroting of a partisan talking point, completely unrelated to the actual facts.

Almost every job has requirements that applicants must meet. That includes elective office. Depending on the position, you might need to be a certain age or live within a certain geographic area or meet some other criteria.

The question of qualification has been raised in the recent past for a major public office in the US. The one making headlines today is the same question - although a different point of qualification. Does the person meet the stated qualifications to hold the office for which they are running?

I’ll avoid politics by not stating my position, but I feel compelled to point out that the way you framed the question is completely and utterly wrong. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the question.



For those who missed it on the wire today, we are seeing a return of “birtherism”, insisting that a person born in the US, of non-citizen parents, is not a natural born citizen according to Constitutional requirements.



I’m going to correct this for you: Three years ago there was an insurrection by said candidate to curtail the will of the voters.

Keep him off the ballot. He is ineligible. He is a clear and present danger to the country.