Free Speech.

"Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis" (Dwhite95) 07/17/2015 at 12:56 • Filed to: None

3

26

Just about the worst rationale you can give when something negative happens. All it means is that there isn’t even an excuse you can make up to justify what you did.

Free speech gives me the right to call your mother a cunt, but it doesn’t justify me doing so. And it certainly doesn’t absolve me of being an asshole.

So yeah, I’m strongly considering leaving. Or at the very least shirking my already small footprint here.

Have a short bus for your time.

DrJohannVegas > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 12:59

5

It also often reveals that you don’t understand what Constitutional protections you are afforded by the First Amendment.

Denver Is Stuck In The 90s > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:00

0

This thing is amazing

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:00

2

*rational e.

Converse > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:00

1

I love the short bus, but the red reflection has my attention. Is it an early 911 or a weird Alfa Spyder reflection?

Steve is equipped with Electronic Fool Injection > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:01

1

Just about the worst rational

*rationale*

Racescort666 > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:01

1

Randall Munroe said it best:

I can’t remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you’re saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it’s not literally illegal to express.

Party-vi > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:02

6

The right to free speech give you the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. Nothing more.

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > Converse 07/17/2015 at 13:03

2

K-roll’s Dad's 911.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > DrJohannVegas 07/17/2015 at 13:04

0

Or, alternately, one believes that enshrining something from interference by the government hints at a larger principle at work. Laws prohibiting laws generally intend that best practice is to avoid the sort of limits those laws invoke whenever practical. Just because the government has a monopoly on the use of force does not make other coercion to that end less abusive, merely (usually) legal.

Converse > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:05

0

Mmmm....accordian bumper. So nice. The new 911’s are great and fast and make the right noises, but I love earlier versions. Just so raw and if you’re not careful, dangerous.

Party-vi > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:07

2

:3

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:07

0

All it means is that there isn’t even an excuse you can make up to justify what you did.

I would contest this. All too often, it admits to a knowledge that the other party will accept no excuse, regardless of legitimacy. Usually because the disagreement is fundamental, and neither side will admit alteration of precepts. Of course, your second statement (having a right if not a reason) addresses this to a point.

DrJohannVegas > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 07/17/2015 at 13:07

0

I concur with the sentiment. However, in most of the cases I’ve seen where someone makes a free speech claim as a knee-jerk reaction (in the US), they refer to the amendment as if it applied equally to speech in private contexts. It does not.

For Sweden > Party-vi 07/17/2015 at 13:07

0

It certainly doesn’t stop me from banning everyone

Party-vi > For Sweden 07/17/2015 at 13:09

0

We are not the government. We can operate outside of their laws.

For Sweden > Party-vi 07/17/2015 at 13:11

0

We are not the government yet

Stapleface-Now Hyphenated! > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:12

0

That bus is gorgeous.

Party-vi > For Sweden 07/17/2015 at 13:12

0

Don’t worry - when we become the government I’ll establish a pseudo-government division for bannification of accounts.

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:13

0

This is gawker related right?

I’m trying this whole “don’t read anything but oppo and select deadspin articles” thing and it’s going well for now. The constant sharing of every sub to another sub has unfortunately let loose all the assholes. Check out deadspin front page at any given time. Shared, shared, shared, shared, not sports, ad, shared, baseball chin.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > DrJohannVegas 07/17/2015 at 13:13

0

The flip side to the ignorant citing of the First being, of course, the overlabored xkcd “showing you the door” metaphor. The principle runs real risk of erosion if the public and private spaces are ruled by the mob, regardless whether the government per se is doing the ruling. The benefit to referring first to the First ( as principle) and the worn phrase “free speech” is that everyone at least somewhat understands what you mean. The speech and principle more so than the context.

KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs > Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis 07/17/2015 at 13:15

1

There’s a bunch of social reasons (which Gawker is generally supportive of, by the freaking way...) to not publish the blackmail which was published. Mainly the “gay-shaming” angle.

I mean, it wouldn’t have freaking mattered if the escort in question had two X chromosomes, because that’s par for the course in the entertainment business and gossip business.

But because dude wanted to spend his own time and money on other dude, OMG let’s ruin his life!

DrJohannVegas > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 07/17/2015 at 13:18

0

With respect, I think if one uses the right to an act as justification for it (especially when the speech is bereft of knowledge and used merely as a cudgel), then the “shorthand” use only indicates that the person uttering it does not even understand what they mean.

I should add, by the way, that I think we agree much more than we disagree on this.

Dwhite - Powered by Caffeine, Daft Punk, and Corgis > KusabiSensei - Captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs 07/17/2015 at 13:20

0

That was any reason why it bother me so much.

Female + Female: Empowerment. (If they’re lucky, if not see three.)

Male + Female: Par for the course.

Male + Male: RED ALERT, SOUND THE ALARMS, POST THE ARTICLE. This could really fuck someone up!

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > DrJohannVegas 07/17/2015 at 13:22

1

A fair point, but as I mentioned in another comment, citing free speech as justification is the *lazy* way of admitting that the person to whom it’s addressed would not accept other justification. It doesn’t mean that such other justification would be wrong . Only that the other party would reject it, and parsing everything for validity in being allowed in utterance by the imputed validity of such grounds rather than the freeing “I don’t have to make you accept it” side of things is fraught with ethical risk.

K-Roll-PorscheTamer > Converse 07/17/2015 at 17:03

0

It’s the bee’s knees to drive! :D

Converse > K-Roll-PorscheTamer 07/17/2015 at 17:09

0

I’m sure!!!