"Liberals think they're tolerant, but they're not."

[Revoltingest]

No, it isn't.

The right to free speech is the right not to have speech criminalized by the government. That's it. It doesn't mean that a person is entitled to any particular platform or can say anything without consequences or criticism.

That's a fine strictly constitutional definition. But we can also use a broader societal
definition, ie, that we shouldn't unreasonably interfere with another's speech.
Let's not condone unreasonable interference just because it's legal.

 

[Akivah]

No, it isn't.

The right to free speech is the right not to have speech criminalized by the government. That's it. It doesn't mean that a person is entitled to any particular platform or can say anything without consequences or criticism.

Now you're adding to the definition. Obviously, part of free speech is accepting the consequences or criticism of your own free speech.

 

[Akivah]

To engage others in reasonable discussion requires both sides to be that way.
If one isn't reasonable, then the others will all look unreasonable.
There are a great many cons & libs who are civil & thoughtful.

I agree with that. Unfortunately, polite people don't get the headlines.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a fine strictly constitutional definition. But we can also use a broader societal
definition, ie, that we shouldn't unreasonably interfere with another's speech.

Would you consider walking out on someone to protest what they're saying to be speech? I would.

Let's not condone unreasonable interference just because it's legal.

I have never had the opportunity to speak at a university convocation. How do you think I should respond to this "unreasonable interference" with my "free speech"?

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you consider walking out on someone to protest what they're saying to be speech? I would.

I'd go further.
To walk out in protest is speech, & it doesn't abridge anyone's right to speech.

I have never had the opportunity to speak at a university convocation. How do you think I should respond to this "unreasonable interference" with my "free speech"?

I can't say, since I don't know your situation.
Many of us never had the opportunity, but it's because we're just not that interesting.
Free speech is a right which doesn't guarantee anyone will want to hear you or suppress you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now you're adding to the definition.

No, I'm not. I was describing things that aren't part of the definition.

Obviously, part of free speech is accepting the consequences or criticism of your own free speech.

So then what's your issue?

 

[Stevicus]

I used to believe in open dialog myself. That was back when conservatives were generally rational people. Things have changed in my sixty years. You cannot reason with an unreasonable person.

I realize that they have a conflicting set of values (many of which I disagree with), although I generally find them to be reasonable about most things. At least I've observed this regarding conservatives I know personally. What I've noticed is that there's a tendency to lump all of them into the same "basket of deplorables," which may be counterproductive. Not all of them are the same.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's a fine strictly constitutional definition. But we can also use a broader societal definition, ie, that we shouldn't unreasonably interfere with another's speech.

We can also limit it to what the Constitution requires.

Let's not condone unreasonable interference just because it's legal.

Your unreasonableness might not be the same as mine.

 

[Revoltingest]

We can also limit it to what the Constitution requires.

We already do.
But we can be better.

Your unreasonableness might not be the same as mine.

That's why we're here discussing it.