To keep from going off-topic in the other threads, I am moving this here.

Basically, I said "the day we start ignoring people's opinions is the day we lose our freedom of speech". I believe that absolutely everyone should be heard. The government should, but doesn't. People should hear each other and they have been hearing each other. If we didn't hear each other's opinions, we would probably still have a massive racism problem.

Gist: Everyone should be heard, no matter how much you don't like what they are saying.



But you two are suggesting that certain people can and should be ignored. We wouldn't be where we are today if we just ignored everyone but the government. It is possible to get around the anti-racist laws and such today still..

Okay, when I was working for the Massachusetts government, we got hundreds of phone calls a day, and Lamuella once again hit the nail on the head with the public option/private option thing. Massachusetts has universal health care by imposing a law that said everyone must have health insurance (a nice public-private balance that guarantees health care and allows for short lines and private choice). When this was enacted, I, the poor 18 year old, was working and would receive hundreds of calls daily from very angry or very happy people. And I was one of five office staff.

In a perfect world I would agree with you, yes, everyones opinion should be listened to and thought about, but that's simply impossible. You have to take a sample from the wide range of opinions and judge everyone based on the amount taken. If you don't then you simply waste too much time listening to everyone (and don't forget, opinions change) and you miss out on voting and have to explain to your constituents why you didn't vote.

I've seen some things that go a bit too far when dealing with the First Amendment, especially Bush-era "Free Speech Zones" which, in effect, kept protesters out of the view of the media and secluded to the point where it was difficult to make an opinion publicly known. Although I am an ardent supporter of controlling protests to prevent crime and damage loss, some restrictions go too far.


A good article from The American Conservative http://www.amconmag.com/article/2003/dec/15/00012/

I never said everyone's opinions should be heard AND acted upon, I simply said that everyone's opinions should at least be heard. Obviously the government only knows how the people feel because of people voicing their opinions.

Well I assure you that we do hear everyones opinion who tries to make an effort.

Some more than others. Like I pointed out, a corporation is going to have a much more important opinion that the average joe.


But that's life. And money.

What is your actual argument?

How is freedom of speech restricted by an individual private citizen not listening to another individual private citizen?

Actually, I'm pretty sure that the day we lose our freedom of speech is the day we ban people from voicing their opinions. If they aren't worth paying attention to, that's the person in question's problem.

Jumping off of that, important to note that the Constitution and Bill of Rights only protect you from the government, not a private citizen. As soon as you come into my house, your freedom of speech is gone.

Does this mean that no matter what I write, however inane (or insane) you will spend your time reading through, carefully considering, and debating it? Because if so I have a large stockpile I can point you to.

There is an infinite amount of data in the world; the important skill is not to take it all in, but to filter through what is useful. I am unlikely to spend much time on WorldNetDaily because it will take time away from reading other things. This is not an attack on WorldNetDaily's freedom of speech; it is the marketplace of ideas.

Well a corporation does it in a different way. Socialists have it all wrong when it comes to that, money indirectly effects things. When you can afford to have someone standing around all day voicing your opinion (I.E. a lobbyist) of course your opinion gets broadcasted more then the average Joe who has to go to work and feed his family in addition to researching and arguing his viewpoint. This is why the elderly are so big in voicing their opinions, when you're retired you have more time and energy.

If there were no freedom of speech, then wouldn't that be not hearing everyone's opinions, thus my point?



But that's the problem: What makes your opinion better than mine? You have money to bribe the government with?

everyone should be heard. I agree. You are able to make yourself heard to your elected officials in countless different ways. Your opinion will be taken under advisement.

However, you are one of millions of people. Even in a perfect world, the government can give only so much time to any one opinion or voice.

Imagine you work in an office where everyone goes out to lunch together every day. The manager decides where to go based on where people tell him they want to go. There are a hundred people in the office. Your strong preference for thai food will be listened to, but if everyone else wants to go to Chili's, or if several people absolutely loathe thai food, you probably won't get it. It's not that you're being ignored, just that your opinion is only being given the consideration that every other opinion gets.

(to make the situation more realistic, of course, the owner of Chili's gives the manager a hefty donation towards office supplies every month )

doubtful, as he's already admitted to not reading threads before posting in them

And when you can afford to donate large sums of money, which is almost the same thing as voicing your opinion. I promise you, money directly effects how a politician votes. Not every politician, mind you we have some honest ones, but there are a good number that would just as well stand up for X, Inc. because of years of donations.

Take Hillary and her failure at health reform. Was it the public outcry, or the fact that HMOs donated large sums of money to her.

Precisely. Your opinion should at least be heard. Maybe not processed, debated, refuted, etc., but it should at least be heard and known.

To put the OP into context: Emperor Stranger was reacting to an individual poster in another thread saying that he would ignore the opinion of another poster because he thought he was "a non-American Nazi".

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1906782


Emperor Stranger, unless he wants to change this to be about the government, was making the point that individuals restrict freedom of speech by ignoring other individuals.


Something I think he needs to better explain. Unfortunately, it seems that he has ironically put me on ignore and may never hear my request for an explanation. A tragic day for the free speech of Sal Paradise, to be sure.

If there was no freedom of speech, we wouldn't hear everyone's opinions. Just because you don't hear everyone's opinions does not mean there is no freedom of speech.

Well that is simply ridiculous. The protections on free speech are only in place to protect from the government. Not individuals.

I promise you it doesn't for an honest politician. Many places need ethic code updates, but politicians are nowhere near as dirty as one says they are. For Hilary, who knows, it is something I am not well versed on, but many of the politicians I worked with (all but one) were straight dealing and often threw out the more notorious lobbyists.

Honest politician is, unfortunately for the most part, an oxymoron. The amount of money one donates translates roughly into how much say in a political matter one has. I believe there was a SCOTUS case surrounding this. I'd rather restrict corporations from donating to politicians. The temptation in it of itself is too much.

I'll look past the first part, as one who has worked for the government, I know there is such a thing. I agree though, I really wish all donations were banned from corporations, or severely limited, but there is little chance that will happen with other large debates on the table.

I would like for you to more explicitly state the parameters of this debate. What constitutes ignoring someone's opinion? If I turn off the TV because I'm tired of listening to an obnoxious talking head, are you saying that I am infringing on his freedom of speech? And if that news channel stops inviting him on their shows, have they violated his rights? Because if that is what you are saying, then my response is that you do not understand the intention of the First Amendment. It is meant to protect a person from government persecution for what they say. It does not guarantee a person's right to be heard if no one else wants to listen to them. Mandating equal consideration for the views all 300 million Americans would be a God-awful mess, and nothing would get accomplished in such a system.

You're not the only one around here that's spent extensive time on Capitol Hill.

I'm not, many of us have, but I usually break the social norm and place trust in our government more then others I find, and spending time working with the government definitely helped me affirm my view point.

You have the right to say whatever you want. I have the right to ignore you. In saying that I must listen to you, you are violating my rights.

freedom of speech is the right to say what you believe. However in a country of 300 million their are lots of really stupid opinions and most people won't listen to them all, so if you want to be heard find other people that believe what you do until you have a large enough number and then do something, hopefully legal, to gain media attention and their you go the US is watching. And if you can't get enough people that agree with you then its likely that your cause is just pointless.

and it already is.

But this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Technically, there is no "right to ignore" in the constitution.



I won't bother... this argument is going around in circles.

Something tells me that any court would rule in a way that says that I should not be forced to listen to what you have to say.

Edit: Possibly 9th Amendment?

Mother of Pearl! You have no idea what you're talking about!

There is also no right to walk in the constitution, but you still do anyways (I presume.) Ever heard of the ninth amendment? Look it up.


The Bill of Rights protects you from infringement from the government. I don't think you understand this. I can stifle your freedom of speech all I want. This is why, even on these forums, you have no freedom of speech. There is no government official here.

I hope you're not ignoring lamuella here.

I have already argued that point with the same argument fives times. It's a circular argument now.

Show me the text where it says that you have the right to have your opinion heard and known.

You haven't responded to the majority of the points being made.

No one is saying that your congressman should ignore you for the lulz.

What we are saying is that me or you should be able to ignore anyone for the lulz if we want, and that has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

It's like this: you have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean you have a right to government-supplied firearms.

The word here is: "Freedom."

You have the freedom to say what you want.

I have the freedom to decide whether or not it's worth my time.
If it's been ignored, it doesn't mean I didn't hear it. It means I made the decision to not address it, or care about it.

Freedom of speech is overrated. I don't care about your opinion, and if you get shut up I don't particularly care about that because I have ACTUAL things to worry about. Blah blah blah "NO BLOOD FOR OIL" "NO BAILOUTS" "OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST!"

The only relevant part of free speech is that it adds to the national conversation and the stockpile of information, much like your bids on the market adjust price and moves things towards the REAL value of goods. If your viewpoint does not move the national conversation and national policy to the optimal outcomes you should shut up and I have little problem having someone MAKE you shut up.

There are two problems with this.

The first problem, of course, is that we can't actually determine WHAT is good speech and WHAT is bad speech because we don't know with absolute confidence what optimal policy outcomes are. But if we have certainty, free speech often IS prohibited. You are not allowed to incite riots. You are not allowed to shout fire in a movie theater. You are not allowed to say "fighting words." In some nations, you are not allowed to deny the holocaust. None of these is unreasonable. I also do not see anything unreasonable about telling an idiot to shut up either. The relevant question is certainty, and anyone that knows me knows that my certainty level is not 100%.

The second problem is an issue of majorities. The majority of the country believes in Intelligent Design? Can't outlaw that belief because there would be an uprising. Same thing applies to most relevant policy debates, such as gay marriage and the death penalty.



The first amendment has been elevated to the status of religion in the US. It's ridiculous. I LIKE freedom of speech because of the above two problems and the aforementioned benefits of speech. I DO believe in freedom of speech within the context of anarchistic societies where you cannot impose your views on other people. I do NOT believe people have the right to damage government decision-making and then impose their wills on others, but I see no clear to prevent that from happening without causing more severe damage to human welfare. I do NOT believe in freedom of speech as a moral imperative within the context of a government that is completely based on violating people's liberties on a daily basis. I DO believe freedom of speech has intrinsic values, but that these values do NOT automatically trump all other concerns. I DO believe that people that think freedom of speech as moral imperative within this context should find religion, because they apparently have no problems with nonsense, fairy tales, and contradictions.

GV, please hurry and take over the world. I disagree with everything you say, but it would be fun to lead a coup against your frighteningly surreal concepts of government.

Surreal? I think he may just be frighteningly honest about the machinations of state.

The good news is that GV (or someone like him) can probably only reach power in an emergency, and since I live close to New York I'll probably die in the blast (or at least a following food riot).

We'll see about that!


On the first part: yes. I am simply honest about how the state actually works. I don't particularly LIKE the state, but it's a necessary institution for now. Other people find it's necessary and then invent all sorts of fictions around it and start believing the pragmatic gestures are in fact objective moral rules that must always be obeyed. Americans have found religion.


On the second part: if I were actually governing, it would not be shockingly different from what you have now. You would never know until it's too late and then you'd be kissing your butt hoping that the French will save YOUR rear this time. But they won't