StarGateWars Forums

Spurred from: http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=101031
TL;DR:
Notable musician 'Ted' Nugent's concerts get cancelled by the venue due to allegations of racist remarks.

Nugent says his music has been influenced by Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley, he has paid tribute to Martin Luther King in his songs, and that lyrics in his song Great White Buffalo is not racist toward Native Americans.

The question here, is there even a line between freedom of speech and being PC? Should there be? Shouldn't there be? And does either of them overrule the other, e.g. should the venue not have caved in, or was it the right thing to do.

Obviously pertaining to the U.S.A, but even in Australia and some other countries freedom of speech is implied [spoiler]http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/4529 ... austr.aspx[/spoiler].

This is in general by the way, other scenarios such as the music industry (art v PC) and freedom to protest (a negative scenario of the one above) fall into the same category.

political correctness is bull u cant say alot of things that arent even rude now like to women you look lovely take that back il sue! ok fine il say this ur fat now sue me

There isn't a scale between Freedom of speech and PC. Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want, but you have to live with your decisions.

Political correctness is choosing to say things people won't get offended by when in a Public or Recorded situation.

They intersect, yes, but Freedom of Speech only guarantees the right to speak your mind. It doesn't protect you from offending others, or having a suit brought against you for defamation of character or some other legal action.

shooty08 wrote: They intersect, yes, but Freedom of Speech only guarantees the right to speak your mind. It doesn't protect you from offending others, or having a suit brought against you for defamation of character or some other legal action.

See this is what I eventually find; The point of freedom of speech becomes practically moot. If you suffer because of what you say and still call it freedom of speech, then it's no different to suggesting for example, North Korea's people have freedom of speech. They do, but they're sure as hell not going to exercise it.

Political correctness is based on the majority of those that have used their freedom of speech.

So,

Sol wrote: The question here, is there even a line between freedom of speech and being PC? Should there be? Shouldn't there be? And does either of them overrule the other, e.g. should the venue not have caved in, or was it the right thing to do.

No, no, don't complicate things, yes, today perhaps yes and tomorrow perhaps no.

Sol wrote:

shooty08 wrote: They intersect, yes, but Freedom of Speech only guarantees the right to speak your mind. It doesn't protect you from offending others, or having a suit brought against you for defamation of character or some other legal action.

See this is what I eventually find; The point of freedom of speech becomes practically moot. If you suffer because of what you say and still call it freedom of speech, then it's no different to suggesting for example, North Korea's people have freedom of speech. They do, but they're sure as hell not going to exercise it.

The point of freedom of speech is that you can say things negatively against your government and they can't just make you disappear.

If you say something that offends someone and they beat the **Filtered** out of you because of it, congratulations, you just created a situation where you freely expressed yourself and so did they.

shooty08 wrote:

Sol wrote:

shooty08 wrote: They intersect, yes, but Freedom of Speech only guarantees the right to speak your mind. It doesn't protect you from offending others, or having a suit brought against you for defamation of character or some other legal action.

See this is what I eventually find; The point of freedom of speech becomes practically moot. If you suffer because of what you say and still call it freedom of speech, then it's no different to suggesting for example, North Korea's people have freedom of speech. They do, but they're sure as hell not going to exercise it.

The point of freedom of speech is that you can say things negatively against your government and they can't just make you disappear.

I don't think the idea should be, or is, limited to that. Even so there are bastion of laws against race/gender/sexuality discrimination (here in Aus, and I would assume the US). If you're caught saying anything that is even slightly off the PC track, in public, you lose your job and get a flurry of hatemails by anyone that doesn't have the balls to man up and get over it.
Sure they wouldn't make your disappear. But it's no freedom of speech. At least any more free than totalitarian governments.

Sol wrote:

shooty08 wrote:

Sol wrote:

shooty08 wrote: They intersect, yes, but Freedom of Speech only guarantees the right to speak your mind. It doesn't protect you from offending others, or having a suit brought against you for defamation of character or some other legal action.

See this is what I eventually find; The point of freedom of speech becomes practically moot. If you suffer because of what you say and still call it freedom of speech, then it's no different to suggesting for example, North Korea's people have freedom of speech. They do, but they're sure as hell not going to exercise it.

The point of freedom of speech is that you can say things negatively against your government and they can't just make you disappear.

I don't think the idea should be, or is, limited to that. Even so there are bastion of laws against race/gender/sexuality discrimination (here in Aus, and I would assume the US). If you're caught saying anything that is even slightly off the PC track, in public, you lose your job and get a flurry of hatemails by anyone that doesn't have the balls to man up and get over it.
Sure they wouldn't make your disappear. But it's no freedom of speech. At least any more free than totalitarian governments.

Well, for one you don't have to be afraid of getting a bullet to the back of the skull for saying you don't like the regime. You are perfectly allowed to say whatever you want in the U.S., there isn't a law restricting it. There are laws about defamation of character, I.E. I say something slanderous about someone else. but that doesn't mean I'm going to go to the middle of the nearest bad part of town and start shouting "ya'all niggas is lazy" because 1. I'm not stupid 2. I don't want to be beaten or shot.

So to recap. Freedom of speech. You can say what you want, but you have to live with the consequences. Personal responsibility. You can get kicked out of an establishment, refused service, and so on. Those are the consequences of saying what you think when it is offensive. You want to act like an impetuous child and throw a tantrum because things aren't the exact way you like it, because someone is making you uncomfortable? Fine but I'm not going to kiss your boo-boo and say its all better when the world lashes back.

Sol wrote:

shooty08 wrote:

Sol wrote:

shooty08 wrote: They intersect, yes, but Freedom of Speech only guarantees the right to speak your mind. It doesn't protect you from offending others, or having a suit brought against you for defamation of character or some other legal action.

See this is what I eventually find; The point of freedom of speech becomes practically moot. If you suffer because of what you say and still call it freedom of speech, then it's no different to suggesting for example, North Korea's people have freedom of speech. They do, but they're sure as hell not going to exercise it.

The point of freedom of speech is that you can say things negatively against your government and they can't just make you disappear.

I don't think the idea should be, or is, limited to that. Even so there are bastion of laws against race/gender/sexuality discrimination (here in Aus, and I would assume the US). If you're caught saying anything that is even slightly off the PC track, in public, you lose your job and get a flurry of hatemails by anyone that doesn't have the balls to man up and get over it.
Sure they wouldn't make your disappear. But it's no freedom of speech. At least any more free than totalitarian governments.

That's Political Correctness totalitarianism.

Well, the PC totalitarianism leaves aside the straight white redhead christian males as the least protected by PC's dogma.

PC is nothing more than self censorship. it's disgusting!