The future of history, entertainment and opinion

[creed 1,649]

Just reflecting during my coffee time this morning and I was wondering what the future looks like for our country from a free-speech/expression narrative. It looks like the standards for writing a history book, naming a sports team, creating a film for cinema, writing an article, or even providing an opinion may be extremely scrutinized and/or judged going forward.

Note: I agree with the actions of some of the things going on, but should a line me drawn? Of course, these are my thoughts this morning and will change with time. What's your thoughts?   

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

The concept of free speech is wildly misunderstood in our country.  It was never intended to give people protection from scrutinization from your fellow citizens.  The only thing free speech does is give you protection from your government.  Nothing more.  

While you have the right to say essentially whatever you want, others citizens have the right to dissent and, if applicable, even hold back money from your business based on what was said.  That too is free speech.

What you have right now is the marketplace of ideas doing what it's supposed to do.  Eventually truth and standards of the day usually wins out.  For example, since you brought up sports teams, let's talk about what's going on with the Redskins.  It's a perfect example of money being used to change something based on a contemporary understanding of the term Redskin.  Keep in mind that the moniker was bestowed upon the team in 1937 when they were still in Boston.  A lot has changed since then in how we use words and understand what is considered racist language.

It's important to remember as well that no one is actually forcing ownership to change and, in fact, Dan Snyder resisted change for years.  However, once his sponsors threatened to pull out, he was forced to reconsider.  Snyder now has the option of keeping the name and eschewing sponsors altogether or finding new ones.  He's making a choice, for the sake of his business, to look at alternatives.  It's arguable that he'll make more money this way as fans will be purchasing all new shirts, jerseys, hats, etc.

This is also not the first time we've seen a name change in Washington due to a team name that was questionable.  Remember, the Wizards used to be the Bullets.  20+ years later, no one really thinks or cares about it.

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 hours ago, creed said:

These are my thoughts this morning and will change with time

Appreciate the tone with and spirit in which you posted, but just wanted to highlight how much I respect this thought in particular.

I agree with @Brad_ATX. While I don't think you're making the mistake here, he's right that a lot of people mistake the free market economy operating properly as 1A infringement...

... when the only thing jeopardizing 1A is POTUS freezing out the press. They are a far more important protection against tyranny than some other issues this administration's supporters remain preoccupied with.

[creed 1,649]

Christopher Columbus. I don't understand the reasoning for vandalizing this statue. Can someone educate me on this one?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

14 minutes ago, creed said:

Christopher Columbus. I don't understand the reasoning for vandalizing this statue. Can someone educate me on this one?

There are those who think are the atrocities he committed are glossed over in history and his glorification is unjustified.  His expeditions basically wiped out an entire sect of indigenous people here in the Americas.

Personally, I don't think we should glorify a guy who got lost.  Seems dumb to me.

[creed 1,649]

32 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

There are those who think are the atrocities he committed are glossed over in history and his glorification is unjustified.  His expeditions basically wiped out an entire sect of indigenous people here in the Americas.

Personally, I don't think we should glorify a guy who got lost.  Seems dumb to me.

Thank you for replying. My thoughts are developing on this and currently it seems that there are many opinions on any particular subject. For instance this statue. Should it stay or should it go. Obviously, it wasn't up for debate because it's gone. Where does it stop or should it stop? Should every/any statue be taken done it should all statues remain? Who gets to decide? Extrapolate this to any subject.

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

1 hour ago, creed said:

Thank you for replying. My thoughts are developing on this and currently it seems that there are many opinions on any particular subject. For instance this statue. Should it stay or should it go. Obviously, it wasn't up for debate because it's gone. Where does it stop or should it stop? Should every/any statue be taken done it should all statues remain? Who gets to decide? Extrapolate this to any subject.

 

 

 

[Grumps 3,704]

On 7/4/2020 at 8:25 AM, Brad_ATX said:

The concept of free speech is wildly misunderstood in our country.  It was never intended to give people protection from scrutinization from your fellow citizens.  The only thing free speech does is give you protection from your government.  Nothing more.  

While you have the right to say essentially whatever you want, others citizens have the right to dissent and, if applicable, even hold back money from your business based on what was said.  That too is free speech.

What you have right now is the marketplace of ideas doing what it's supposed to do.  Eventually truth and standards of the day usually wins out.  For example, since you brought up sports teams, let's talk about what's going on with the Redskins.  It's a perfect example of money being used to change something based on a contemporary understanding of the term Redskin.  Keep in mind that the moniker was bestowed upon the team in 1937 when they were still in Boston.  A lot has changed since then in how we use words and understand what is considered racist language.

It's important to remember as well that no one is actually forcing ownership to change and, in fact, Dan Snyder resisted change for years.  However, once his sponsors threatened to pull out, he was forced to reconsider.  Snyder now has the option of keeping the name and eschewing sponsors altogether or finding new ones.  He's making a choice, for the sake of his business, to look at alternatives.  It's arguable that he'll make more money this way as fans will be purchasing all new shirts, jerseys, hats, etc.

This is also not the first time we've seen a name change in Washington due to a team name that was questionable.  Remember, the Wizards used to be the Bullets.  20+ years later, no one really thinks or cares about it.

Great post!

"The marketplace of ideas is doing what it's supposed to do." That's how it should work. The slope gets slippery when the the government steps in and tells bakers who they must bake cakes for (and similar situations). Those situations should be handled by the marketplace as well.

[Grumps 3,704]

19 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Appreciate the tone with and spirit in which you posted, but just wanted to highlight how much I respect this thought in particular.

I agree with @Brad_ATX. While I don't think you're making the mistake here, he's right that a lot of people mistake the free market economy operating properly as 1A infringement...

... when the only thing jeopardizing 1A is POTUS freezing out the press. They are a far more important protection against tyranny than some other issues this administration's supporters remain preoccupied with.

I don't think that 1A grants access to the POTUS for anyone who claims to be the press. The press is free to print whatever they want to and are then subject to the marketplace and to libel laws.

[homersapien 11,447]

3 hours ago, Grumps said:

I don't think that 1A grants access to the POTUS for anyone who claims to be the press. The press is free to print whatever they want to and are then subject to the marketplace and to libel laws.

Can you please explain what you mean by that?

[Grumps 3,704]

33 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Can you please explain what you mean by that?

I don't think that the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution guarantees that members of the press can have access to meet with the POTUS. My statement was in reply to the comment:  ".when the only thing jeopardizing 1A is POTUS freezing out the press."

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 hours ago, Grumps said:

I don't think that 1A grants access to the POTUS for anyone who claims to be the press. The press is free to print whatever they want to and are then subject to the marketplace and to libel laws.

Jesus Christ. 

[homersapien 11,447]

55 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I don't think that the First Amendment to the U.S Constitution guarantees that members of the press can have access to meet with the POTUS. My statement was in reply to the comment:  ".when the only thing jeopardizing 1A is POTUS freezing out the press."

OK, now I get your point.  But, I think it's debatable.

It's a question of whether of not the POTUS - in their role as executive of our government should be able to unilaterally restrict access - thereby, "abridging the freedom" of the press?  (Press being defined professionally.)

Is such an action inherently "lawful"? 

It's certainly un-American.

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 hours ago, Grumps said:

I don't think that 1A grants access to the POTUS for anyone who claims to be the press. The press is free to print whatever they want to and are then subject to the marketplace and to libel laws.

I get that you're not alarmed that the guy you voted for is aggressively curating the microphones and questions allowed in his media sessions. And it's scary that there are many who think like you.

[Grumps 3,704]

2 hours ago, McLoofus said:

I get that you're not alarmed that the guy you voted for is aggressively curating the microphones and questions allowed in his media sessions. And it's scary that there are many who think like you.

So what about my post do you disagree with? Are you really saying that the first amendment means that the press has access to the POTUS? I think that Trump treats the press like crap, but I don't see what that has to do with 1A.

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 hours ago, Grumps said:

So what about my post do you disagree with? Are you really saying that the first amendment means that the press has access to the POTUS? I think that Trump treats the press like crap, but I don't see what that has to do with 1A.

I know you don't get it, and you're not going to. Just have to hope there are enough of us who aren't so eager to defend his every failing. 

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

I know you don't get it, and you're not going to. Just have to hope there are enough of us who aren't so eager to defend his every failing. 

I am not defending Trump. I am explaining my understanding of 1A. But I know you don't get it, and you're not going to. Just have to hope there are enough of us who understand the difference between the freedom of the press and stupid political games played with the press so that the intended purpose of 1A remains intact.

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, Grumps said:

stupid political games played with the press so that the intended purpose of 1A remains intact.

Like I said. Hopefully there are enough of us to correct the mistake that you and his other voters made. 

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Like I said. Hopefully there are enough of us to correct the mistake that you and his other voters made. 

Good Luck!

[homersapien 11,447]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

I am not defending Trump. I am explaining my understanding of 1A. But I know you don't get it, and you're not going to. Just have to hope there are enough of us who understand the difference between the freedom of the press and stupid political games played with the press so that the intended purpose of 1A remains intact.

If anything, the press in 1788 was more prone to "stupid political games" than today. 

Regardless, it's not for the president - particularly this president - to determine what is legitimate reporting and what is "stupid political games".

The provisions of the 1st amendment relating to the press were clearly designed to allow for a basic check on government by reporting to the people what their government was doing. 

Restricting the press by refusing access may or may not be a legal violation of the 1st amendment - that depends on the judges who make the ruling - but a POTUS who does so is clearly undermining the purpose and intent of the 1st amendment regarding a "free" press.  It's a dangerous, un-American action that is a prelude to authoritarian tyranny.

 

[johnnyAU 3,647]

Attempts by some factions to silence, or prevent free speech are more concerning to me. This has played out on college campuses over the last several years. A speaker (likely controversial to some group or groups) is invited to speak on campus by a separate group. The word gets out, and the upset group raises an uproar about the appearance. If it isn't cancelled completely, then the group attempts to blockade entrance to the venue, preventing other students or faculty from gaining access. If the security is sufficient and the blockade is not effective, then the group infiltrates the venue and attempts to shout down the speaker during the presentation. It's the complete opposite of free exchange of ideas and healthy debate. It has instead morphed into attacking anyone and everyone that don't hold the same set of beliefs as your group and has given rise to this "cancel culture". 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

If anything, the press in 1788 was more prone to "stupid political games" than today. 

Regardless, it's not for the president - particularly this president - to determine what is legitimate reporting and what is "stupid political games".

The provisions of the 1st amendment relating to the press were clearly designed to allow for a basic check on government by reporting to the people what their government was doing. 

Restricting the press by refusing access may or may not be a legal violation of the 1st amendment - that depends on the judges who make the ruling - but a POTUS who does so is clearly undermining the purpose and intent of the 1st amendment regarding a "free" press.  It's a dangerous, un-American action that is a prelude to authoritarian tyranny.

 

All of this.  People complaining about the press now should really look into and learn history, especially during the early days of our country.  It was brutal for politics.

[McLoofus 35,182]

23 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Attempts by some factions to silence, or prevent free speech are more concerning to me. This has played out on college campuses over the last several years. A speaker (likely controversial to some group or groups) is invited to speak on campus by a separate group. The word gets out, and the upset group raises an uproar about the appearance. If it isn't cancelled completely, then the group attempts to blockade entrance to the venue, preventing other students or faculty from gaining access. If the security is sufficient and the blockade is not effective, then the group infiltrates the venue and attempts to shout down the speaker during the presentation. It's the complete opposite of free exchange of ideas and healthy debate. It has instead morphed into attacking anyone and everyone that don't hold the same set of beliefs as your group and has given rise to this "cancel culture". 

Sounds a bit like a speech that I heard about from Saturday.

Regardless, I personally don't equate college kids asking that hate speech not be given a platform at their university- however overzealous they may be at times- to the leader of the free world attempting to leverage his power to employ the very press that was declared free specifically to protect us from those in power. 

It's possible that there is nothing illegal about how trump manages press relations. It's definitely not illegal for institutions to deny would-be speakers a platform. That is not saying, "You can't say that." It's saying, "You'll have to go somewhere else to say that." Massive difference between those two statements, and also a massive difference between either scenario and the current steward of our democracy displaying fascist leanings by trying to control the media. 

2A folks love to pretend that their right to a firearm still has something to do with protecting themselves from a tyrannical government. Well, a free press actually can accomplish that. That trump has convinced so many that the media is the enemy continues to be one of the scariest aspects of this administration. 

[johnnyAU 3,647]

17 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Regardless, I personally don't equate college kids asking that hate speech not be given a platform at their university

It isn't necessarily "hate speech", it's any set of ideas that differ from your own.

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, johnnyAU said:

It isn't necessarily "hate speech", it's any set of ideas that differ from your own.

Curious what examples you have of that. Of groups "infiltrating venues" to oppose differing ideas. And how that poses a meaningful threat to American security or democracy.