it means that both sides have the right to speak...
.
 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
General discussion
Freedom of speech?
Should people who oppose the reactionary administration recieve this treatment?
Discussion is locked
25 Posts
- Collapse
- Collapse -
- Collapse -
theres a saying if you cant stand the heat shut yer yap.
she has right to say what she does ands her awards are what she deserves.
or is it only the anti busheres allowed to voice there views?
- Collapse -
"or is it only the anti busheres allowed to voice there views?"
It's an illegal action by those who disagree with her.
- Collapse -
...I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Mark5019 "said that".
http://reviews.cnet.com/5208-6130-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=173281&messageID=1909796
- Collapse -
you cant have it 1 way.
you say what you want and then some one disagrees its wrong.
gosh its so funny amigo
go back to your unlawfull compadres marching
- Collapse -
it's expected for you to argue your side. It is not expected for you to threaten me because of my view.
Diana
- Collapse -
they threaten our soldiers saftey
where is your outrage then?
- Collapse -
like the ones we have been getting from Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi are wrong.
Calling Susan Sarandon a name, which may or may not be accurate, is free speech. Tough luck if she doesn't like it; she brought it on herself.
- Collapse -
That justifies the death threats, I guess.
"like the ones we have been getting from Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi are wrong."
And what brought those threats on?
- Collapse -
you reap what you spout remeber that the next time you use your free speach
- Collapse -
NO! I said they were WRONG. Too bad you can't be honest about this.
So, do you think Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Zarqawi's death threats against us are justified? You seem to. Exactly whose side are you on? Let's make it clear.
- Collapse -
by exercising her right of free speech. Just how does that work?
Diana
- Collapse -
If her rhetoric is anything like Sheehan's, however -- and because she associated herself with that disgraceful human being -- she invites a turnaround of the rhetoric back at her.
Death threats or threats of any violent or intimidating nature are a different thing. They should be reported.
- Collapse -
If someone doesn't like what you say, they can also say something in response to it. That's called Freedom of Speech. Everyone has it, not just Susan Sarandon.
- Collapse -
Threats of bodily harm and death are not unusual, now or in the past. (And too often carried out in some countries.)
When they apply to a celebrity, they make national and international (as with IT) news.
They happen to those on both sides of the war issue, which is an emotional one, and for other ''reasons''. At times there can be no discernable ''reason'' other than in the minds of the perpetrators.
Other celebrities who have spoken against the war have also been threatened.
But rational people do no more than express their opposition to their views.
There always have been irrational, irresponsible people.
Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com
- Collapse -
that is against the law and prepetrators should be dealt with accordingly.
Yet, while death threats are extreme... just about any lesser form of criticism is acceptable and expected when soemone voices a strong opinion on a very touchy matter.
Would I go to a NAACP meeting chanting that African Americans are inferior (I don't actually believe it)? No, because although I have a right to say so, I realize that saying it will earn me harsh criticism and I would not be surprised if there was a physical altercation. Free speech, while a treasured right, can be foolish in it's exercise... not does free speech necessarily make you right.
- Collapse -
Funny no one paid this much attention when Michelle Malkin was hammered and threatened. Seems free speech only applies to those who disagree with the U.S., the President or religion not of their making.
Tom
- Collapse -
in case I seemed to sympathetic to Sarandon. Yet, unlike Sarandon, Malkin and others don't whine about not having everyone like them.
- Collapse -
So if she feels credibly threatened she should report it to the authorities. As to words? What goes around comes around.
- Collapse -
You have the right to express yourself without government retribution. You will not be detained, tried, jailed, executed, etc. (as had been common in Europe) for your statements. The constitutional law does not bar your neighbor from punching you in the nose in the event of a disagreement in principle or opinion. That will be covered by other civil laws if applicable.
CNET Forums
Operating Systems
Software
Electronics & Gadgets
Hardware
Tablets & Mobile Devices
General Help
Roadshow Autos
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic