I’ve seen several conservatives here accuse liberals of suppressing others’ freedom of speech. (They especially like to cite political correctness as an example.) However, we’re not the ones who are trying to get Harry Potter books banned from public school libraries or trying to get Darwin’s theory discredited or shunted aside in the public schools, despite the fact that practically all of the scientific community (with the exception of a few kooks) bases its assumptions and work on it.
This is a good question.
to be answered in a few parts and included a retort to Wyco’s answer. First, I am considered an extreme liberal.
To Wyco – No, I do not support NAMBLA. Yes, some people are so liberal that they do want to remove all regulatory laws, they are called libertarians. Some child molester’s can be rehabilitated, some can not, who decides which ones can and which ones cannot be? We must give them all a chance, if it fails, then yes, lock them up forever. I do see this as better than killing convicted murderers, and then finding they are innocent. I think the prosecutor should be guilty of murder in those cases.
I personally want to see both parties control the government, if not three or more parties.
Back to Wyco – check the two Supreme Court cases involving the Pledge of Allegience in school 1939 and 1941 (one is Gobitis can’t remember the second one) but here is the lowdown. The first case supported the idea that everyone should be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school regardless of religion, case brought up by a Jehovah’s witness – who worship no one but God. The second one overturned it, because Germany showed what enforced nationalism was capable of doing to a country – read nazism.
I support offering the bible as a book that can be checked out of the libraries, but not the enforced reading of it. It should be put into a section with other religious readers, the Koran, the Torah, and others that I do not know the names of, I apologize to the Hindi’s, Buddhist’s, and follower’s of other religions, I failed to mention. If we force schoolchildren to read one they should read them all, it would improve the globalization efforts of the corporations.
Back to the question – Conservative’s accuse liberals of suppressing other’s freedom of speech because some of us do. Check out the vegetarian section on Yahoo answers. Meat eaters beware, you will be shot down quicker than a mosquito in a bug light. But, no a blanket statement like that is ridiculous. We have just as many examples of conservatives doing it as they have liberals.
The “liberal media” is a creation of the conservative media. It exists, but as strongly as the conservative one does.
Being as the Bush republican admininstration is the most secretive in the history of the United States, freedom of speech is a real threat to them. They do not want the masses to know the real truth. Republicans do more to squelch Freedom of Speech than anyone.
Another lie is that the media is liberal. Far from it.
The U.S. media are rapidly being monopolized by a dwindling number of parent corporations, all of whom have conservative economic agendas. The media are also critically dependent upon corporations for advertising. As a result, the news almost completely ignores corporate crime, as well as pro-labor and pro-consumer issues. Surveys of journalists show that the majority were personally liberal in the 1980s, but today they are centrists, with more conservatives than liberals on economic issues. However, no study has proven that they give their personal bias to the news. On the other hand, the political spectrum of pundits — who do engage in noisy editorializing — leans heavily to the right. The most extreme example of this is talk radio, where liberals are almost nonexistent. The Fairness Doctrine was designed to prevent one-sided bias in the media by requiring broadcasters to air opposing views. It once enjoyed the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. But now that the media have become increasingly owned and controlled by corporations, conservatives defiantly oppose the Fairness Doctrine. This is probably the best proof that the media’s bias is conservative, not liberal.
This is what democrat liberals are trying to do…they want to make it illegal for any organization to let the people know whats going on in congress and make it criminal for those same organizations to encourage people to contact their congressman…This is only one example…there are many…
The House Judiciary Committee is expected to reconsider the вЂњgrassroots gag orderвЂќ when the Meehan Amendment (H.R. 2093) will be offered on Tuesday, May 15, during debate on a broader “lobbying reform” bill. This amendment, sponsored by Rep. Martin Meehan (D-Mass.), would establish, for the first time, federal regulatory authority over efforts aimed at motivating citizens to communicate with their representatives about bills moving in Congress
I Don’t understand what your talking about.
The Party’s are not the problem it is certain people in those parties.
For example Bush Say’s he’s against abortion. Do I believe him? NO! There is plenty of proof that he had an affair and told that woman to get an abortion. Not only that his grandfather Prescott Bush Started what is now known today as planned parenthood which is an abortion provider. I am against abortion and I would rather vote for Kerry who say’s he’s for abortion rather than Bush who is lying about his beliefs and throws the pro-lifers a bone to chew on once in a while to shut them up. I do not cast my vote by party but by person. There are plenty of liars and plenty of people who do not have the same beliefs within the parties. I vote they we banish party’s all together so it forces people to question candidates and look into who they are really voting for instead of blind voting.
The Rapture Rights are supporting the suppression of both the examples you mentioned. These extremists are as dangerous as any fundamental Islamic group in existence. As the juggernaut of conservative ideology they use whatever means at their disposal to discredit any opposition and will resort to lies and terrorism given the opportunity.
Democrats attack Republicans using facts about policy and actions. Republican attacks on Democrats are usually just an insult game, name-calling, smear tactics. It’s attempting to discredit the messenger, because they know that they cannot discredit the message.
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the person”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument’s proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.
Its not that Liberals are suppressing the speech of others, its more that certain ” conservatives ” long for the power to shout down anyone they don’t like. So far we have broadcasting and media law, civil law and first amendment protections under the Constitution – – so far.
It seems to be a Popularity Contest based on emotions. check out HR Bills 254, 984 and 1592. Groups Like Nambla are defended by the ACLU, as they rape children!
Part of the political process has evolved into propaganda wars, and a part of that is spreading vicious lies about the other side in an attempt to “win” election.
The main difference between Republicans and Democrats (I refuse to use the terms “liberal” and “conservative” because the words when used politically no longer remain true to their original definition) is that Democrats will pick a lie and stand by it forever. Example: “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” Republicans change their story every time someone figures out they’re lying. Example: “We invaded Iraq because Osama bin Laden is hiding there. …. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons. …. We invaded Iraq because this is the job my daddy started. ….. We invaded Iraq because they’re Muslim. …. We invaded Iraq because they have brown skin. ….. We invaded Iraq because they’re a threat to national security. …. We invaded Iraq because al-Qaeda is hiding there. …. We invaded Iraq because…. b-b-because….because…. I forgot why. But we invaded for a good reason. I think.”
No you aren’t trying to get Harry Potter books removed from the Libraries.. But you are the ones who don’t want the Pledge of Allegiance said in school, and don’t want “In God we trust” printed on Money… You are the same group who stand up and defend the Rights of NAMBLA, and think that Child Molesters can be rehabilitated and shouldn’t be jailed no matter how many times the offend…