Moral of the Story: Both Liberals and Conservatives can be jerks

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Because it involves falsely giving the business a low rating on a site where its rating is based on food, service and decor rather than on political views

Doesn't change the right to do it. A review website is, by definition, a private concern (first off) so the "free speaking" right is up to the owner, not the State. Second, reviews can be about whatever the reviewer likes, there is no law against giving a bad review because of any reason, in this case, political.

and the Chik-Fil-A protesters never tried to denigrate the quality of the business as a means to cause it harm

Holy ****, seriously?

/facepalm

Ignorance and selective memory is bliss, eh.

Anyone wants to boycott the pizza place because the owner supports Obama? Go ahead. It's stupid and absurd, but go ahead. But this? Too far.

Sadly the law doesn't agree with you. And I find your view offensive, frankly. Speech is the cornerstone fo freedom, and it's not the comfy one-way street you libs would like it to be. It comes with as many responsabillities and it does rights. One of which is others may express THEIR free speech to speak against you and your own expression of same.

When I have some time, I'll have to see what you two thought of Occupy, and the various occupational, violence and crime-based expression of their "rights". I have a distinct feeling, especially with one of you, you had no such compunction supporting their rights to protest or speak.

[PatriotReign]

There were partisan reader comments to a political article?


Shocked I tellz ya!

[piney]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Maybe you should read what you write.



Pretty clear that your positionw as that spech rights end where "harm" starts, and "harming" others is generally illegal. So you're position was one of limitation of rights due to harm being caused, said limitation which can only be imposed by teh State.

So no, it's not a lie. either you do not understand what the emaning of the words you wrote quoted above, or you misspke. either way, means very little.



I'll quote it again, for reference:



Rather clear IMO that yes, you were supporting a new limitation on the definition of free speech, that speech that caused "harm" as you define it was not, in fact, free speech at all, hence not protected speech.



*sigh*

So, what you glean from what I say trumps what I'm telling you my point of view is. Gotcha.


As far as you thinly veiled insult about me being a hypocrite on Occupy I am pretty sure we discussed it. I didn't support it, felt that anyone who broke the law should be prosecuted, we agreed (I think) on how people will support criminal protest when they agree with the message. You got in it with someone about how the Events leading up to the revolution were criminal in that they broke English law, whoever you said that to disagreed. I think we did what we always do, agreed in some areas and disagreed on other. I think you asked me what kind of illegal protest I was okay with and I said anything that wasn't criminal or harmful. As long as people understood that they would have to face the consequences of their actions.


I think you will probably conject this Post as support for Pol Pot