Quote of the Day–Myself(7/18/2013)****

So apparently some people feel that calling someone an asshole for doing/saying something you find offensive and reprehensible some how attacks their right to free speech.

Can someone please give me a guide I can use to determine when I can voice my opinion and when I can’t because my exercise of free speech some how detracts from theirs?

Barron Barnett – Facebook Status

July 18th, 2013


[The thread where this went down has pretty much been deep sixed by the other party.  He cared so little he took the time to block me.  Good thing I have mutual friends to make sure that it never disappears.

Part1

Part2

Just as a side note, I don’t normally act in a civil manner when I demand something.  Please and thank you go right out the window when one makes a “demand”.  I was merely asking him to name a victim to prove that he actually could name one, if he didn't want to then fine, that’s his business.

But overall this has been something that has really started to piss me off as of late.  If I voice my displeasure at X for something they said or did that is covered by “Free Speech” I am all the sudden trampling on their free speech by exercising my right to free speech.

*language warning*

Well excuse the ever fucking shit out of me for daring to voice my opinion or exercise my right to free speech.  Guess what folks, offensiveness is a two-way street and by god I was raised by a man who taught me the value of not giving a flying fuck if someone is upset by what he had to say.  You know what, people can say things that offend me and piss me off and that’s their right.  I have never said they don't have a right to say that.  But to say that they can offend me, speak their piece, and I am not allowed to respond because some how that violates their tender sensibilities and their right to “free speech”.  Well what the fuck about my right to free speech, why must I limit my speech for someone else?

Another side comment about this entire mess.  Some are upset that private companies are electing not to carry this magazine.  They’re calling it an aid to censorship and an aid to violating Free Speech.  Umm sorry there folks, no it isn't.  A company cannot and should not be compelled to spend money buying and stocking a product because “free speech.”  Next you’re going to tell me that the mandate for us to all buy medical insurance is all about your right to health care too.  No, that rag can say whatever the hell they want and they can go sell it on the street corner.  They can go publish it on their website, they can do whatever the hell the want.  At the same time though, a company can say we’re not going to spend money stocking that magazine because we feel it to be a financial risk.  We are not going to stock that magazine because we find it offensive and unnecessary.  A company choosing to not spend money buying something they don’t want is not an affront to free speech and calling it such makes a mockery of capitalism, liberty, and freedom.

So, to all of you who seem to think that my being vocal about my opinion somehow tramples free speech, suck it the fuck up, grow a pair, and after they pop out do the world a favor and go fuck yourself.  You cannot throw one form of speech under the bus for another.  If this post offends your tender sensibilities, go post your own response.

Also, while on the subject, while I wouldn't do this unless it was truly necessary (threats, insults, or other general uncouth behavior that is really unnecessary), deleting comments is not an affront to free speech either.*  I host this blog and maintain it.  You can easily go host your own damn blog where there isn't a damn thing I can do about your posts or commentary.  Hell if you ask nicely you can pay me money and I’ll provide you the server space to do so isolated from my own site.  I however do not have to provide you a forum, for free, for your speech.  No one has to provide you a forum for your speech.  You can do it yourself.

A good way to visualize this is no one would make the claim that me not allowing the Westboro Baptist Church in my house to yell at me and tell me “I’m going to hell” and “god hates fags” is a violation of free speech.  It’s my house and I do not have to provide them a venue for their speech.  They can go yell it on their property.

*end rant*

So there’s your introduction to liberty and free speech for the day.  It’s a two way street and no one is obligated to provide you your venue.  -B]

*While it isn’t an affront to free speech, it is considered questionable and often is attributable to “reasoned discourse”.  Most often you’ll just get banned from commenting if you’re a dick.  I’ll be sure to preserve your dickishness for all eternity.

**Someone else saw the irony and pointed it out… it didn’t go over well with Rob.

image

*** As I was writing this it seems Rob tried to shove his comments down the memory hole.  Too late!

**** Yes I know I’m quoting myself but it’s my blog and I can do what I want!

***** Thanks to Matthew for the screen shots. ;)

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Quote of the Day–Myself(7/18/2013)****

  1. Archer says:

    Beautiful rant!

    People seem to have forgotten that “freedom of ‘X’” does not equate to “freedom from the consequences of ‘X’”. “Rob” has every right to be an asshole on the Internet and say stuff people find offensive, but he should be prepared to be called out for it as a consequence, and he NEEDS to understand that being called out is NOT – I repeat, NOT – an infringement on his right to free speech. Rolling Stone magazine has the right to put whatever/whoever they want on their cover, but they’ll occasionally face public backlash for it. I believe Romney lost the presidential election over his “47%” comment, which he had every right to say, and the citizenry had every right to vote against him because of it.

    Actions have consequences – even actions that are basic liberties. Having those freedoms doesn’t mean one is free from the consequences of exercising them. Declaring oneself immune from consequences is an infringement on everyone else’s basic liberties.

    Or, as MaxedOutMama wrote (quoted in the header over at The Smallest Minority):
    “Liberty is an inherently offensive lifestyle. Living in a free society guarantees that each one of us will see our most cherished principles and beliefs questioned and in some cases mocked. That psychic discomfort is the price we pay for basic civic peace. It’s worth it. It’s a pragmatic principle. Defend everyone else’s rights, because if you don’t there is no one to defend yours. (emphasis added)

  2. Lyle says:

    It’s in the standard communist play book. If you openly disagree with any communist, you are thereby trampling the communist’s rights. The average leftist will launch into this claim as a defense mode in an average of thirty milliseconds. In the final analysis it is cheap and rather childish ploy to shut down dissent. They cannot tolerate dissent.

    If you want to have some fun with a leftist, try turning the tables on them. Start from the very beginning of the conversation by claiming that their mere presence, or their sign or poster, or the very opening of their mouths, is a violation of several of your rights. You will of course have a much better case for your rights being violated, simply because they are leftists and leftism, by definition, is opposed to individual sovereignty.