Share this:
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
- Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
thebigpicturereport ™ 
Arlen Grossman, I really don’t buy the argument that a lot of people make about money equaling speech. Having said that, if people want to make that argument and be believable, at least apply it across-the-board to all monetary issues.
Arlen Grossman, I don’t buy into the money=speech argument personally. Having said that, in order for the argument that money=speech to be taken seriously, why not extend that argument to all monetary/financial transactions? Either take the argument that money=speech to its logical conclusion that should indicate that criminalizing financial transactions should be Unconstitutional and call it good or crackdown on people who willfully violate campaign finance laws, regardless of the amount being donated and hold everyone to the same standard.
Arlen Grossman, when he is calm and levelheaded, I really do enjoy listening to Kyle Kulinski. He has expressed a Left-leaning inclination, something that I disagree with. Having said that, I like to listen to him when he is calm and levelheaded. The only area in which I experience a certain level of disdain is when he takes things out of context or twists words.
David Pakman I like for the most part. Some of his segments I like are related to the health care topic. I also shared with you his and Ben Shapiro’s discussion about where they can agree about how to reduce gun deaths. The only real are of disagreement is on the tax issue. Other than that, I watch his videos frequently.
Thom Hartmann seems to be calm and levelheaded. I have seen a few videos that he has done. He has said things that I disagree with. Having said that, I have observed that he seems to be rational and levelheaded when talking about things.
The Majority Report w/Sam Seder I watch every now and then. He comes across as reasonable in his analysis of the issues he talks about.
Regarding The Young Turks, I find them to be entertaining and informative. Some things have been mentioned there that I agree with and some things I disagree with.
We are in agreement on the idea that money and speech are not equivalent legally speaking. Having said that, I have 3 questions for you: 1: In order to give any validity to the argument that it is, would all laws that dictate how we spend our money not be Unconstitutional by default? 2: Even though they are controversial topics, why should prostitution be illegal and bribing politicians not so if spending money is to be judged as an expression of speech? 3: If a person wanted to give a few million dollars of his or her own money to a political campaign as an expression of free speech, what does it matter?
I commend you for listening to all points of views from various sources, Ragnar. As to your questions, I think that when we are talking about money spent on voting and elections, freedom and spending money needs to be limited. This is because our political system is based on democracy, which is based on voting. And I believe fairness must be considered under those conditions.
In other words, one person having so much money to spend on elections should not overwhelm the money of many average Americans combined. Money does influence elections (I wish iit didn’) t but it does and needs to have limitations.
I agree that prostitution should be legal, but bribing politicians is bad for democracy and should be monitored.
I hope I made it clear that I believe spending huge amounts of money to influence elections is unfair and needs to be changed.
Arlen Grossman, you have made that clear, yes. I agree with your expressed sentiments. We are a Constitutional Republic, not a pure democracy. Let me put forth a thought on bribing politicians: I do not condone such an act personally, as I see no benefit to society in that regard. However, since corporations seem to be the most guilty of that, I say go after the corporations.
Yes, I agree, go after the corporations. But also the billionaires (they kind of go together, don’t they?). And I think we both understand that large contributions from anyone to politicians is a form of bribery, and should be restricted.
Arlen Grossman, you make excellent points.
Thank you.
Arlen Grossman, you’re welcome. By the way, are you familiar with Vox?
Arlen Grossman, while we have gone back and forth on the money equaling speech discussion, here are my general thoughts: In order to lend legitimacy to the argument that it is, every financial transaction that is actively criminalized should be legal. There is a significant double-standard/hypocrisy in the argument that spending money is an expression of free speech in one area and not another. Either spending money is an expression of free speech or it is not.
My contention is that spending money is not an expression of free speech nor should it be.
Arlen Grossman, I am not arguing the point. On a fundamental level, I agree with you. However, I would argue that there is a significant double-standard if someone claimed that spending money is an expression of speech in one area and not another.
Arlen Grossman, despite my libertarian-leaning inclinations, I do like to hear all sides on an issue and then make my mind up when presented with all of the details and see who is telling the truth. I only want the truth. That truth can be of a news event that actually takes place or someone just being honest as to his or her general thoughts.
Secular Talk w/Kyle Kulinski is a show that I do like to listen to. When he starts to go into a rant and get shrill, that is when I have a hard time listening to him. During the times he is calm and levelheaded, which I have also seen signs of, I can watch any number of his videos.
Regarding the David Pakman Show, David Pakman seems to be reasonable in his analysis and reporting of the news that makes its way to his desk. I detect a significant bias in his views, however, when he is calm and just reports things as they are, even if he shares his opinions along the way, I can listen to any of his presentations and learn a lot.
Thom Hartmann seems to be relatively calm and reasonable from what I have observed. Even with some of his callers, those where disagreement is mutual, I like the fact that he is perfectly calm in his approach.
I admire that you are willing to listen to all sides, Ragnar. I’ll have to admit I’m not good as you are in doing so, but I do like to read conservative writers, like George Will, David Brooks and other conservative columnists in the NY Times. I’ll take a closer look at Kyle Kulinski.
Arlen Grossman, it depends on the segment that Kyle Kulinski has, however, I have enjoyed the videos I have seen.
Arlen Grossman, it is clear to me that money is money and speech is speech. While I get the fact that they are separate and completely unrelated issues, here are 3 questions I would like to get your thoughts on: 1: In order for the money equaling speech to be valid, should any and all laws that criminalize certain financial transactions be seen as blatantly Unconstitutional? 2: If the money equals speech argument is to be given legitimacy from a legal standpoint, should limitations on campaign finance contributions be invalid from a legal standpoint if money equals speech? 3: If money is speech, why is it a crime for the average person to donate over a specified threshold to a political campaign but not a corporation that does the same thing?
Arlen Grossman, I am not going to challenge the idea that money and speech are 2 separate and completely unrelated things. So we seem to be in agreement on this matter. However, in order for the money equaling speech argument to work in real life, laws that limit campaign finance contributions, prohibit gambling, prostitution or anything else that involves monetary expenditures should be seen as Unconstitutional. Otherwise it would be essentially doublespeak to argue that spending money is an expression of speech and yet having legislation being enacted that limits or absolutely prohibits financial transactions in one form or another.
Ragnar, I don’t know why you are bringing gambling, prostitution, etc into this subject. The problem with money being free speech is that it gives too much advantage to the wealthy. They can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence or buy elections, while the rest of us can’t. Does that sound right to you?
Arlen Grossman, I brought up the money equaling speech argument. This is where that was going.
Arlen Grossman, campaign finance donations, gambling and prostitution all involve money changing hands. Remember my saying that if spending money qualifies as free speech, all laws against campaign finance restrictions should be Unconstitutional. The same is true for prostitution. I would also make that argument about gambling. While I agree with you on the matter that money and speech are different matters in entirely, I have a question for you: Are people who make equivalent money and speech not being hypocrites when they say that money equals speech in one financial transaction and not another by default?
Sorry, Ragnar, I don’t understand your question. Please give examples.
Arlen Grossman, some politicians want to enact laws against bribery. If Kamala Harris, to pick an example, said that there should be a national law against corporations being able to bribe politicians in order to get laws made that are favorable to said corporations, however, she accepted money from Exxon Mobil as a bribe to reduce restrictions on oil production, is it not hypocritical to say that she will not accept money from them and yet going out and doing everything in the opposite of what she claimed? That is an example.
It appears she is working in the system that exists. But, if true, it doesn’t sound good. However I don’t find any record of Exxon Mobil donating to her.
Arlen Grossman, Exxon Mobile was just an example. Back to the matter of money equaling speech, in order for that argument to work in the real world, all laws that try to dictate how we spend our money, what we spend our money on and where we can spend our money would be illegitimate. Example: If the money equals speech argument is valid, it seems to me that this should encompass any and all monetary transactions. What is truly absurd is the doublespeak in how some people say money is speech in some areas and not other areas. Either spending money should be seen as an expression of free speech or it should not be seen as an expression of free speech.
Arlen Grossman, you agreed with me on my points that if spending money qualifies as free speech, all laws against campaign finance restrictions should be Unconstitutional and that the same is true for prostitution. However, you also claimed that money corrupts politics. It seems to be a contradictory notion to claim that money corrupts politics and yet agree that laws against campaign finance restrictions are Unconstitutional if they are infringing upon one person’s right to free speech. You claim that the idea of money counting as free speech is absurd. How so? If you or I or anybody else spends money on a good or service, we are in a sense expressing free speech, just not with actual words.
What I mean, Ragnar, IF spending money qualifies as free speech, then finance restrictions should be unconstitutional. The key word is IF. I don’t believe money qualifies as free speech, therefore restrictions on it would not be unconstitutional. Money is not equivalent to speech, because rich people would have all the “free speech” while the bottom 99% would have very little. I strongly feel our founding fathers would not have felt rich people should have most of the free speech.
But I do believe that prostitution should be legal, and laws against it are unconstitutional.
I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.
Arlen Grossman, I am not trying to make money and speech equivalent in entirety. The premise is that if spending money is seen an expression of free speech, which it is in a sense, that should basically invalidate certain laws that restrict speech.
As I said before, the key word is “if.” In my opinion, money is not free speech, as it is written in the First Amendment.
Arlen Grossman, here are my exact words in one comment I made: “If spending money qualifies as free speech, all laws against campaign finance restrictions should be Unconstitutional. The same is true for prostitution. Just my thoughts.” Here is the gist of what I mean: If spending money is a form of speech, criminalizing certain career choices like pursuing prostitution would be violating one’s right to free speech. I am personally opposed to prostitution as a career choice, however, if people want to argue that they are exercising their right to free speech by pursuing sex work as a career choice, prohibiting that by law is an infringement of these people’s right to free speech under the First Amendment. If money equals speech, which the U.S. Supreme Court has said time and time again it does, than we can’t ban prostitution by that logic. Regarding campaign finance laws, if giving a certain amount of money to a political campaign qualifies as free speech, limiting donations would be a violation of free speech on that basis. Many places don’t allow gambling, however, if spending money is an expression of free speech, being told that one cannot play blackjack at a casino, play cards at a card tournament or bet on a football game or any other sports game would be violating one’s right to free speech.
I think we’re on the same page. I believe donating money to a politician should not be considered free speech. So any restrictions would not be a violation of free speech. Am I missing something?
Arlen Grossman, the only area that seems to be missing is that speech may be considered as spoken if expressed verbally, however, if spending money was considered an expression of free speech in a manner of speaking, what we purchase with our money should not be regulated by law. You claim that donating money to a politician should not be considered free speech. If it is your money to donate, you are expressing speech in a sense, just not that which is spoken.
The problem with considering money as free speech involves fairness. Each of us has the equal right to free speech, but a small segment of our population has most of the money. That is in no way democratic or fair.
Arlen Grossman, here is a video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRnoSL3girI Watch this and give me feedback at your convenience.
Arlen Grossman, I have heard arguments that spending money is an expression of free speech. That being the case, if someone wants to donate a large sum of his or her money to a political campaign as an expression of that person’s free speech, why do campaign finance laws limit said expenditures if that money was the person’s money to spend in the first place? What about bribery? Corporations bribe politicians in going their way on some issues, which is an expression of speech. Bribing politicians to make laws favorable to corporations is an expression of free speech. Gambling is prohibited in some areas, however, if money is speech, why is gambling banned? Some politicians on both sides want to enact laws that ban prostitution. Not that I advocate for it, however, if someone purchases the services of a prostitute in an exercise of that person’s free speech, free speech being protected under the First Amendment, is it not hypocritical to deny that person the right to free speech by restricting free speech in this regard?
Money corrupts politics, Ragnar. Especially big money. The idea of money counting as free speech is absurd. Especially with the inequalities in income and wealth in this country. Let’s face it: Our political system runs on legalized bribery. and the rich take the most advantage of it. There needs to be major changes.
Arlen Grossman, if spending money qualifies as free speech, all laws against campaign finance restrictions should be Unconstitutional. The same is true for Prostitution. Just my thoughts.
That is true.
Arlen Grossman, I am not advocating violations of either law I mention. Having said that, if spending money is seen as an expression of free speech, it is convoluted that laws such as those I mention are on the books.
Arlen Grossman, I was reviewing all of the rights specified under the First Amendment. In its written text, it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
On the matter of religious freedom, you said that you have very little respect for religious beliefs. Each person is entitled to his or her views. Having said that, people should have as much right to express their views on religion as long as they do not try to make their views law.
Related to abridging the freedom of speech, no person has the right not to be offended. If some people find certain speech offensive, then don’t listen to it. Problem solved.
Peaceable assembly is also a right that everyone has. The problem with Antifa is that they don’t want peaceful protests. Just look at their behavior.
As far as a redress of grievances is concerned, I believe that any person who is forced to provide a service to other people that conflicts with said person’s religious beliefs, such as baking a cake for a same-sex wedding as one example, would have legal standing to express a grievance.
Just so you know, Ragnar, Antifa is an exaggerated bogeyman promoted by Fox News.
Antifa is a loosely organized group without a leader, defined structure, or a membership list. White supremist militia groups are more dangerous.
Arlen Grossman, that is what a bunch of Left-leaning talking heads want us to think.
Arlen Grossman, I am not for all out censorship of anybody, period. I have no plans or desires to intentionally offend anybody. Having said that, if someone may seemingly be offended by choice over what certain people say, that is on the person in question.
Arlen Grossman, I am on the conservative/libertarian side of the political spectrum. Having said that, I like to hear all sides of an issue without any preconceptions. The David Pakman Show is one that I watch here and there. It is obvious that he has a Left-leaning political bias, however, I like the fact that he does not go into rants or diatribes like some political commentators do. Secular Talk with Kyle Kulinski is another show I look into from time to time. The Thom Hartmann Program has been interesting from what I have seen. The Majority Report w/Sam Seder is interesting to me. Every now and then, I look into The Young Turks.
Regarding hate speech, I find it to be reprehensible. Having said that, most anything could be said by one person or group and distorted by another person or group and passed off as hate speech. The problem with the issue of hate speech is that the term seems to be used so loosely that any person could be accused of hate speech based solely on how some people’s feelings may be hurt. This is the problem with the snowflake generation. They get offended by everything.
Welcome, Ragnar. Ypu’ve been away for a while, but I welcome you. back, Hate speech is difficult to define. According to the U.N,.” any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.” I have no problem with that Overly sensitive people will have to deal with that definition.
Arlen Grossman, hate speech can have a specific definition in the Dictionary. What galls me is the fact that we have turned from a society of free expression, even if it offends some people, to a society that is so politically correct that we have to walk on eggshells when discussing certain topics.
Arlen Grossman, I do not advocate absolute censorship of anybody. If someone says something that I find offensive, I just elect not to let it bother me as long as I am not the target of the commentary.
But hate speech doesn’t bother you if you are not the target? What about hate speech about black, brown, Jewish and Muslim people? You don’t care about them? That sounds rather callous, Ragnar. My guess is that you are white and don’t have to worry about it. If I’m wrong, set me right.
Arlen Grossman, if someone said something that I find personally offensive, I would not like it. Having said that, nobody has the right not to be offended.
I’m not as sure as you, Ragnar. What about hate speech? Does some guy screaming “Kill the N—–s” over the radio have that right?
Arlen Grossman, people seem to become so offended by everything these days. Why is that?
In my opinion, Ragnar, one reason would be the harsh, extreme rhetoric these days. Both sides are divided in a way I’ve never seen, which enables more hate against the other side. Very sad. Also, more minority groups who were silent before have been feeling more confident and powerful.
Arlen Grossman, I have no desire to intentionally offend anybody. Having said that, if someone is offended by something I say, that is their problem, not mine.
Arlen Grossman, my Madonna reference was in how she said that she thought about blowing up the white house. Any person could claim that she was taken in a more literal context than was intended. Having said that, not even a celebrity should be above the law, period.
Arlen Grossman, even if she could say that she was exercising her right to free speech, that her words were taken in a more literal context than was intended, Madonna’s comment regarding thinking about blowing up the white house is uncool. Just having a status as a celebrity should not cause anybody to be above the law.
Sorry, Ragnar, I don’t remember writing about anything Madonna said. So I’m not clear what you are commenting about..
Arlen Grossman, that was more of a generalized observation.
Arlen Grossman, I like to hear all sides of an issue and then make my own judgments as to who is telling the truth. There have been a number of videos that I have seen from the David Pakman Show, The Young Turks is also interesting. Secular Talk with Kyle Kulinski is a program that I have enjoyed from what I have seen. The Majority Report with Sam Seder is quite good. I have also very much enjoyed Thom Hartmann’s program.
Good choices. I like them too.
Arlen Grossman, what are your thoughts on Glenn Beck? Jay Sekulow? Michelle Malkin? Ann Coulter? Mark Levin?
Arlen Grossman, as far as commentators of your political slant go, I like Secular Talk with Kyle Kulinski, the Thom Hartmann program, The Majority Report With Sam Seder, The Young Turks and the David Pakman Show. Yes, I disagree with them, however, I like them all.
It’s a good thing that you are open to other views.
Arlen Grossman, I am not too picky about the political commentator. The only area for me is who I am in the mood for, as well as the topic itself. Even though I disagree with them politically, I have enjoyed Secular Talk with Kyle Kulinski, the Thom Hartmann program, The Young Turks, The Majority Report with Sam Seder and the David Pakman Show. I do not watch them daily, however, I have enjoyed them all.
Arlen Grossman, any person could say something that results in accusations of hate speech. I could say that I disagree with Al Sharpton’s political ideology and be accused of hate speech by his supporters who claim that disagreements with him are racially motivated. There may be something said by Hillary Clinton that I express disagreement with, resulting in accusations of sexism. Outside of legitimately proven scenarios where hate speech has been displayed, any accusations against certain people who deal in “hate speech” is disingenuous.
Arlen Grossman, here is a video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRnoSL3girI If spending money amounted to an expression of free speech, if someone solicited the services of a sex worker for money, that person would be freely expressing their desire to have sex with a person providing the service.
Arlen Grossman, the thing that galls me about the whole free speech issue is how we are all supposed to be essentially politically correct 100% of the time so as to avoid offending anyone. Here is a video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyOUa2lmyPM I don’t understand why we have people in society who seem to get offended by everything.
I know that you are not a Donald Trump supporter, however, if he exercised his right to eat his spaghetti with the wrong fork, eat his soup or ice cream with the wrong spoon, the democrats would call for his impeachment. The same people who said to give Barack Obama a chance are the same people who got on Donald Trump’s back after he got elected.
The right criticized Obama for every little incident., Ragnar. And his incidents were minor (I don’t recall any scandals). Trump’s administration is full of scandals, and every day he breaks the rules. Just the emoluments violations alone are deserving of a Trump impeachment. To equate the two presidents is disingenuous.
Arlen Grossman, you are way off-bass.
Interesting how differently we see the world….
Arlen Grossman, you make a valid point. We both seem to want the same thing, that being a better quality of life for low and middle income families. We just seem to have differing ideas. Looking at my previous response, I said bass when I meant to put bass. As far as the double-standard I mentioned, any person who is unable or unwilling to see that is being naive.
Arlen Grossman, I meant off-base. Whoops. Can you edit my comment to read base, not bass and then delete my comments with that mistake? Then can you delete this comment after it posts? Typos can be profoundly irritating.
Arlen Grossman, here is a video for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNhHCsr3NiY Facebook can do whatever it wants to do. Having said that, I am of the belief that no person should be selectively targeted based on political expression.
If someone said something to me that I deemed to be offensive, I would address it directly or ignore it. Assuming I read a news article or watched a Youtube video and was offended by it, I would not give it much time or energy.
Arlen Grossman, I know that we have some areas of disagreement. As far as hate speech is concerned, you make very valid points. The problem is what constitutes hate speech. Here is an example: I could be wearing attire that promotes a certain political candidates and be accused of hate speech because of false assumptions on the part of the accuser.
On social media or in private e-mail, some people accuse other people of having a position on an issue that they do not have and then change the subject when you call them out on the carpet for the false accusation. Even if you are not the recipient of abusive commentaries from people, what are your thoughts and feelings when you hear or read that other people are the recipients of such things?
Ragnar, I do think everyone deserves respect until they prove they don’t. So it does bother me when a citizen’s freedom of expression is attacked. It is a tricky subject., however. For instance, someone who walks around with a swastika on his shirt doesn’t deserve my respect, but if someone has a MAGA hat on, they deserve some respect and should not be attacked for it. Where we draw the line is the tricky part.
Arlen Grossman, here is an example of free expression: A person is in a public place wearing pro-life attire and gets harassed by pro-choice or pro-abortion people. Even though free speech is a right that we are all entitled to, why does it seem that we become so politically correct a society that we cannot have an intelligent conversation about anything? I would welcome your perspective.
You are talking about a major problem these days.Everyone is so firmly in their respective political views we seem unable to talk to each other. It is bad for our democracy. Partly to blame is the partisan media. I will shortly have a new blogpost that relates to this subject.
Arlen Grossman, you make very valid points. Even though this may not be technically related, conceptually speaking, I would liken the political discourse of the present to a barroom brawl. Why? Due to the fact that just as people should be free to enjoy their beverages of choice, so should people be free to speak their minds on any issues.
It is absolutely absurd that there is any censorship that takes place. Quite honestly, if I read something that offends me, I will look for something better to do. Where do you stand?
You said that there was no selective targeting of conservative political groups. Here are some videos for you that say otherwise: 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKLTTgyjCpk, 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfpJPAQNMqg Watch these in full detail if you don’t believe me.
I agree with you up to a point, Ragnar. I think BLATANT hate speech should be an exception.In other words: “Gas the Jews” and “Send all the Niggers back to Africa” should be unacceptable. Those I would draw the line at. I know that could be fuzzy, as someone could go right up to the line and stop. But I guess that is why we have courts. And I agree, there should be no selective targeting of conservative groups. The IRS was wrong. Of course, the same applies to liberal groups, which the IRS also targeted, according to some sources.
Arlen Grossman, as I recall, you said that you supported placing restrictions on hate speech. The problem is that anything one says could be seen as hate speech or offensive in the eyes of another person. We have become so politically correct as a society that it is almost pointless to discuss anything substantive. Here is an example: I could say that I disagree with Al Sharpton on political issues and be accused of racism by his supporters even though race has not factored into the disagreement. Saying that you disagree with someone on political issues is one thing. Accusing that person of using race as the driving factor for the disagreement is absurd.
Arlen Grossman, one of the problems relating to debating the issue of free speech is that no 2 people can seem to agree to disagree in some cases. When Mark Levin takes callers on his show, he seems to have a problem listening to opposing viewpoints in some cases. Michael Savage has also run into this issue in the past.
In forums where discussion of various topics take place, there are some rules, as well as having the blog being heavily moderated. The only rule in my blog is that which prohibits crude language and content. Other than that, I welcome different comments.
The only way you can point out not having to face censorship and be credible is with your blog as the example. Other than that, look at Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, all being guilty of restricting conservative opinions.
I agree, Ragnar. It is good to hear all sides of issues. Thank you for your compliment about my blog.
Arlen Grossman, I know we may seem to disagree on some aspects of the issue related to free speech. Here is a hypothetical scenario: 2 people walk into a coffee shop. 1 person wears attire that clearly favors a left-leaning politician, while the other person is wearing libertarian leaning attire. Both are essentially expressing their political slants. The more libertarian leaning person just stays off to him or herself and the person with the left leaning inclination gets into the face of the libertarian leaning person to start a fight. Should both people be forced by the manager to leave the premises or should one be allowed to stay in that situation?
Arlen Grossman, here are 2 questions I would like to get your thoughts on: 1: Assuming that there was a selective targeting and harassment of conservative political groups and not those with more left wing inclinations, what should have been done in that situation? 2: Even though the law gave recognition to the marital relationship between same-sex couples, should bakeries be immune from harassment by the authorities for refusal to provide services from them if it conflicts with their religious convictions?
Ragnar, I don’t accept your premise that conservatives are more likely to be silenced than those on the left. Certainly everyone should be heard, but if the communication contains threats, harassment, hate, and over-the-top cruelty e.g. Alex Jones., then I can see why private companies would want to distance themselves, I don’t believe the government should restrict free speech, although there may be narrow exceptions.
As to your second point, a company that services the public should not be allowed to discriminate against ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. in my opinion.
Arlen Grossman, I was posing 2 hypothetical scenarios for you. Related to question #1, if there was a legitimate case of selective harassment, what should be done to deal with such a matter in your opinion? Related to question #2, if you were speaking of employment, I would generally agree with you. Now, if we were speaking of employee pay, I would be of a somewhat differing opinion. My earlier comment had one error. I said services from when I meant services for.
Arlen Grossman, here are a few videos I would like to get your thoughts on: 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoZCk7y1eo, 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBg_HbWsudk, 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAZlLNPtFME I know that we have people who are in the category of free speech absolutists who think that they can say whatever they want whenever they want and wherever they want. As a rule, unless someone says something to me personally that I find offensive, I don’t waste my time with said matter. Where do you stand personally?
I like what Pakman has to say. Free Speech (with limits) yes, hate speech, no.
Arlen Grossman, who has the right to impose a monopoly on what is considered hate speech? I could be discussing a political matter with a Left winger and state a differing opinion and that could be considered in their eyes to be hate speech. Free speech absolutists have a valid point to make regarding the various ways some aspects of speech are being stifled. Just because you seem to be immune from it does not mean that other people are not being affected by it.
Arlen Grossman, from the standpoint of religious freedom, was Kim Davis in the right to refuse granting marriage licences to same-sex couples in accordance with her religious beliefs? If yes, why? If not, why not? Should any person’s right to free speech and/or exercise of religious freedom take precedence over state law?
Well, Ragnar,I don’t believe a person’s religious beliefs should override the law. But then again, I have little respect for religious beliefs.
Arlen Grossman, I agree with you on your first sentence. However, I disagree with you on your second sentence. I believe that every person who holds a sincere religious belief has every right to that belief. When religion is used as grounds to enact laws that violate the rights of a minority, that is where it goes too far.
Arlen Grossman, here is a video I would like to get your thoughts on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h1gNZ5TO7k On the issue of free speech, I am of the opinion that people should be free to speak about or write whatever they wish on any topic. I know that free speech should not necessarily be seen as license to give one the right to yell about a non-existent fire in a movie theater. Without incitement to violence, what are your views regarding restrictions on free speech if it was actively being perpetuated?
The video was good. The issue is a tough one. If it were up to me, I would place restrictions on hate speech and advocacy for violence. But I do understand the other side.
Arlen Grossman, in general, I enjoy Kyle Kulinski’s show Secular Talk most of the time. The same is true for The David Pakman Show and The Young Turks. The only issue I see is where Kyle Kulinski seems to hear things and then spin them to fit his preconceived narrative. Here is an example of what I mean: Whether or not one has a right to health care. If one wants to make an argument that it is a right, the solution is providing more freedom of choice. If most of the population like private insurance, let them keep their plans. Should they advocate single payer, then there should not be discrimination over what government will pay for from the standpoint of medical care or medications a person may require. Just my thoughts.
I would be okay with keeping the system as it is (with a few tweaks) if everyone has a public option.
Arlen Grossman, I am sort of split on the idea of the single payer model. If it spares us from having to deal with insurance companies, I see no real issue with that. The only real area of concern in my judgement is if there is discrimination as to what the government pays for. Why pay for one person to get treatment for bone cancer and not for one to get treatment for leukemia? If we kept private insurance as an option, however, some tweaks were made, what tweaks would you like to see?
Arlen Grossman, I am familiar with the political commentaries of David Pakman. I disagree with his ideological slant in some regards, however, he comes across as being reliable in his reporting and analysis of the things he talks about. If you had a political commentator or 2 of a conservative or libertarian ideology that you find interesting to listen to, who would you go with?
George Will, David Brooks, and sometimes, Jonah Goldberg are interesting and thought-provoking commentators.
Arlen Grossman, I agree with you on that.
Arlen Grossman, I know that we have people who have an absolutist mentality regarding free speech, where they can say whatever they want, write whatever they want whenever they want. Where should the line be drawn?
You are indeed talking about a very tough issue that will never get universal agreement. I waver back and forth about what, if anything, needs to be banned regarding speech. I often think there should be restrictions on hate speech and advocating violence. But I know there is no perfect answer. We know free speech can’t be absolute (shouting fire in a crowded theater, for example).
Arlen Grossman, I am inclined to agree with your assessment. The issue is with the thought police on Facebook and Twitter who want to censor the posts of conservative types who post on their platforms. As long as no rules are being violated, what is all of the fuss?
First, Ragnar, I dispute your statement about Facebook and Twitter censoring conservatives. They are probably looking for hate-speech, and from all sides.
If you have evidence otherwise, enlighten me.
Arlen Grossman, I will be sure to look this up. Who has the right to define hate speech? I could state a differing opinion on one issue or another if I was talking about a political matter with anyone and be accused of hate speech by said person if the person was not having an open mind to what I have to say. Here is an example of what I mean: I disagree with many people on the Left regarding economic issues. Does that mean I am opposed to helping people who actually need it, such as the poor? No. Mark Dice has posted videos that are actively being demonetized on Youtube. Without saying as much, it seems to me that he is being accused of hate speech by the website.
Arlen Grossman, I know that a right to free speech does not mean that one person has the right to shout about a non-existent fire in a movie theater. However, my personal belief is that I have no right to silence the opinion of another person because they may say something that I deem to be offensive or that I may disagree with.
I think most Americans would be in agreement with you on your last point.
Where do you stand? Do you agree or disagree with me?
Certainly I agree. Free speech is essential to freedom (with limited exceptions, such as inducement to violence).
Arlen Grossman, as a rule, if someone says something that I find distasteful, I don’t waste my time with the matter. Here is an example of what I mean: If Alex Jones says something that I believe to be offensive, I don’t give him my attention. When he says things that are proven to be factually accurate, that is a different matter.
Here is how I differ: I don’t pay attention to Alex Jones because he is a dishonest and evil human being. Even if he occasionally says something accurate, it doesn’t change who he is. He is not worth my time at all.
Arlen Grossman, it is obvious to me that enjoying any presentation a person makes, regardless of their ideological slant, is not automatically meant to imply agreement with said ideology. Political bias aside, what are your thoughts regarding Rush and David Limbaugh?
I’m afraid it’s been a while since I’ve listened to Rush, Jeffrey. He has a lot of talent, and his numbers show it, but of course there is little, if anything, we can agree upon. And sorry, I don’t know anything about his brother, David. I think Thom Hartmann is the smartest talk show host I know of. Have you ever listened to him?
Arlen Grossman, I have not. Does his show take callers? If so, how has he treated them historically?
Hartmann is actually a rather soft-spoken host and yes, he does take calls. He’s also a prolific writer.
Arlen Grossman, I shall look Thom Hartman up at some point. Another channel I like is The Young Turks. I have a largely libertarian mindset. Regarding foreign policy, we need to start being non-interventionist in my view. As a matter of free speech, if somebody says something that I find distasteful or offensive, I pay no mind to it, however, I do not go out and attempt to censor them publicly. What are your views on Fox News commentator Greg Gutfeld?
I occasionally see the Young Turks, Jeffrey, and like what they have to say. As far as libertarianism, I do like their stances on foreign policy and social issues, but I’m not onboard when it comes to economic policy. And sorry, I don’t tune into Fox News much, and don’t know Greg Gutfield. I looked him up and see he is a libertarian, so I can surmise you are a fan. I do agree with you on the free speech issue. People should be allowed to speak unpopular ideas, though I probably would draw the line at overly racist and incitement to violence speech.
Arlen Grossman, from your way of thinking, do you prefer to read the writings of people that you disagree with or hearing the people present their cases in their own words? Personally, I like to do both.
Jeffrey, I’m not sure what you mean by:
“hearing the people present their cases in their own words?” People I disagree with or agree with? I understand reading people that I don’t agree with, though in some cases it’s difficult (especially if I think they’re lying). I do read some conservatives like David Brooks, Bret Stephens and George Will, but admittedly they are relatively moderate.
Re: NY Times vs Alex Jones: Not even close, Jeffrey. The NY Times strives to be accurate and everything they print has to be sourced and verified (the opinion page is another matter, of course). If they make a mistake, they will print a correction. They have won more Pulitzer’s than any other newspapers. Alex Jones has no interest in being accurate, his only goal is to provoke and sensationalize. And I doubt he ever issues a correction or wins any awards. They are not even in the same league.
Arlen Grossman, Infowars tells things that politically correct media never will. Yes, Alex Jones does go off the deep end in many regards, however, he does provide enough information to tip the scales in his favor.
Really, Jeffrey? Alex Jones? I expect more from you. Jones is as honest as our current president (who has appeared on Infowars). Sandy Hook, Pizzagate, etc. He has a conspiracy about everything https://www.statesman.com/news/alex-jones-conspiracy-theories-that-could-come-court/mZj5CuaxYnjf1gandPrUxK/ Surely you can do better than Alex Jones, who clearly is mentally ill and without morals.
Arlen Grossman, I mistyped one comment where I referenced the title of one of David Pakman’s videos where he was asked why people think lower taxes help the economy. I said bad when I should have referenced the question about how low taxes help the economy. The argument can be made that lower taxes are a disincentive to invest money. Yes, it is true that high tax rates would likely lead to wealthy people reinvesting their money back into their businesses and doing other things that give tax write-offs. On the flip side, another issue is the corporate tax rate. My problem with the people who argue that the top marginal tax rate should be 91% is that it is more an act of spite in that scenario to have a tax rate that high. Why not have a simple flat tax at 15%, with the capital gains tax being 15%? Get rid of most of the deductions, maintaining only 4. They are as follows: 1: The deduction for expenses related to childcare, 2: The deduction for business purchases, 3: The deduction for charitable contributions, 4: The deduction for educational expenses-with everything else being removed.
Jeffrey, your proposal would only widen the inequality gap, so I’ not interested.
Arlen Grossman, if we stopped the over taxation of money that is saved and invested, people would have more spending money and capital to create jobs. As far as speech is concerned, it is grossly hypocritical to claim that right for oneself while denying this right for other people.
We agree on this one. I support the First Amendment and free speech. Those who try to shut down offensive speech are wrong (there are exceptions, like advocacy of violence, but the bar should be high).
Arlen Grossman, from a free speech standpoint, what are your thoughts on the IRS selectively targeting Conservative political groups and not other groups? I find that to be offensive personally.
Me too, Jeffrey, if it were true. But it isn’t. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/irs-targeting-tea-party-liberals-democrats.html
Arlen Grossman, the New York Times is a non-credible news source. I would think that Alex Jones and his website Infowars, crazy as some of his ideas and writings are, would be more reliable as a source of information.
We couldn’t disagree more. I subscribe to the NY Times and consider it to be the best newspaper in the country (By the way, I was a journalism major in college and know a good news source from a bad one). Alex Jones is a crazy, right-wing conspiracy nut. How can you possibly know he is telling the truth (if he every did)? Really, Jeffrey, I’m disappointed in you. You should know better.
Arlen Grossman, I think some context is missed, Yes, I said I believed Alex Jones and Infowars would be more credible than the New York Times. My point was that at least Alex Jones provides enough information to tip the scales about certain stories in his favor. Another point was that each source can say things which are considered to be bullshit. However, Alex Jones says enough to tip the scales in his favor.
There are extremists on both sides, but most of us believe in the First Amendment and the right of everyone to be heard. I certainly do.
Arlen Grossman, as I recall, you told me that you like David Pakman. I have seen a few of his videos. Despite my disagreement with his ideological slant, I actually enjoy his presentations. He is straightforward regarding what he says, which is to my liking.
That’s good!
Arlen Grossman, in one video on the subject of whether or not lower tax rates are good for the economy, David Pakman said something to the effect that lower tax rates are a disincentive for investment. If tax rates are high, it can be argued that there is a greater incentive to invest money. However, if income fluctuates, there may be one year where you earn a sizeable amount of money that you are able to pay taxes on and invest and then you may have one year where income becomes stagnant. 3 David Pakman videos I have seen are where he is asked as to his views on a flat tax, his views on if lower tax rates are bad for the economy, the matter where economists say that we would all be better off if we were to go back to the tax rates under Dwight D. Eisenhower, where the top federal income tax was 91%. I know what a marginal tax rate is, however, nobody is paying the 91% because of all of the loopholes and deductions, which brings us ultimately to the effective rate. For me personally, I am willing to analyze all sides of an issue and draw my own conclusions.
If you are willing to analyze all sides of an issue before drawing your conclusion without preconceptions, that is hard (impossible, really) to find fault with
Arlen Grossman, from your way of thinking, what are your views regarding the hypocrisy of people who claim to value free speech and yet want to shut down their opposition when they try to assert their right to free speech? I really don’t get that logic personally.
Arlen Grossman, many people on the Left have a value of the First Amendment for themselves. However, they don’t want the other side of the aisle to be free to voice their opinions.