Free Speech (1 Viewer)

Isaac

Lifelong Learner
Local time
Today, 10:07
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
10,638
We know that free speech is under attack everywhere, perhaps most accelerated in the UK and Europe, but this landmark case Sullivan is what enshrined the current libel law and made sure people could freely criticize public officials without being accused constantly of libel/defamation.

I agree with this MSNBC article - it should NOT be overturned, it should be left in place, despite our loathing of how the media sometimes abuses it. I don't agree with everything the article says, but I agree with that aspect
 

This article is an example of how policing speech is a tough nut to crack, because everyone's opinions differ on what the speech means.

Consider this constantly-requoted assertion of CNN that Trump "falsely claimed Ukraine started the war" (repeated several times in different ways).

While CNN pretends it is a simple yes-or-no question of whether that is false, I think it is fairly obvious to any English-speaking person that Trump is equating "refused to negotiate over land" to "starting it", whereas CNN prefers that only the first person who lobbed the first bullet be given that distinction.

Again, Trump is talking like a normal person talks, not in legal jargon or carefully curated political mumbo jumbo. I LIKE that about him, and I think the mainstream media is a bit mentally slow for not realizing that a majority of the country likes that about him.

In a sense, they both 'started' it. Moscow by their physical aggression and Ukraine by refusing to negotiate their land. You can agree or disagree that that was OK, my point is just the phrasing of "started it", which is quite subjective.

In fact, many people would consider a barfight "started" by the person who used only words at first.
Still others would say only the first punch 'started' it.

It just depends on the hearer/interpreter's opinion. Mainstream media needs to stop calling things false that are debatable instead.
 
It really boils down to NATO encroachment. Russia is already a paranoid state. Remember when the Kremlin setup camp in Cuba? We almost went nuclear over it.
 
Mainstream media needs to stop calling things false that are debatable instead.
They do what ever furthers their narrative. The virtue of honesty seems to have been suppressed in journalism school in favor of placing yourself into the story.
 
Here's another one that bothers me a lot.

When Democrats paint School Choice as "giving money to private schools". No, it's not. It's giving Parents their own education money, where they can spend at whatever school they want. Very, very different.

I wouldn't support it if the state were cutting a check in large blocks to a private religious school. But when it's giving the parents their own child's education money, that's quite different.

As usual a war of words, where liberals have to either invent or re-purpose a Word every few weeks to justify something otherwise incomprehensible
 
Here's another one that bothers me a lot.

When Democrats paint School Choice as "giving money to private schools". No, it's not. It's giving Parents their own education money, where they can spend at whatever school they want. Very, very different.

I wouldn't support it if the state were cutting a check in large blocks to a private religious school. But when it's giving the parents their own child's education money, that's quite different.

As usual a war of words, where liberals have to either invent or re-purpose a Word every few weeks to justify something otherwise incomprehensible

A valid point, Isaac. But then we know that obfuscation and redirection of attention are high on the Progressive Liberal playlist.
 
We have school choice in my area. We happen to have a really good elementary and high school with great reputations. It was one of the reasons I moved to my town. I think most parents consider that when they move somewhere new and good schools have an impact on property values. Both schools were newly constructed when I moved in. We also have very good programs for learning and physically disabled kids. As such many parents from other towns send their kids to our school. I know one parent who drives about 45 minutes each way in the morning and afternoon as transportation is not provided. The money provided by the other towns does not cover the actual costs incurred. As a result our school taxes rise year after year, so in effect we are subsidizing the other towns. Some years back when my brother in law was a selectman he told me about a kid who had finally aged out of the system. Under the law they can stay in school until they are 21. He was a kid from another town who had severe physical and mental issues. I don't recall the actual numbers but at the time the cost per kid in school was something like 5 or 10 thousand a year per student. The costs for this kid was something like 25 thousand a year, far short of the school choice money. While I like the concept of school choice i don't necessarily like the result.
 
Interesting, I wonder if they could make the cost per student vary according to special needs - but then you know what would happen, immediately everyone would try to get their kid to qualify (my wife says that already happens with occupational therapy- parents are eage to have their kids diagnosed with something even if the kid is perfectly normal)
 
Interesting, I wonder if they could make the cost per student vary according to special needs - but then you know what would happen, immediately everyone would try to get their kid to qualify (my wife says that already happens with occupational therapy- parents are eage to have their kids diagnosed with something even if the kid is perfectly normal)
I believe it is based on the school tax rate of the town they live in. Many of the hill towns around here have very low property taxes.
 
Interesting, I wonder if they could make the cost per student vary according to special needs - but then you know what would happen, immediately everyone would try to get their kid to qualify (my wife says that already happens with occupational therapy- parents are eage to have their kids diagnosed with something even if the kid is perfectly normal)
In my area, if the local school cannot support a child with special needs, the parents can get the school board to pickup the costs of a special school. It's quite frequently done when a child has autism. I know many parents who went this route.
 
Interesting, I wonder if they could make the cost per student vary according to special needs - but then you know what would happen, immediately everyone would try to get their kid to qualify (my wife says that already happens with occupational therapy- parents are eage to have their kids diagnosed with something even if the kid is perfectly normal)
That reminds me of all of the military members who somehow are able get labeled as 100% disabled with the help of third party agencies to get out of various requirements to be re-activated. Yet they have no visible signs of being disabled at all.
 
That reminds me of all of the military members who somehow are able get labeled as 100% disabled with the help of third party agencies to get out of various requirements to be re-activated. Yet they have no visible signs of being disabled at all.
Okay here's something I bet we can all agree on. How about handicapped parking spaces? How many times in your life can you remember seeing a person get out of their vehicle in one of those spaces who appeared handicapped? I can think of almost none. It's almost 100% used by people pretending to have a disability or borrowing Mom Dad Uncle Grandma's vehicle. I mean it's become totally a joke
 
I believe it is based on the school tax rate of the town they live in. Many of the hill towns around here have very low property taxes.
The whole school choice movement definitely has a lot of things to iron out when it comes to trying to generalize the cost per student and who pays it and where does the money come from and all that stuff.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom