Freedom of speech in private places drawn into question

[Texashiker]

This council woman in San Antonio made some comments in a private area, to a select few people. Someone recorded the comments, then the comments were released to the news media.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ay-rant-hits-high-acceleration-on-digisphere/

There were some protest, and she has been asked to resign her postion.

Then there are the Paula Deen comments about black people.

Why do certain groups feel the need to protest, or get angry, when it comes out what someone said in privacy.

If we are not free to express ourselves in private areas, or to friends, then where can we express ourselves at?

I feel that rather than supporting our rights, special interest groups are acting like a form of thought police. It no longer matters where you say something, or think something, or believe something. If the wrong people find out your beliefs, they are going to try and embarrass you.

 

[Jaskalas]

Just because the government may not censor speech, does not give anyone a free pass from consequences of others not liking what they say. Makes no difference if a person is in public or private, what they say will have consequences if / when people hear it.

You think everyone would have been happy if Paula Deen's comments had been made in public? As if your twisted notion of free speech is only "assaulted" in private places? Really?

 

[Texashiker]

Just because the government may not censor speech, does not give anyone a free pass from consequences of others not liking what they say. Makes no difference if a person is in public or private, what they say will have consequences if / when people hear it.

You think everyone would have been happy if Paula Deen's comments had been made in public? As if your twisted notion of free speech is only "assaulted" in private places? Really?

A mans home is his castle. If someone can not speak honestly and frankly in our castle, then free speech is dead.

Regardless if someone agrees or disagrees with what was said, the least they should do is support the persons right to say it.

 

[Abraxas]

This council woman in San Antonio made some comments in a private area, to a select few people. Someone recorded the comments, then the comments were released to the news media.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ay-rant-hits-high-acceleration-on-digisphere/

There were some protest, and she has been asked to resign her postion.

Then there are the Paula Deen comments about black people.

Why do certain groups feel the need to protest, or get angry, when it comes out what someone said in privacy.

If we are not free to express ourselves in private areas, or to friends, then where can we express ourselves at?

I feel that rather than supporting our rights, special interest groups are acting like a form of thought police. It no longer matters where you say something, or think something, or believe something. If the wrong people find out your beliefs, they are going to try and embarrass you.

I know, right? A private citizen asks someone else to resign and suddenly people are outraged to the point of making internet threads about it. Clearly a violation of that persons rights to ask others to resign if they feel they should resign.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Did you bother to read the link you posted? She was in a staff meeting and not the privacy of her home when she made the comments.

Elisa Chan was secretly recorded during a staff meeting to discuss a proposed non-discrimination ordinance.

 

[OCGuy]

Oh jesus...that was not a "private" place. It was in the course of her work as an elected official, which is public.


OP could be a brilliant troll....at least I hope that is what this is.

 

[Jaskalas]

A mans home is his castle. If someone can not speak honestly and frankly in our castle, then free speech is dead.

Regardless if someone agrees or disagrees with what was said, the least they should do is support the persons right to say it.

Of course we support the right of people making themselves look like idiots.

Are you saying we don't have a right to oppose them if they do?

 

[Theb]

I wonder if there will ever be a day when everyone understands that the first amendment doesn't protect you from other people disagreeing with what you say.

Probably not.

 

[OCGuy]

Reported OP for trolling

 

[Texashiker]

Did you bother to read the link you posted? She was in a staff meeting and not the privacy of her home when she made the comments.

Yes, I read that article and the one the linked article links to.

That is why the title of the thread is private places.

Oh jesus...that was not a "private" place. It was in the course of her work as an elected official, which is public.

If she is on the clock, goes to the bathroom and drops a turd, is that still not private?

Anything out of earshot is private.

 

[boomerang]

Thought police is the exact terminology to use in our highly charged PC world. We have freedom of speech. Whether it is wise or not to speak one's mind whether in public or private is the choice of the individual speaking. It can still be said. It's no surprise that members of our society feel that suppressing speech will change the mindset of people. Or, perhaps they are just so damned sissified that they can't bear to hear speech that offends their tender sensibilities. I say tough, deal with it.

 

[brycejones]

A mans home is his castle. If someone can not speak honestly and frankly in our castle, then free speech is dead.

Regardless if someone agrees or disagrees with what was said, the least they should do is support the persons right to say it.

You have been huffing paint lately. No one stopped anyone from saying anything and there is no threat to freedom of speech in the article you linked. The only time your speech is EVER private is when you are talking to yourself. The second you introduce a second party to the conversation you should always assume that whatever you say could be eventually repeated to someone else. The framers of the constitution include an opt in sharing clause in the 1st amendment.

 

[OCGuy]

If she is on the clock, goes to the bathroom and drops a turd, is that still not private?

Anything out of earshot is private.

If she is having a meeting in the course of her duties as a public official while on the john, then yes I have a right to know what her views are.

If she is conducting personal business on her smartphone while on the can, then no.

 

[Texashiker]

If she is having a meeting in the course of her duties as a public official while on the john, then yes I have a right to know what her views are.

Explain that to obama and the NSA.

Even public officials have a right to some kind of privacy.

 

[OCGuy]

Be honest, you are upset because of the backlash caused by her homophobic remarks, not that she was recorded during a public policy meeting.

"Private places" is something you point to on a doll in court. I have no idea what that even means.

 

[Texashiker]

Be honest, you are upset because of the backlash caused by her homophobic remarks, not that she was recorded during a public policy meeting.

She was not in a public meeting when she was recorded.

This has nothing to do with gays. I would have been equally upset if the comments had been about blacks, gun rights, voting laws,,, or anything else.

I feel that we are "all" entitled to privacy, even if the person is an elected official they are entitled to privacy.

Ever hear of a city council closed door meeting? Maybe you have heard of a sealed court document? Senate hearings that are closed to the public? Ever hear of any of those?

There are times when an elected official says and does something that is not open to the public.

 

[thraashman]

She was not in a public meeting when she was recorded.

This has nothing to do with gays. I would have been equally upset if the comments had been about blacks, gun rights, voting laws,,, or anything else.

I feel that we are "all" entitled to privacy, even if the person is an elected official they are entitled to privacy.

So it doesn't matter how horrible of a thing a politician believes so long as they don't speak about it in public? So if Hitler had only ever told people in private meetings that he thought exterminating the Jews was the way to go, then it would have been just fine and dandy? You can't be this dense, you just can't.

 

[ElFenix]

Explain that to obama and the NSA.

Even public officials have a right to some kind of privacy.

love the "yeah, well, obama" response

 

[1prophet]

"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"

Which part of her 1st amendment rights were violated?

 

[Texashiker]

Which part of her 1st amendment rights were violated?

Did the opening post make a claim that rights were violated?

This is about mutual respect.

Even though we may disagree with an opinion, we should at least support the persons right to say it.

 

[Pulsar]

Texashiker, you seem very confused.

Privacy has nothing to do with free speech. Once you can sort the two out in your head and come back with a substanstive complaint, then this conversation will mean something. Speech is always free. It's the consequences that might cost you something.

Privacy is a completely different conversation. Many states have a law that states that as long as one party is privy to the knowledge that a conversation is being recorded, then it's legal. So what is your actual problem here? What laws were infringed? How was her right to free speech affected?

Ah - per the last post now we're talking about mutual respect. Sorry, but as long as you keep moving the bar on what we're actually talking about - free speech, or privacy, or mutual respect... this whole thread is pointless.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

She has the right to say what she wishes, just as those people who were offended by what she said have the right to be offended and exercise their 1st amendment right to voice their opinion on what was said.

 

[irishScott]

So even assuming she was in a "private" place, so what?

If I went over to your house and heard something I found offensive, then you would want me to be under an automatic gag order? Yeah, good luck with that. No one could talk about anything outside of the legally sealed chambers of personal property.

You have to right to say whatever you like, you don't have the right to dictate people's reactions.

 

[MrPickins]

Did the opening post make a claim that rights were violated?

This is about mutual respect.

Even though we may disagree with an opinion, we should at least support the persons right to say it.

As others in this thread have stated, nobody said she couldn't say the things she said. They just happen to take offense at her remarks (which is well within their own rights).

You're getting bent out of shape over the system working as intended?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Even though we may disagree with an opinion, we should at least support the persons right to say it.

Who hasn't supported her right to say what she wants to say? You seem to be claiming that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism, but that couldn't be right, because I give you more credit than trying to advance an argument that bereft of rational thought. To her credit, she isn't trying to distance herself from the increasingly unpopular opinion she holds, but if the voters decide that's reason enough to vote against her in the next election, so be it. They aren't voting against her right to speak her mind, they're voting against the beliefs she holds that may affect how she crafts public policy.