Whether or not you support free speech or the 1st Amendment, is not a pure yes/no answer. The application of free speech varies from country to country, and even within our country the interpretation of the 1st Amendment by courts changes with time. The question is: how strongly do you support free speech? Some here  "support" it to the bare minimum extent, just enough to comply with lackluster American law and no more.

In the teacher/parent examples, yes free speech is being suppressed. But perhaps that type of suppression is more acceptable. At least in the teacher example, the courts have classified such speech as violating "time, place, and manner" restrictions that Flapp brought up earlier and I agreed with. If the kid badmouths his teacher outside of school, that should be protected, right? (But these days, it is not! Hence the continuing erosion of the 1st Amendment).

If you say that Kaepernick "must face the consequences" that means you accept that it's okay for his speech to be punished in certain ways by unspecified entities: a gray and unimpressive level of support for free speech. At least until you clarify what the acceptable "consequences" are.

His act was not patriotic.

Whether or not you support free speech or the 1st Amendment, is not a pure yes/no answer. The application of free speech varies from country to country, and even within our country the interpretation of the 1st Amendment by courts changes with time. The question is: how strongly do you support free speech? Some here  "support" it to the bare minimum extent, just enough to comply with lackluster American law and no more.

In the teacher/parent examples, yes free speech is being suppressed. But perhaps that type of suppression is more acceptable. At least in the teacher example, the courts have classified such speech as violating "time, place, and manner" restrictions that Flapp brought up earlier and I agreed with. If the kid badmouths his teacher outside of school, that should be protected, right? (But these days, it is not! Hence the continuing erosion of the 1st Amendment).

If you say that Kaepernick "must face the consequences" that means you accept that it's okay for his speech to be punished in certain ways by unspecified entities: a gray and unimpressive level of support for free speech. At least until you clarify what the acceptable "consequences" are.

Whether or not you support free speech or the 1st Amendment, is not a pure yes/no answer. The application of free speech varies from country to country, and even within our country the interpretation of the 1st Amendment by courts changes with time. The question is: how strongly do you support free speech? Some here  "support" it to the bare minimum extent, just enough to comply with lackluster American law and no more.

In the teacher/parent examples, yes free speech is being suppressed. But perhaps that type of suppression is more acceptable. At least in the teacher example, the courts have classified such speech as violating "time, place, and manner" restrictions that Flapp brought up earlier and I agreed with. If the kid badmouths his teacher outside of school, that should be protected, right? (But these days, it is not! Hence the continuing erosion of the 1st Amendment).

If you say that Kaepernick "must face the consequences" that means you accept that it's okay for his speech to be punished in certain ways by unspecified entities: a gray and unimpressive level of support for free speech. At least until you clarify what the acceptable "consequences" are.

What rule of law would we live under if all free speech had no consequences? 

Yes, I agree that there should be consequences should any laws be broken.  However, it is difficult to provide consequences to Unalienable Rights to all People that is the First Amendment.  If not carefully crafted, you will eventually have public-approved Permitted Speech and not Free Speech.


In the parent teacher example you are arguing against yourself.  "perhaps it is more acceptable"  As was stated  many times, there are no criminal law against what he has done, nor should there be.  Therefore, it is our responsibility as a culture to do what is right in that situation.   

The issue in this example concerns more the rights and responsibilities of the teacher-student relationship rather than in the context of Free Speech.  Hence, the justification of schools to take disciplinary action of students who verbally harass their teachers is in compliance of the conduct accepted within the teacher-student relationship and not a violation of that student's First Amendment rights.


Same in this case.  I think pride in national identity is an "acceptable" reason for consequences.  It is what absolutely binds all Americans, who are of all races, colors, and creeds, together as a force.  This is what make our country great and what has banned us together in times of crisis, even with all our issues and problems.

Although I agree on your contention that pride in national identity can create patriotism that results in national unity; however, true patriotism to a flag or anthem should not be the primary factor for any critical-thinking citizen to blindly follow.  Stalin and Hitler were two notable examples that utilized national identity and national pride to get their citizenry to go along with their genocidal acts in their respective countries.


If the forces of the left have there way there will be no national identity and pride.  With that, they can now come through and decimate the remaining rights we hold dear.  Wouldn't you suppose that is a cause to be angered and cause to ridicule and punish in the public eye?

Critical-thinking citizens of any nation should be upset with anyone or group that is trying to eliminate/subvert/corrupt the established laws within their nation.  Hence, those on the left should be passionately ostracized in the public eye, not in the context of their personal beliefs or what kind of America they wish to see, but rather their overt and covert actions to manipulate or eliminate the established laws within the US in trying to achieve their goals.


I for one, am glad that the public has come out to voice opposition to this turd.  It shows that this nation is not as far gone as many would like to believe.  It shows there is still hope to turn things around.

Let us hope things still can be turned around.


Kuleana

What rule of law would we live under if all free speech had no consequences? 

I think pride in national identity is an "acceptable" reason for consequences...If the forces of the left have there way there will be no national identity and pride.

There should be no "safe zone" for Kaepernick. That would indeed go against free speech. You guys are free to criticize Kaepernick. You guys are free to attack the 1st Amendment. All I point out is that your choice to criticize his lack of patriotism, is an attack on the 1st Amendment, even though your words don't violate it. Indifference towards "consequences" and over-concern for "negative publicity" is liberal thinking.

Claiming to support the 1st Amendment by saying you support the current interpretation of it in America, is the same as Hillary Clinton saying she supports the 2nd Amendment.
I'm not as concerned about what the reasons for consequences are. I'm more concerned with what the actual consequences are. If a person employed in a government job says "America sucks" and is fired, is that an acceptable consequence? It happens all the time, even though it's not supposed to. Soon, it will be explicitly allowed by case law.

National identity and pride, aka patriotism, is featured in most countries, even dictatorships. I'm not sure it is related to left/right politics in America in particular.

His one act of defiance in the spotlight got more national attention on a topic of discussion than whole protests and shutting down of freeways.

(Not saying  I agree with it but just saying)

Your opinions and criticism of Kaepernick should not be suppressed. If I gave off that feeling, it was my mistake. However, I am suggesting that you reconsider parts of your opinion. I am not forcing you to. If you weren't a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I would not bother trying to convince you. But folks who support the 2nd Amendment should realize that it's related to the 1st Amendment, and reconsider if criticism of Kaepernick's lack of patriotism is consistent with conservative or libertarian values. That was Kuleana's initial point.

I wasn't aware that service members are prohibited from saying anything negative about the President. Is this true?

There is no irony in what I said, though I don't blame you for seeing it that way. The next sentence after the one you underlined/bolded explains why.

I accept that I've failed to convince you of the inconsistency of your stance through logical argument.

So more of the same.... Even the clown-in-chief at the White House says that Kaepernick's reasons are legit... </sarc>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-colin-kaepernick_us_57cd5f57e4b078581f13853b?section=us_politics