Freedom of Speech

Your freedom of speech consists not in being able to come to other people’s blogs and say any kind of rubbish you want without being kicked out, but in being able to open a blog of your own and enjoy the freedom to say whatever you please there.

Seriously, is this so hard to understand?

33 thoughts on “Freedom of Speech

  1. For people with an axe to grind, it does seem to be too hard to understand that there’s a difference between state-sponsored censorship of media, and someone telling them they’re not welcome on a blog.


    1. Every time it happens, it feels so weird. Do people think that the constitution guarantees to them that I have to listen to everything they want to say? That would surely be one weird constitution. 🙂


      1. In the words of an article on the most annoying internet argument techniques:
        “Activist judges have nothing on internet people, who reinterpret an amendment guaranteeing freedom from government repression as a law protecting them from any criticism of their ideas and even requiring other people to spend money creating and maintaining a platform to get their ideas out. Strangely, this guardian angel of a law is meant only to protect them and not their critics.”


  2. Funny how people on the left want freedom of expression for everyone except those who do not agree with their personal perspectives.

    This tells me all I need to know about this site, Remember saying this? “No need for constraint. Readers I like are allowed to be as explicit as they want about anything. :-)”

    I read your article on home schooling that reeks of intolerance, judgmentalism and knee jerk leftism.

    You do not want to discuss intelligently any topic, you want to gather around you anyone who passes your scrutiny presupposed on their political correctness.

    I cannot see any gratification being in an echo chamber but if others here do, that is fine. So go ahead, boot me, that will be a great demonstration to the intolerance, hatred, and maliciousness of the left ad continuum and a blotch on your character.

    I see you cannot stand anyone who is open and honest…the friends I have are not afraid to criticize me and I am not so insecure that I refuse to be criticized. The difference between my friends and people here of course is th difference in the spirit of that criticism, here it is malicious and with my friends it is constructive. Nuff said.


    1. Oohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh gaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwd the left the left the left the left the left the left the left!!!! The leeeeeeefffft they haaaattte meeeee and want to take away all my freedomzzz!


  3. bloggerclarissa :Alcoholism is a serious problem. Have you tried rehab?
    Because there is no way anybody could have written this sad rant while sober.Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

    Lmao, I think he did and got bored and decided to try your blog to sober himself up. 😉


      1. I didn’t forbid you from using them – but threats of banishment and unsubstantiated attacks on the person do nothing to support your argument. It makes you look like nothing more than a bully, which you purport to detest.


        1. What do you mean “Threats of banishment”? There are many comments I refuse to publish here, such as the endless spam that inundates my spam box all day long. Am I bullying the spammers in your opinion?


      1. Where do you manage to find hypocrisy and inconsistencies if I said maybe a hundred times already that this is my blog and it’s my personal hobby and I decide what does or does not appear here?

        It’s very strange to me that people choose to dispute with me how I spend my free time and quote the constitution of the United States in support of that.


        1. I would respond, but I really don’t have any desire to be called some ‘vile xxxx child abusing alcoholic. . . etc. . . ” This desire not be portrayed as something bordering on criminal castigates debate. And anything which serves to censure debate is a violation of the principle of free speech, intellectual debate and general acquisition of knowledge. All things which you otherwise support, unless you disagree with the writer. Then they’re a ‘vile xxxx child abusing alcoholic. . . etc. . . “.


          1. No, I only call people child abusers when I consider them to be child abusers. And I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

            “And anything which serves to censure debate is a violation of the principle of free speech, intellectual debate and general acquisition of knowledge”

            -So if I come into your house and, say, insult your parents, you will not kick me out in order to promote free speech and general acquisition of knowledge? You won’t tell me I’m a jerk in response to that and will just sit there quietly taking it?

            I find that hard to believe, to be honest.

            The people who are truly against free speech are the ones who want to control what I say on my blog. And of course they start projecting that onto me.


            1. Insulting my parents would only be another form of the ad-hominem fallacy. Nor would I invite people incapable of civil debate into my home. The difference between a forum in the public and a private residence ought to be clear.


              1. The forum!!!!

                Quo usque tandem abutere, Patricius, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? Quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?


              2. Oh, this brings back such fond memories. 🙂

                “For how long, Patrick, will you abuse our patience? And for how long will that madness of yours mock us? To what end will your unbridled audacity hurl itself?”

                Catiline orations are used as a basic text in beginners Latin courses. 🙂


              3. This is not a “forum.” This is my personal diary. And I don’t see any difference between it and any other personal space. Of course, everybody should be free to start their own discussion spaces and establish any rules they see fit there. I think this is fair and reasonable.


              4. And that is where we differ. It’s not a private diary. It’s much more like a common room or cafeteria at a university. If you were to propose something truly vile or illegal, do you think you couldn’t be prosecuted, simply because you only intended it to be a ‘private diary’.

                It is a fact, much to your chagrin, that this blog exists in the public sphere. If it were private, you would be the only person able to access it. As it is in the public sphere, should it not conform to the basic tenants of any public discourse. (That includes the rights and responsibilities associated with Free Speech – which we all know is not absolute.)


              5. Patrick, you can’t “differ” on how I define MY blog. 🙂 That just makes no sense. I decide what goes on here, when, how and for how long. If you seriously feel that what I do here infringes on your freedom of speech rights, you should feel absolutely free to sue me. 🙂

                Only I’m sure we all know what the result of that is going to be. 🙂

                Are the rest of today’s posts so boring that people seriously debate the point of whether I’m constitutionally allowed to ban people from my blog? Just wondering.


  4. Patrick :

    we should never be disagreeable.

    You should feel free to do so. I, however, reserve the right to be as disagreeable as I feel like. It isn’t like anybody is forced to be subjected to my disagreeableness, are they? 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.