Opinion

Letter: Free speech rights

Comments

Return To Article
  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 23, 2017 5:16 p.m.

    @JThompson.... based on your comments, it is obvious you didn't read the source materials either. You may have googled it, might have even read the snipits from the Pro-Trump web sites... but I really doubt you read or listen to the actual speeches. Because had you done so, you wouldn't have made the claims you did.

    If your going to try to call someone out - it is probably best you actually do what you ask them to do first.

    Obama now where said anyone should be silenced. You simply just will not find a primary source that backs that claim up. What you will find though is Obama saying that angry speech by Black Lives Matter may be understandable, but isn't productive.

    What Obama actually said of the police and BLM is "“We ask the police to do too much, and we ask too little of ourselves,” “They showed incredible restraint. Helped in some cases by protesters, they evacuated the injured, isolated the shooter and saved more lives than we will ever know. We mourn fewer people today because of your brave actions."

    I am sure Briebert forgot to include that part.... but heck, people would be able to be as angry if they actually read the whole thing.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    April 22, 2017 10:20 p.m.

    Mike Richards, walk a mile in my shoes.

    I am constantly ignored open dialog on this forum. I present hard cold facts (TRUTH) and I do not get posted. There are times when I am allowed only one post and no rebuttal. There are times when I don't get posted at all. I was simply shocked when everyone told me that you can actually get posted up to for times in one article. I am luck to get one rebuttal and two rebuttals only happens once in a great while.

    Freedom of speech is always controlled by someone who you have no control over. You may have to deal with it on a different scale but it is still a slap in the face!

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    April 22, 2017 8:52 a.m.

    Deseret News does not support free speech. They lean heavily to the right and ignore the facts.

    Commenters on the left are not given the same respect as commenters on the right. This is frustrating to those of us who have to word our comments very carefully to made ourselves heard.

    I would love to have the same freedom as the right-wing commenters.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 21, 2017 5:59 p.m.

    UtahBlueDevil,

    I'm scratching my head why you need more information than Mike Richards gave you about Obama's call to censor the news media. In his prior post, he gave a direct quote and the date that Obama made that statement. I Goggled it and found it within seconds.

    Surely you're aware that the Deseret News does not allowing anyone to include a web address in a post, aren't you?

    Free speech doesn't necessarily mean that anyone should shirk his responsibility to use easily available tools to look up something as easy to find as that quote.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 21, 2017 4:29 p.m.

    "What about Obama's call to censor the media?"

    Ok.... Mike, please state when and where this happened? Direct quote.... not off of some conservative web page or blog. Where Obama actually said this, or wrote it.

  • MaxPower Eagle Mountain, UT
    April 21, 2017 12:10 p.m.

    I'm generally pretty liberal.

    I find it funny when Universities cancel speeches because of "controversy" or there are protests due to the speakers.

    Universities should be where ideas are challenged, controversy discussed. Ann Coulter should be invited simply for the fact that she is causing this controversy. Then immediately after, Michael Moore invited.

    A few years ago Condolezza Rice was invited to speak at a commencement, then uninvited. I don't necessarily agree with her politics, but her body of work alone should merit an invite to speak at any University.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 21, 2017 11:50 a.m.

    Pragmatisferlife,
    You told us that those Yale students who signed the petition to abolish free speech were victims of a prank. So, following your logic, calling for the abolition of free speech is meaningless if the person collecting signatures is not first approved by you? Did Yale students sign a petition to abolish free speech?

    You told us that the Huffington Post piece on denying us white men the ultimate expression of free speech was about South Africa. Did the Huffington Post article state that when they used their free speech rights to publish that article?

    What about Obama's call to censor the media? You gave him a pass.

    Your statement that men are free to make any law that they wish irrespective of eternal law is faulty. There is accountability for every thought and every action that will extend far beyond this world - even to those who use their free speech to deny God and God's eternal laws.

    Some people think they can make up "truth". Nice try, but the facts disagree with your conclusions.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 21, 2017 11:50 a.m.

    Pragmatisferlife,
    You told us that those Yale students who signed the petition to abolish free speech were victims of a prank. So, following your logic, calling for the abolition of free speech is meaningless if the person collecting signatures is not first approved by you? Did Yale students sign a petition to abolish free speech?

    You told us that the Huffington Post piece on denying us white men the ultimate expression of free speech was about South Africa. Did the Huffington Post article state that when they used their free speech rights to publish that article?

    What about Obama's call to censor the media? You gave him a pass.

    Your statement that men are free to make any law that they wish irrespective of eternal law is faulty. There is accountability for every thought and every action that will extend far beyond this world - even to those who use their free speech to deny God and God's eternal laws.

    Some people think they can make up "truth". Nice try, but the facts disagree with your conclusions.

  • Husker1 Northern Utah County, UT
    April 21, 2017 9:38 a.m.

    @silo "Every single example you can provide on liberal hypocrisy relating to free speech can be countered with an equivalent example on the conservative side."

    Let's see if there are violent protests like we recently saw in Berkeley today at the Bernie Sanders speech. Let's see if Bernie is shouted down and disrespected like Jason Chaffetz was in his town hall meeting.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    April 21, 2017 9:31 a.m.

    @Mike Richards

    Did you not witness the town halls when obamacare was going through congress? Let's just say conservatives were not polite.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 21, 2017 8:26 a.m.

    Wow Mr. Richards you have really climbed off the edge.

    A prank by Horowitz for Fox, and an online article published in South Africa, about South Africa.

    Who cares what the Founding Fathers claimed as their source (BTW the exact same source all kings and queens claim). What matters is they established the law of the land and it's from that law the authority comes.

  • Dave T in Ogden Ogden, UT
    April 21, 2017 8:11 a.m.

    Does free speech mean if you have a conflict with your spouse, relative, neighbor, you have the right to name call, interrupt, demonize, yell and not care to listen to those you disagree with (called nasty divorce mode of communicating?) Even though the Bible says, "Blessed are the peacemakers..." Our politics is in this mode of communicating and behaving. Like the US senate cramming in their own guy for SCOTUS without consideration for an alternative so all senators can agree. Fox News, national talk radio, name-calling, rudeness, and the demonizing of liberals, Democrats as those snowflakes, communists. We are all Americans! Though people say we are to back the sanctity of all human life, Remember God created Liberals for a reason.
    "Thou shall not bare false witness"! Fox News, talk radio, political ads, and our president seem to overlook this Bible commandment. Sure you have the right to this type of free speech, though does the Bible back it. "Blessed are those who mourn..." We say cruel things about immigrants/refugees - we are not being a people to comfort those innocent people who are suffering. The way we treat each other, we no longer are that shining city on a hill.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 21, 2017 5:01 a.m.

    Yale students sign petition to abolish free speech, Dec. 16, 2015

    "We're going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we're going to have to change how the media reports on these issues . . . " Obama, May 13, 2015

    Apr. 13, 2017, "White men shouldn’t be allowed to vote or own franchises for the next 20 years."

    We've seen how liberals use "free speech" at town hall meetings in Utah. Apparently, they don't know the difference between throwing a tantrum and discussing issues.

    Our Founding Fathers understood from whom all blessings flow: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;". They understood the importance of the right to discuss freely and openly all issues.

    To today's liberals, free speech has devolved from civil discourse to "agumentum ad hominem", which is aided by the media whose own rules forbid "agumentum ad hominem".

    The right to speak is not the problem. Disrespect for civil speech is the problem.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    April 20, 2017 10:51 p.m.

    Our universities and colleges should never be afraid of ideas. Anyone who wants a room with a podium and theatre seating to present their half baked ideas should be able to find one. The angry racist, the crazed zealot, the paranoid conspiracy theorist, the frenzied supplement distributor.
    All of these should be able to find a place among voices of reason.
    They make reason look so much better, and so much more necessary.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    April 20, 2017 4:12 p.m.

    @husker
    "it does show the _hypocrisy of liberals_ who protest censorship of offensive art, movies, music lyrics, etc. and then take it upon themselves to censor (shout down) conservative speakers"

    Again. How is the hypocrisy you're claiming a liberal-only issue?

    Answer: it's not.

    Whether it's Mike Richards implying only liberal schools protest speeches, or you implying that it's only liberals being hypocrites about free speech rights, you are both being disingenuous. Every single example you can provide on liberal hypocrisy relating to free speech can be countered with an equivalent example on the conservative side.

  • Husker1 Northern Utah County, UT
    April 20, 2017 3:02 p.m.

    @silo "Yup. Definitely a 'liberal'-only issue."

    Nobody said it's a liberal-only issue. However, it does show the hypocrisy of liberals who protest censorship of offensive art, movies, music lyrics, etc. and then take it upon themselves to censor (shout down) conservative speakers.

  • silo Sandy, UT
    April 20, 2017 1:54 p.m.

    @mike richards
    "Some people want their voices to be heard, but reject the right of anyone else to say anything that they find offensive. That is the antithesis of free speech. We need go no further than the campuses of liberal arts universities to see free speech restrictions in action."

    Ah....you mean like in 2004, when that 'liberal' hotbed of Provo/Orem protested Michael Moore speaking at UVSC. So much so that the Moore speech was cancelled, and the college spent even more funds bringing in Sean Hannity instead.

    Yup. Definitely a 'liberal'-only issue.

  • Husker1 Northern Utah County, UT
    April 20, 2017 12:38 p.m.

    There are limits on speech because it can effect the safety, security, and rights of others.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    April 20, 2017 11:50 a.m.

    Arguing for "Free Speech" in the Deseret News [with certain monitors] is the epitome of hypocrisy!

    50% of the comments end up "denied",
    and MOST were well within published rules and guidelines.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 20, 2017 11:44 a.m.

    "There you will find professors and students joined to promote pre-censored speech. If speech violates their liberal ideas, it is not allowed."

    Mike, much of what you said is true... but this above is not an example of free speech. Try the like kind action in a chapel, or at a business. No one has the right to go into a store and start making accusations about that business - without being thrown out of that business. The church does not need to entertain or host the "free speech" of non-believers.

    A college/university is not a free speech platform, but rather an organization with stated roles, rules, agendas, and objectives. No one has the right to free speech in a class room. You can't just start debating the professor at will. For an example, an organization whose goal is social inclusion is not required to make their facilities available to those who preach against that principle. Likewise they have the right to deny access to anyone who is opposed to or speaks out against certain communities of that hosting organization.

    A University is not an open door, anyone can say anything place. It is NOT the town square.

  • Prometheus Platypus Orem, UT
    April 20, 2017 9:54 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    Milo Yiannopoulos, Conservatives went nuts saying how Berkley was wrong to protest him, and then cancelled his Free Speech at their party because he exercised his free speech?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    April 20, 2017 8:52 a.m.

    "[F]ree speech, although abused to the point of hate speech, should not be limited because it is God-given and no person or government has the right to strip us of this privilege."

    I understand this is the DN but other than the declaration of the "Founding Fathers" can you show me how free speech is "God given"? I would argue that it is obviously granted and taken away by governments, and therefore subject to what is clearly our historical debate about what is allowed and what isn't.

    To my point MR says about liberal universities..If speech violates their liberal ideas, it is not allowed.

    Well MR try wandering around the campus of BYU spewing profanities or standing on the corner preaching atheism and see how that goes for you.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 20, 2017 7:33 a.m.

    My job allows me to talk to many people over the phone a day. Most are really nice but some, like a caller yesterday decided to use his free speech to call me some offensive, vulgar and demeaning names. What happened to him was a direct result of his lack of foresight to what needed to be done.

    The consequences to him? I basically told him to take a flying leap and to call back when he got better mastery over the English language and then hung up on him. His free speech had consequences with his misuse of it.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    April 20, 2017 7:04 a.m.

    " because it is God-given and no person or government has the right to strip us of this privilege."

    Chris- do you know about global politics? North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Venezuela, The Philippines, etc. do not have free speech. Try speaking out against their governments and see if you ever see your family again.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 20, 2017 6:58 a.m.

    Free speech does not allow you start World War III.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    April 20, 2017 5:51 a.m.

    " no restrictions should be put on it. "

    Do you really believe that? We have many exceptions to free speech.

    There are things that are free speech that are regulated.
    Libel and slander
    incitement
    obscenity
    child pornography
    etc.

    Are these exceptions not reasonable?

    And I would add one more. I would restrict large sums of money used to pay off our politicians for favorable legislation. This one is just common sense. -

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    April 20, 2017 1:23 a.m.

    We have the freedom to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, but if we do that, there is a punishment affixed - after the fact.

    I think that people confuse the difference between free speech and pre-censored speech. We are free to speak. Government cannot dictate limits on our speech by requiring that we get permission from an "official" before being allowed to speak; however we must never allow the misuse of any freedom to be separated from consequences.

    Some people want their voices to be heard, but reject the right of anyone else to say anything that they find offensive. That is the antithesis of free speech. We need go no further than the campuses of liberal arts universities to see free speech restrictions in action. There you will find professors and students joined to promote pre-censored speech. If speech violates their liberal ideas, it is not allowed.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 19, 2017 9:01 p.m.

    Having a freedom doesn't mean it comes without consequence, or that it is immune from the reactions vented by others free speech. No one in this country is being jailed for their exercise of free speech. But people are held accountable for what they say. Employers have the right to fire employees that say things detrimental to the companies brand. Students have the right to express their free speech rights of displeasure with certain guest speakers. Customer can boycott because of free speech. None of that is denying someone their right to free expression.

    It gets so annoying that somehow people feel that free speech means that others have to accept that free speech. No where does the God given right to free speech guarantee anyone freedom from reaction to that speech.

    If your going to say something - be prepared to deal with the consequences of that speech. That is what life is about, decisions, and the consequences of those decisions.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    April 19, 2017 7:37 p.m.

    "[F]ree speech, although abused to the point of hate speech, should not be limited because it is God-given and no person or government has the right to strip us of this privilege."

    I'm okay with people being prohibited from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

    Also, no person/government may have the right to strip us of this privilege, but they do have the power to do so and across history they've mostly used it to deny people the right. Curious, isn't it? It's almost as if humans are more powerful than the ostensible author.