Missoula Poster

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

pjl44 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Vedd Hedd said:

BS44325 said:

westbrook36 said:

Rumors are SiriusXM may cancel PJ radio over backlash from Missoula poster..

Can I be the conservative who says that this would be so dumb. Just like it was so dumb for radio stations to ban the dixie chicks and/or Kanye. Just like it's so dumb to ban Alex Jones. Just like it's so dumb for social media to ban/shadow ban thought they don't like. Just like it's so dumb for protestors to shut down speaking events on college campuses. Enough with the suppression of speech!

Dont include Alex Jones in that group.    Its one thing to ban people who say, "I dont like this person" or "I think these policies suck".  Pearl jam, Kanye, Dixie Chicks voice their opinions.   Just like Toby Keith, Ted Nugent, Roseanne, etc voice them on the right. 

Alex Jones peddles lies that do actual harm to actual people.   He is flat out making up conspiracy theories that are damaging people, and asking people to cause actual violence. 

Sorry. I agree with you on what Alex Jones is but I don't agree with you on the response. Banning speech is ALWAYS wrong. Even Noam Chomsky agrees. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech otherwise we go down a rabbit hole into chaos. Look how easily someone can argue the poster is "hate speech". It is ludicrous. This type of response must end.

Banning HATE SPEECH is not wrong. Hate speech isn't protected, nor should it be. And sure, someone can argue that this poster is hate speech, but they'd be really really wrong, lol.

And that's the issue with hate speech laws. If they were subject to interpretation by this administration or this DoJ and/or a state that Trump carried by 20 points, there would be something to sweat here.

@PJ_Soul likes to have her government sanctioned cake and eat it too...

That's idiotic.

Nope. It's hilarious.

What is hilarious about me pointing out that not all speech is protected? Please explain.

What is hilarious is that you are completely incapable of introspection. You have no idea how under your belief system someone can label the next Jeff Ament PJ poster "violent hate speech" and attempt to ban it. You want to be the arbiter of good and bad speech. 

Go Beavers said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Vedd Hedd said:

BS44325 said:

westbrook36 said:

Rumors are SiriusXM may cancel PJ radio over backlash from Missoula poster..

Can I be the conservative who says that this would be so dumb. Just like it was so dumb for radio stations to ban the dixie chicks and/or Kanye. Just like it's so dumb to ban Alex Jones. Just like it's so dumb for social media to ban/shadow ban thought they don't like. Just like it's so dumb for protestors to shut down speaking events on college campuses. Enough with the suppression of speech!

Dont include Alex Jones in that group.    Its one thing to ban people who say, "I dont like this person" or "I think these policies suck".  Pearl jam, Kanye, Dixie Chicks voice their opinions.   Just like Toby Keith, Ted Nugent, Roseanne, etc voice them on the right. 

Alex Jones peddles lies that do actual harm to actual people.   He is flat out making up conspiracy theories that are damaging people, and asking people to cause actual violence. 

Sorry. I agree with you on what Alex Jones is but I don't agree with you on the response. Banning speech is ALWAYS wrong. Even Noam Chomsky agrees. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech otherwise we go down a rabbit hole into chaos. Look how easily someone can argue the poster is "hate speech". It is ludicrous. This type of response must end.

Banning HATE SPEECH is not wrong. Hate speech isn't protected, nor should it be. And sure, someone can argue that this poster is hate speech, but they'd be really really wrong, lol.

All Speech is protected. You don't get to pick and choose. If you think you do then you are just as bad as the people who want to label this poster. 

No, all speech is not protected. It does depend on the country you're talking about, but it's simply false that all speech is protected. But no, I personally do not get to pick and choose - I never claimed that (because I'm not insane).

I'm pretty sure we're talking about the US and I'm so sorry but you do want to pick and choose. You want to elect people who will ban the speech you disagree with.

What people running for office want to ban certain speech?

Spend some time up in Canada. The Jordan Peterson phenomenon didn't start out of thin air.

pjl44 said:

BS44325 said:

pjl44 said:

BS44325 said:

RP112579 said:

Quote from Jeff in the Rolling Stone article:

“The role of artists is to make people think and feel, and the current administration has us thinking and feeling,” Ament tells Rolling Stone. “I was the sole conceptualist of this poster, and I welcome all interpretations and discourse.  Love, from the First Amendment, Jeff Ament.”

Except Jeff took the opposite stance himself when it came to Kanye. Jeff expressed disappointment in Kanye and that it would change how he felt about his music going forward. Jeff didn't celebrate Kanye's ability to make people "think and feel". 

I read Jeff's statement entirely the other way. He seems to be welcoming people to take the position he took on Kanye. Welcoming "all interpretations and discourse."

I disagree. Jeff could have said "I respect Kanye as an artist and while I disagree with him I support his right to speak and be thought provoking". He didn't do that. He said (paraphrase) "I loved Kanye but am disappointed in his thoughts and it changes how I feel about him. Also I don't understand Dragon Energy". Of course Jeff is entitled to say this but he shouldn't complain now that some are doing the same over this poster. Jeff didn't give Kanye the artistic support that he probably now desires.

I don't see Jeff looking for support anywhere in that statement. He's standing by the work and inviting people to react however they choose.

Yeah...let me strike that. I think you're right on this. I don't think Jeff is seeking support and probably has plenty. I still do find it disappointing though that Jeff took the stance he did with respect to Kanye even though it's his right. I'm a big supporter of artistic freedom regardless of politics and I always loved that PJ/Jeff are too. While his statement didn't exactly say he didn't support Kanye's artistic freedom I just feel that from one artist to another he could have made a bit more of a defence of the "art" even though he didn't support the message. The poster issue just highlights this for me because when it comes to art if you don't defend an artist's speech today then someone might come for your speech tomorrow.

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

pjl44 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Vedd Hedd said:

BS44325 said:

westbrook36 said:

Rumors are SiriusXM may cancel PJ radio over backlash from Missoula poster..

Can I be the conservative who says that this would be so dumb. Just like it was so dumb for radio stations to ban the dixie chicks and/or Kanye. Just like it's so dumb to ban Alex Jones. Just like it's so dumb for social media to ban/shadow ban thought they don't like. Just like it's so dumb for protestors to shut down speaking events on college campuses. Enough with the suppression of speech!

Dont include Alex Jones in that group.    Its one thing to ban people who say, "I dont like this person" or "I think these policies suck".  Pearl jam, Kanye, Dixie Chicks voice their opinions.   Just like Toby Keith, Ted Nugent, Roseanne, etc voice them on the right. 

Alex Jones peddles lies that do actual harm to actual people.   He is flat out making up conspiracy theories that are damaging people, and asking people to cause actual violence. 

Sorry. I agree with you on what Alex Jones is but I don't agree with you on the response. Banning speech is ALWAYS wrong. Even Noam Chomsky agrees. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech otherwise we go down a rabbit hole into chaos. Look how easily someone can argue the poster is "hate speech". It is ludicrous. This type of response must end.

Banning HATE SPEECH is not wrong. Hate speech isn't protected, nor should it be. And sure, someone can argue that this poster is hate speech, but they'd be really really wrong, lol.

And that's the issue with hate speech laws. If they were subject to interpretation by this administration or this DoJ and/or a state that Trump carried by 20 points, there would be something to sweat here.

@PJ_Soul likes to have her government sanctioned cake and eat it too...

That's idiotic.

Nope. It's hilarious.

What is hilarious about me pointing out that not all speech is protected? Please explain.

What is hilarious is that you are completely incapable of introspection. You have no idea how under your belief system someone can label the next Jeff Ament PJ poster "violent hate speech" and attempt to ban it. You want to be the arbiter of good and bad speech. 

Wow, nice made up fantasy as to where I stand on the matter. I guess I'll take it as a compliment that you're using any energy inventing stupid stories about my thought processes or where I stand on this issue, lol.

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Vedd Hedd said:

BS44325 said:

westbrook36 said:

Rumors are SiriusXM may cancel PJ radio over backlash from Missoula poster..

Can I be the conservative who says that this would be so dumb. Just like it was so dumb for radio stations to ban the dixie chicks and/or Kanye. Just like it's so dumb to ban Alex Jones. Just like it's so dumb for social media to ban/shadow ban thought they don't like. Just like it's so dumb for protestors to shut down speaking events on college campuses. Enough with the suppression of speech!

Dont include Alex Jones in that group.    Its one thing to ban people who say, "I dont like this person" or "I think these policies suck".  Pearl jam, Kanye, Dixie Chicks voice their opinions.   Just like Toby Keith, Ted Nugent, Roseanne, etc voice them on the right. 

Alex Jones peddles lies that do actual harm to actual people.   He is flat out making up conspiracy theories that are damaging people, and asking people to cause actual violence. 

Sorry. I agree with you on what Alex Jones is but I don't agree with you on the response. Banning speech is ALWAYS wrong. Even Noam Chomsky agrees. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech otherwise we go down a rabbit hole into chaos. Look how easily someone can argue the poster is "hate speech". It is ludicrous. This type of response must end.

Banning HATE SPEECH is not wrong. Hate speech isn't protected, nor should it be. And sure, someone can argue that this poster is hate speech, but they'd be really really wrong, lol.

All Speech is protected. You don't get to pick and choose. If you think you do then you are just as bad as the people who want to label this poster. 

No, all speech is not protected. It does depend on the country you're talking about, but it's simply false that all speech is protected. But no, I personally do not get to pick and choose - I never claimed that (because I'm not insane).

I'm pretty sure we're talking about the US and I'm so sorry but you do want to pick and choose. You want to elect people who will ban the speech you disagree with.

No I don't, and I have no clue where you got that idea. You just made it up out of thin air. I never said anything to suggest that.
Not all speech in protected in the USA either.

Do you support the Canadian university system's attempt to force speech codes on to their professors?

Not at all - the only restrictions I support are the ones outlined in the Criminal Code and Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and it's not "the Canadian university system" doing anything - that is an issue that varies wildly from university to university).

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

PJ_Soul said:

BS44325 said:

Vedd Hedd said:

BS44325 said:

westbrook36 said:

Rumors are SiriusXM may cancel PJ radio over backlash from Missoula poster..

Can I be the conservative who says that this would be so dumb. Just like it was so dumb for radio stations to ban the dixie chicks and/or Kanye. Just like it's so dumb to ban Alex Jones. Just like it's so dumb for social media to ban/shadow ban thought they don't like. Just like it's so dumb for protestors to shut down speaking events on college campuses. Enough with the suppression of speech!

Dont include Alex Jones in that group.    Its one thing to ban people who say, "I dont like this person" or "I think these policies suck".  Pearl jam, Kanye, Dixie Chicks voice their opinions.   Just like Toby Keith, Ted Nugent, Roseanne, etc voice them on the right. 

Alex Jones peddles lies that do actual harm to actual people.   He is flat out making up conspiracy theories that are damaging people, and asking people to cause actual violence. 

Sorry. I agree with you on what Alex Jones is but I don't agree with you on the response. Banning speech is ALWAYS wrong. Even Noam Chomsky agrees. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech otherwise we go down a rabbit hole into chaos. Look how easily someone can argue the poster is "hate speech". It is ludicrous. This type of response must end.

Banning HATE SPEECH is not wrong. Hate speech isn't protected, nor should it be. And sure, someone can argue that this poster is hate speech, but they'd be really really wrong, lol.

All Speech is protected. You don't get to pick and choose. If you think you do then you are just as bad as the people who want to label this poster. 

No, all speech is not protected. It does depend on the country you're talking about, but it's simply false that all speech is protected. But no, I personally do not get to pick and choose - I never claimed that (because I'm not insane).

I'm pretty sure we're talking about the US and I'm so sorry but you do want to pick and choose. You want to elect people who will ban the speech you disagree with.

No I don't, and I have no clue where you got that idea. You just made it up out of thin air. I never said anything to suggest that.
Not all speech in protected in the USA either.

Do you support the Canadian university system's attempt to force speech codes on to their professors?

Not at all - the only restrictions I support are the ones outlined in the Criminal Code and Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and it's not "the Canadian university system" doing anything - that is an issue that varies wildly from university to university).

Fair enough...so if you support Jordan Peterson in his resistance to campus speech codes, as it appears that you do, then I for one owe you an apology. 

Alex Jones getting banned from an internet platform that doesn’t want to be associated with his bullshit isn’t a violation of free speech. That’s a company exercising their rights. Even infowars has terms of service that if violated will result in being banned from their site; none of that violates anyone’s 1A rights. This isn’t complicated. 

Peter Strzok, getting fired from the FBI for expressing a political opinion in a private text message IS a blatant and egregious violation of his constitutionaly protected first amendment rights. This isn’t complicated.

People should really educate themselves on what ‘freedom of speech’ does & doesn’t mean. 

PS: there’s no such thing as true “freedom of speech” - you can’t yell fire in a crowded building, you can’t joke about murdering the president (I.e. Kathy Griffin)etc etc. 

True freedom is speech is a myth. 

mattsavard said:

Go Beavers said:

mattsavard said:

KidAOK said:

I'll add something from the outside looking in (Ireland).

It is absolutely mental that a positive, encouraging movement to tackle homelessness hardly received any news traction nationally yet a simple poster from the same band is front page news.

American priorities and the constant barage of negative press over positive astounds me.

Couldn’t agree more. It’s another side effect of our incredibly polarized two party system. People are being conditioned to draw sides and attack the other. Anything sensationalistic that reenforces one side vs the other gets clicks... clicks sell ads.... ads pay salaries. 

It’s insanity. Anyone thinking this system is anything but Broken is a fool, IMO. 

This isn’t a both sides are the same issue. This poster thing got legs because right wing media that feeds trump’s base took it and dictated a reaction from the base. They all predictably followed suit like always. 

The problem is both sides do it, on varying issues all the time. The left media feeds the left it’s daily/weekly outrage and talking points. The right does the same.  Both are playing their base like pawns to try to solidify their loyalty.... And somehow a lot of people are being played into buying into the bullshit.

What are examples of the left equivalent? The Helsinki oress conference with trump is a perfect example of my poont. The left didn’t have to wait for whomever to tell them how to respond. It was a disaster unfolding in real time and reaction was immediate. Right wingers were silent until Obama/Clinton whataboutisms were created and had to told how apparently what grump is doing with Putin is positive.   

Merkin Baller said:

Alex Jones getting banned from an internet platform that doesn’t want to be associated with his bullshit isn’t a violation of free speech. That’s a company exercising their rights. Even infowars has terms of service that if violated will result in being banned from their site; none of that violates anyone’s 1A rights. This isn’t complicated. 

Peter Strzok, getting fired from the FBI for expressing a political opinion in a private text message IS a blatant and egregious violation of his constitutionaly protected first amendment rights. This isn’t complicated.

People should really educate themselves on what ‘freedom of speech’ does & doesn’t mean. 

PS: there’s no such thing as true “freedom of speech” - you can’t yell fire in a crowded building, you can’t joke about murdering the president (I.e. Kathy Griffin)etc etc. 

True freedom is speech is a myth. 

Is it a violation of Strzok's first amendment rights? Those texts certainly show bias against Trump. Can't say I blame him, but doesn't that bias make him unable to fairly investigate either Trump or Hillary?

Ledbetterman10 said:

Merkin Baller said:

Alex Jones getting banned from an internet platform that doesn’t want to be associated with his bullshit isn’t a violation of free speech. That’s a company exercising their rights. Even infowars has terms of service that if violated will result in being banned from their site; none of that violates anyone’s 1A rights. This isn’t complicated. 

Peter Strzok, getting fired from the FBI for expressing a political opinion in a private text message IS a blatant and egregious violation of his constitutionaly protected first amendment rights. This isn’t complicated.

People should really educate themselves on what ‘freedom of speech’ does & doesn’t mean. 

PS: there’s no such thing as true “freedom of speech” - you can’t yell fire in a crowded building, you can’t joke about murdering the president (I.e. Kathy Griffin)etc etc. 

True freedom is speech is a myth. 

Is it a violation of Strzok's first amendment rights? Those texts certainly show bias against Trump. Can't say I blame him, but doesn't that bias make him unable to fairly investigate either Trump or Hillary?

No. The bias doesn’t mean that it will effect how he carries out his job. This is the false narrative createD by the right to discredit the Mueller investigation. Prior to the election, what percentage of federal employees wanted trump to win? Probably not too many.