Sentences with phrase «free speech only»

Those in favor of his suspension generally point out that America's 1st Amendment guarantee of free speech only protects you from government interference regarding political speech (and does not prevent employers from exercising their rights to discipline employees), whereas those defending Robertson have been quick to lament the knee - jerk reaction to those expressing counter-progressive cultural beliefs in a very clumsy fashion, and claim there is a double standard in which politically unpopular conservative viewpoints are quicker to result in job terminations than politically unpopular liberal viewpoints that are also clumsily expressed.

Free speech only works when it works for both sides.

free speech only if it agrees with me?

Free speech only works for people who have enough brains to understand what is being said.

Not exact matches

Wednesday's speech from the throne, which included a promise from the federal government to institute a pick - and - pay system where consumers would be free to choose only the channels they want, has drawn a lot of flak from media commentators for being short on details, silent on major issues and overly populist.

While a pending free trade deal with the European Union is a truly significant national event, it merited only a single line in the speech.

His ban from visiting Britain in June 2009 has made him the «poster child» for free speech, not only for Americans concerned about the cultural shift towards totalitarianism and their rights to freedom of expression, but for people around the globe.

Just look at the visitors to this site that think they will be preaching to the choir only to find free speech is at work, not «fellowship»... some are shocked and try to tell those who don't believe that they have no business here.

Free speech can only be abridged by government action.

And their definition of free speech is no one speaking back to them but only silently nodding their heads.

They can implement what policies they want; the First Amendment only protects us against government abridgement of free speech.

The only point I'm having a bit of trouble with is... «we should protect free speech * no matter what the cost *»

The American value honoring free speech doesn't preclude condemnation of the speech, only that there should be no legal punishment for it.

While most - of - us abhor hateful speech, the only way to have free speech is to allow all speech.

Those, (and it's only some of them) «religious» people who are saying their freedom of speech is being violated are perfectly free to express that anywhere they like, but not in this sort of «captive» audience situation.

You don't have free speech if everyone can only say what isn't offensive to anyone.

keith thanks for your service... but I guess you don't know what free speech actually is, seems like only a person expressing one view is ok.

It is only free speech until you impinge upon others.

All so called atheists are liars, in fact not only that but they actually hate the Truth and free speech and will go out of their way to suppress it.

So, free speech is only free speech if you agree with it?

«Not only are such laws detrimental to free speech here in Europe, but they also enable countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran to justify their own laws, which in the case of 13 states come with a death sentence.»

Free speech is only its most recent victim.

It is the ONLY chance they have for Free speech all day long.

Pulling the show now would not change any of that and would likely only serve to rally their existing fans around them to protect their «free speech.»

But applying this sort of pressure to organisers is the only way to ensure free speech is no longer degraded in this country.

And it would be a mistake to think the free speech attackers are only the obvious bad guys like China, Iran or North Korea.

We are shocked not only because the police are breaking the law with impunity, but we are also shocked because this unlawful arrest is on the orders of a President who has always claimed to be an apostle of free speech.

One woman, who gave only the name Diann, called Democrats «hypocrites» on free speech because they objected when members of the National Rifle Association wanted to meet in the neighborhood.

In an address to the conservative Federalist Society, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito defended his stance on the issue by arguing, «Surely the idea that the First Amendment protects only certain privileged voices should be disturbing to anybody who believes in free speech.»

You only speak for yourself and I don't want regulating by you, the PCC or legislation because I believe in free speech tempered only by laws against inciting violence and defamation.

The only serious candidate among them who can sustain the prevailing peace as well as keep the democratic space for free speech and the enjoyment of fundamental human rights is Mr. John Dramani Mahama.

Unfortunately freedom of speech is contingent to how much money you have given that the media is itself a business that has to make profits as well, so a «lobbyist» like this comes to this program without any ethics, without any remorse but with a lot of money as well to openly acknowledge that: yes, we put money in this governor's elections, we are expecting he pay us back and will stand on our side of the equation, and yes, we have collected (very fast) the private necessary money to run a public relations campaign (of lies if necessary) to guarantee that our privileges are well kept; and he finds a free stand to speak out freely and without appropriate response As far as Liz, I'm not sure if it is only a being naïve issue.

Not only does this mean that colleges are now awash with therapy groups, workshops such as «Keeping Calm and in Control», «Mindfulness for Depression» «Anxiety 101», but many contemporary free speech disputes are couched in the language of psychological harm.

But despite this, only the most militant free speech fundamentalists objected to denying fascists use of university buildings to preach hate.

There is an adequate list on Wikipedia of free speech exceptions, that for convenience I will replicate here: Communicative impact restrictions (e.g. incitement, elicitation) False statements of fact (e.g. libel, slander, perjury) Obscenity (very tightly interpreted, and only regulated in public)...

Only 9 % thought the law was wrong and a restriction on free speech, with 74 % supporting the law.

The We the People Amendment is the only amendment that deals with both Supreme Court doctrines that grant constitutional rights to artificial entities and that define spending money as free speech.

«If they are only exercising free speech, we respect their right.

September 8, 2017 • Some new research says that many people use free speech arguments only when convenient, and as a cover for their own feelings.

Longtime del Toro collaborator Doug Jones brings the creature of mystery to life who also must find other means of communication beyond speech which only draws more similarities between him and the maid who frees his soul and so much more.

Combining the data for the entire four - decade period, we find that about 71 percent of teachers have supported the free - speech rights of these four types, while only about 58 percent of other Americans have.

Currently free schools have discretion over what to teach, but in his speech to a school in north London on Thursday, Mr Clegg will ask: «What's the point of having a national curriculum if only a few schools have to teach it?»

In 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini called for Salman Rushdie's death for his «blasphemous» novel The Satanic Verses, a move which not only forced Rushdie into hiding for over a decade, but also stirred vigorous debate over the unconditional right of free speech.

Only the government is bound by the first amendment's mandate to protect free speech.

I hope Dear Author and Jane Litte will prevail in the suit, because free speech is not only for the people we admire or like.

And one of the speeches about «The only free men the world has ever known,» and literally had a moment of incandescent rage and shouted at the book, «You hunted slaves!»

In this country, artists have long enjoyed free speech hampered only by market forces and marginal hate - speech prohibitions; they have rarely faced serious consequences for overt political engagement.

In an irony that can only be describes as «possibly the final Biblical sign of the Armagedon; The orhtodox CAGW cabal will certainly claim that that prosecution is a violation of Shukla's academic and free speech rights and retaliation for his scientific views.

Although I was the only one on the NR side who's actually won a free - speech battle (and so decisively that the law was eventually repealed), I was prevailed upon through the course of last year to leave it to the experts.

I didn't read it to say only if the free speech is in a peer reviewed journal.