Freedom of Speech Does Not Guarantee Understanding

Townhall.com ^ | October 26, 2017 | Scott Rasmussen

[rxsid]

That's the thing so many on the left seem to not realize, especially the young snowflakes.

Just because you have a 1st Amendment right to speech, doesn't mean anyone is required to listen (or buy what your selling re NFL).

[notdownwidems]

Oh so really Kaperdink was trying to respect America? Ok I guess I got it wrong, sorry! /sarc

[Kaslin]

Only an idiot would think so.

[BlueYonder]

Let’s pretend that NFL players kneeled in support of, say, prolife.

Would the league support their first amendment right to free speech? Or would they crack down on the players?

And where do they draw the 1A line? Could a white supremacist kneel for his cause?

Just wondering.

[trebb]

There are many reasons for this, but the fundamental problem is that the message any audience sees and hears is often different than what the messenger meant to convey. That's true in any form of communication on any subject. Michaelson has a clear idea of what he thinks the players taking a knee are trying to say. But others hear something else entirely because we all tend to view the world through our own filters and perceptions.

What they are conveying is that using the Anthem as a tool to protest specific pet peeves is the way to go. It doesn't help that so many sports figures have been caught in lies about those same peeves...

[Harpotoo]

BS! Do it on your own time!

[Pollster1]

Scott is being diplomatic. By phrasing his point that way, he has a chance of meeting anyone on the other side halfway. He has a chance to convince them to move away from the divisive approach to something productive. The problem is that a productive approach requires recognizing the problem, and that is thug culture, not the police. No one on the Ctrl-Left wants to admit that.

[MortMan]

But freedom of speech does not come with a guarantee that you will be understood on your own terms.

This statement is bass-ackwards these days. For years, the SJW types have pushed the idea that they, as the aggrieved, have sole right to interpret the words or actions of those who have "micro-aggressed" against them. The intent of the offender is immaterial.

Now, they are the offenders, in a way that millions of people see as highly offensive. The outrage is so bad that the SJW idiots are facing potential financial cataclysm. And they are complaining that we, the offended people, are being allowed to interpret their actions exactly as the people who started their movement stated they should be interpreted.

No, that boat sailed and sank in the harbor, SJWs. You are no longer allowed to dodge responsibility for your actions by claiming to be misunderstood. If you want to know why, there are several bakers, florists, and photographers that can explain the concept. (Although you may not be able to understand it.)

[GOPJ]

Let's say a bunch of us went to a National Association of Black Journalists meeting - and our 'intent' was to make them AWARE of our 'feelings' - that 'the black community' MUST take responsibility for the problems in their own communities.

So far so good.

We know we have to 'get their attention' in a way it'll be covered - covered so all members of the black community will hear what WE have to say', So, DURING THEIR OPENING COMMENTS WE YELL, "WAKE UP STUPID NIGGERS'.

Our 'scream out' would be perceived as 'offensive' and hopefully the bimbos at MSNBC would rush to the cameras to declare their belief in 'free speech' under the Constitution.

But, would we be able to pretend we were unaware of how offensive our actions were - even after being told for months that it was offensive? I don't think so - our excuses would not be believed. And the excuses of these players should not be accepted either.

We know when someone is giving us the finger - just like they know when they're doing it to us. Scott Rasmussen would hold us accountable and he should hold the NFL players accountable.