seems that way to me
Printable View
seems that way to me
I believe speech should not be constitutionally infringed upon or limited as to content, sentiment or lunacy.
Place can be a problem ( Saying "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, for example).
Our difference is only one of consequence:
I believe it is within reason to suffer the slings and arrows of societal judgement as to sanction/censure for the exercise thereof, while you think the government (with the aid of such as the ACLU) should somehow issue legal estoppal so as to insulate the "anything goes, speech-wise" crowd from peril or harm in every non-legal sense.
That about right?
I believe that government has no place making laws preventing free speech.....and that the 1st amendment clearly says they have no right. What owners decide is acceptable on private property is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I find it funny that the falsely shouting fire scenario is often used when trying to say that free speech isn't absolute, and when it creates "clear and present danger" then there is of course merit to that argument....However.... that has little if anything to do with unpopular speech.
As to consequence, if it can be shown that harm is done by falsehoods then the "victim" has the right to seek compensation. (how karl rove still has a shirt on his back is amazing)... But then, again, this has little to do with unpopular speech. Hurt feelings are not what I would call harm.
There is the right to not have to listen. In a public place one has the right to walk away and the right to free speech does not extend to blocking the way. Captive audiences have the right to not have to views forced upon them.
As to the "Fire/theater" caution, I find it bears mention in every discussion of free speech, lest one be hoist on the petard it presents.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidccI believe that government has no place making laws preventing free speech.....and that the 1st amendment clearly says they have no right. What owners decide is acceptable on private property is different.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I find it funny that the falsely shouting fire scenario is often used when trying to say that free speech isn't absolute, and when it creates "clear and present danger" then there is of course merit to that argument....However.... that has little if anything to do with unpopular speech.
As to consequence, if it can be shown that harm is done by falsehoods then the "victim" has the right to seek compensation. (how karl rove still has a shirt on his back is amazing)... But then, again, this has little to do with unpopular speech. Hurt feelings are not what I would call harm.
There is the right to not have to listen. In a public place one has the right to walk away and the right to free speech does not extend to blocking the way. Captive audiences have the right to not have to views forced upon them.
I hereby declare such obligation fulfilled.
It sounds as if you are saying that, if people are subject to speech they disagree with, they are forestalled from objecting to said speech on the basis that to do so is to fail to exercise their right not to listen in the first place.
In other words, less-discerning orators shall not be denied an opportunity and unfettered access to whatever choir they might gather.
A corollary right to free speech is free consumption of same, so as to indulge one's right to nit-pick or call bullshit (another branch of the wide, wonderful world of free speech).
I guess the lesson to be learned is, anytime one feels compelled to give voice to the random opinion or viewpoint, he'd best be prepared to debate.
Such is the inescapable responsibility of the free exercise of speech.
I should indeed have also put that you have the right to heckle/debate etc. etc. I should not forget to cover every possible option
The issue was law preventing free speech, not replying to it...replying is your right of free speech is it not? Of course one can respond, but responding is different from making laws preventing. It must follow that if I am against laws preventing free speech then I am against laws preventing replying......or does that particular reasoning not extend unless specifically mentioned?
In phelps case there is a group of vetrans/bikers that stand in front of them and drown them out.....nobody is suggesting making laws to ban this tactic.....as long as it is non violent and doesn't cause an obstruction both sides have that right...for good or bad
Those who practice or suffer such strategies merit and reap the cacaphonies they create, and are generally seen for what they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
As long as physical order is maintained, "laws" can go suck.
:glag:Quote:
As to the "Fire/theater" caution, I find it bears mention in every discussion of free speech, lest one be hoist on the petard it presents.
I hereby declare such obligation fulfilled.
When mucking about with vid, such caveats are necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
He has flocks of precisely this type of ankle-biting concerns awaiting loosement.
Kinda like a defense lawyer, y'know?
I could have pointed out that your "caveat" isn't quite correct...you can say(shout) fire! in a crowded theatre...... but I just used the correct term in my post.;)
Mmmk. You talk like that normally though and it's quite funny. On a rare occasion I showed wifey one of your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4When mucking about with vid, such caveats are necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman™
He has flocks of precisely this type of ankle-biting concerns awaiting loosement.
Kinda like a defense lawyer, y'know?
She said it reminded her of the legalese you see in fine print at the end of a contract.:glag: