seems that way to me
there is no god
seems that way to me
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
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?
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
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.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.
Last edited by vidcc; 07-30-2006 at 03:27 AM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
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 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.
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.
Last edited by j2k4; 07-30-2006 at 01:09 PM.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
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
Last edited by vidcc; 07-30-2006 at 03:12 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
en(un)lightened
Those who practice or suffer such strategies merit and reap the cacaphonies they create, and are generally seen for what they are.
As long as physical order is maintained, "laws" can go suck.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Use Logic Or STFU!
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.
en(un)lightened
When mucking about with vid, such caveats are necessary.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.
He has flocks of precisely this type of ankle-biting concerns awaiting loosement.
Kinda like a defense lawyer, y'know?
Last edited by j2k4; 07-30-2006 at 10:06 PM.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
there is no god
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.
Last edited by vidcc; 07-30-2006 at 09:54 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Use Logic Or STFU!
Mmmk. You talk like that normally though and it's quite funny. On a rare occasion I showed wifey one of your posts.When mucking about with vid, such caveats are necessary.
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.
Last edited by Busyman™; 07-31-2006 at 01:44 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks