Right know im watching a documentary about Nazi america. They are explaining how they twisted free speech tto there own ideals. For some reason i find it hard to believe these people and others like them with extreme ideals are protected under free speech. And THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO DEFEND THIS RIGHT(like the aclu). Yet we let them march and spread there hate. Can someone please explain this to me. Why do we let people who spew idiocracy as news(im looking at you fox)

No matter how wrong they are, they have the right to be so. Amurrca.

Yea its annoying but its their right. They might look incredibly stupid, and be the antagonizers in the extreme but they have just as mucha right to say those things as you do to say it against them.

Honestly, if you want to take that right away from one group, then youd have to take it from all groups. Itll affect everyone if we start doing that

The same rights that protect their free speech, also protect yours. They are allowed to be "wrong" and you are allowed to disagree with them (and say so). The only other alternative would be to let the government censor our speech which I believe is greater of the two evils.

I can't remember where I heard/read it garret, but the quote "hatred is it's own worst enemy" comes to mind.

By letting these people express their views, the majority are reminded just how many sick, twisted people there are in the world, and how it's important to spread lessons of tolerance on to future generations. In a way, by being allowed to spout their ideals, these extremist and racist groups are shooting themselves in the foot.

Better to let them speak and let us know who the idiots are than for them to go underground.

Ahtman wrote:Better to let them speak and let us know who the idiots are than for them to go underground.

Damn, you beat me to it.

I like to have my crazy people right out in the open where I can keep my eye on them.

While it is somewhat annoying that they have the right to say this crap, just remember: It's your sacred right to call them idiots.

If this kind of thing bothers you then you don't really understand the word freedom.

I may disagree with you have to say but I will happily give my life protecting your right to say it.

Living in a free society means it will be legal for someone to do something that you disagree with.

ie, be a Yankees fan.

These people are a very small minority, and not worth worrying about.

Honestly, I'm more worried about the people going after them. I've watched a few shows on them, and there's organizations like the Souther Poverty Law Center, which are really stretching the laws to take down these organizations.

These Nazi idiots don't matter. We shouldn't do a single scratch of damage to our legal system to punish them for being pitiful idiots. I feel like some of the cases the SPLC prosecuted really set bad precedent for no real benefit.

I recall watching a video of some of them filing into their "clubhouse" which was basically a ratty, 10'x10' shack. They all spit on the Israeli flag, stomped on it, then went in. One by one, just a parade of genetic defficiency, undiagnosed head injuries, and maybe 15 teeth between them. These guys aren't to be hated and persecuted, they're to be pitied or ignored. They're not actually doing anything but sitting around yelling and being sad.

Poor white people don't have access to white privilege?

Well, that throws my worldview out of whack!

dogma wrote:Poor white people don't have access to white privilege?

Well, that throws my worldview out of whack!

If you were double dipping as Gailebraithe I think that they should retire your number and induct you into the Internet Hall of Fame.

As the saying goes: "If the Fourth Reich should ever come to be, Neo-Nazis would be among the first to die".

I find it ironic that inbred morons with no links to the "superior race" that they claim to be building would support the very ideals that would see them executed under the true Nazi party.

Laughing Man wrote:While it is somewhat annoying that they have the right to say this crap, just remember: It's your sacred right to call them idiots.

Not on dakka though, Mattyrm must endure idiots without retorting offensively

*thick Russian accent* In Russia, sometimes free speech really hates you.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:*thick Russian accent* In Russia, sometimes free speech really hates you.

That joke stopped being funny while I was still in the 9th grade, to be honest.

metallifan wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:*thick Russian accent* In Russia, sometimes free speech really hates you.

That joke stopped being funny while I was still in the 9th grade, to be honest.

That's odd, because I think it's hilarious!

garret wrote:Right know im watching a documentary about Nazi america. They are explaining how they twisted free speech tto there own ideals. For some reason i find it hard to believe these people and others like them with extreme ideals are protected under free speech. And THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO DEFEND THIS RIGHT(like the aclu). Yet we let them march and spread there hate. Can someone please explain this to me. Why do we let people who spew idiocracy as news(im looking at you fox)

Yeah, there are a lot of people out there who defend their right to it. I'm one of them. Been doing it for 9 years, from all around the world. DarkAngelHopeful is anothe one. As is the million or so other service members in our country.

I really love how you try to bash the ACLU, and Fox News in the same post. Really shows to me that your more about limiting peoples freedom of speech, then anything else.

"one hand gives, the other takes...." its a phrase that explain it well....


Idiots that make abuse of his "Free Speech" right just deserves our "ignore" right...

More on topic. I do believe in protecting the freedom of speech. I also like Fox news and sometimes I even like CNN (I know, crazy right? It's almost up there with 'not crossing the streams' I'm looking at you Ghost Busters). While I believe in freedom of speech, I still don't appreciate when people burn the US flag. However, as djones520 pointed out, him and I and millions of others are protecting that right.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:More on topic. I do believe in protecting the freedom of speech. I also like Fox news and sometimes I even like CNN (I know, crazy right? It's almost up there with 'not crossing the streams' I'm looking at you Ghost Busters). While I believe in freedom of speech, I still don't appreciate when people burn the US flag. However, as djones520 pointed out, him and I and millions of others are protecting that right.

Here in Spain happens the same, supposedly here is a felony, with a good amount as a fine, but police authorities don't take care about that..... shame...

Black Corsair wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:More on topic. I do believe in protecting the freedom of speech. I also like Fox news and sometimes I even like CNN (I know, crazy right? It's almost up there with 'not crossing the streams' I'm looking at you Ghost Busters). While I believe in freedom of speech, I still don't appreciate when people burn the US flag. However, as djones520 pointed out, him and I and millions of others are protecting that right.

Here in Spain happens the same, supposedly here is a felony, with a good amount as a fine, but police authorities don't take care about that..... shame...

Well here in the US it is perfectly legal. I'd love to do nothing more then punch a divot into the forehead of someone who did it, but it's their right to do it, so I have to respect it.

djones520 wrote:

Black Corsair wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:More on topic. I do believe in protecting the freedom of speech. I also like Fox news and sometimes I even like CNN (I know, crazy right? It's almost up there with 'not crossing the streams' I'm looking at you Ghost Busters). While I believe in freedom of speech, I still don't appreciate when people burn the US flag. However, as djones520 pointed out, him and I and millions of others are protecting that right.

Here in Spain happens the same, supposedly here is a felony, with a good amount as a fine, but police authorities don't take care about that..... shame...

Well here in the US it is perfectly legal. I'd love to do nothing more then punch a divot into the forehead of someone who did it, but it's their right to do it, so I have to respect it.

Truly? feth... its a bit strange to read that... lot of people (i enclose myself) think about the americans are really patriotic in their own way... that's not a bit..... ironic?

he may well be patriotic, but by defending his right to be patriotic he must also defend that donkey-caves right to burn his countries flag, its a two way thing.

nomsheep wrote:he may well be patriotic, but by defending his right to be patriotic he must also defend that donkey-caves right to burn his countries flag, its a two way thing.

yeah, but, being as they are... i never imagined flag burning was allowed....

thats our liberal media for you, if you listen to the media too closley then all americans teenagers are hot blonde chicks with massive boobs somewhere in their thirties, or they are all fat.

Black Corsair wrote:

nomsheep wrote:he may well be patriotic, but by defending his right to be patriotic he must also defend that donkey-caves right to burn his countries flag, its a two way thing.

yeah, but, being as they are... i never imagined flag burning was allowed....

Many times, Congress and the states have tried to pass laws against it, but every time the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Desecration_Amendment

on topic haters gonna hate

If you stop them saying and burning then they just say it and burn them more. it'll actually bring motre people to their cause than if they are allowed to preach this gak in the street

So you think that people who disagree with you and that you dislike should not have protections on their speech? Does that mean that you're fine with having no protections on your speech if someone disagrees with you or dislikes what you say? Speech that doesn't bug anyone doesn't need protection.

is that aimed at me?

BearersOfSalvation wrote:So you think that people who disagree with you and that you dislike should not have protections on their speech? Does that mean that you're fine with having no protections on your speech if someone disagrees with you or dislikes what you say? Speech that doesn't bug anyone doesn't need protection.

You can not like someones behavior (i.e. burning the US flag) and you can still feel strongly about protecting their right to do it.

You can also posit that action is distinct from speech. Burning a flag is not talking.

no but in most cases it's a form of protest which is still a right available to us as 'free' citizens

No, no it isn't. We have the freedom of speech, not the freedom of protest.

i agree entirely with the "free Speech" right... some people thinks "free speech" is the right of "disrespect" all what dislikes them


Free Speech is an awesome right in is own....but never abuse of it

as we say in Spain "you give your hand, they take your arm"

dogma wrote:No, no it isn't. We have the freedom of speech, not the freedom of protest.

americans do have freedom of protest as do brits, thats why hippies can attack people outside animal research labaratories

nomsheep wrote:

dogma wrote:No, no it isn't. We have the freedom of speech, not the freedom of protest.

americans do have freedom of protest as do brits, thats why hippies can attack people outside animal research labaratories

+1, which is why they can also burn flags.

nomsheep wrote:
americans do have freedom of protest as do brits, thats why hippies can attack people outside animal research labaratories

What Constitutional amendment gives you that freedom?

dogma wrote:

nomsheep wrote:
americans do have freedom of protest as do brits, thats why hippies can attack people outside animal research labaratories

What Constitutional amendment gives you that freedom?

U.S. Constitution - Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

i can't qoute it now but the us Constitution is a beautiful thing. one of the amendments give you the right to depose the government if they are inefficeint.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

dogma wrote:

nomsheep wrote:
americans do have freedom of protest as do brits, thats why hippies can attack people outside animal research labaratories

What Constitutional amendment gives you that freedom?

U.S. Constitution - Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and that one

dogma wrote:You can also posit that action is distinct from speech. Burning a flag is not talking.

Neither is writing a news article. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutionally protected, and so it shall be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

dogma wrote:

nomsheep wrote:
americans do have freedom of protest as do brits, thats why hippies can attack people outside animal research labaratories

What Constitutional amendment gives you that freedom?

U.S. Constitution - Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think he was referring to the part about attacking hippies, which is not protected by the Constitution. For which I totally agree. Hippy terrorists piss me the hell off.

I hate the pissing hippy terrorists as well, but what they are doing is a legal form of protest and if i stand up for my right to free speech and protest hen i have to stand up for theirs or become a hypocrite.

Hippy terrorists (surely that's an oxymoron)

Ah I get it. Their peaceful form of terrorism is urinating.

Right on man, that'll change the status quo.

djones520 wrote:

dogma wrote:You can also posit that action is distinct from speech. Burning a flag is not talking.

Neither is writing a news article. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutionally protected, and so it shall be.

Freedom of the press covers that, not freedom of speech. They are both right there in the 1st Amendment.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

dogma wrote:

nomsheep wrote:
americans do have freedom of protest as do brits, thats why hippies can attack people outside animal research labaratories

What Constitutional amendment gives you that freedom?

U.S. Constitution - Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing about the freedom to protest in there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Neither is writing a news article. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutionally protected, and so it shall be.

Until they rule that it isn't, you know those activist judges!

i think protesting is in the bill of rights though?

The Canadian Bill of Rights considers protest a form of "Free Speech", and it's protected under such. I imagine the US constitution is on roughly the same page. Mind you, Canada doesn't have complete freedom of speech. You say to someone "I'm going to hurt you" or "I'm going to kill you" in a malicious context, for example, and you can be charged with uttering threats. The funny thing is, T.O. and Van City police are famous for being caught on film saying things like "Keep it up and I'll kick your ***" or "I'm about this close to bashing your brains out on this cruiser's hood" and not much is done about it. Do as they say, not as they do I suppose.

nomsheep wrote:i think protesting is in the bill of rights though?

Freedom of Assembly and the the right to petition might be what you are thinking of.

that might well be it, my knowledge of american law leaves a lot to be desired

mattyrm wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:While it is somewhat annoying that they have the right to say this crap, just remember: It's your sacred right to call them idiots.

Not on dakka though, Mattyrm must endure idiots without retorting offensively

So funny. So, so funny.

metallifan wrote:The Canadian Bill of Rights considers protest a form of "Free Speech", and it's protected under such. I imagine the US constitution is on roughly the same page. Mind you, Canada doesn't have complete freedom of speech. You say to someone "I'm going to hurt you" or "I'm going to kill you" in a malicious context, for example, and you can be charged with uttering threats. The funny thing is, T.O. and Van City police are famous for being caught on film saying things like "Keep it up and I'll kick your ***" or "I'm about this close to bashing your brains out on this cruiser's hood" and not much is done about it. Do as they say, not as they do I suppose.

I assumed that this would also be true of American law, you are actually allowed to threaten people to your heart's content then?

blatantly, because no country covers this anomaly in their law system, until the canadians did it we didn't know what a threat was

Emperors Faithful wrote:

metallifan wrote:The Canadian Bill of Rights considers protest a form of "Free Speech", and it's protected under such. I imagine the US constitution is on roughly the same page. Mind you, Canada doesn't have complete freedom of speech. You say to someone "I'm going to hurt you" or "I'm going to kill you" in a malicious context, for example, and you can be charged with uttering threats. The funny thing is, T.O. and Van City police are famous for being caught on film saying things like "Keep it up and I'll kick your ***" or "I'm about this close to bashing your brains out on this cruiser's hood" and not much is done about it. Do as they say, not as they do I suppose.

I assumed that this would also be true of American law, you are actually allowed to threaten people to your heart's content then?

nomsheep wrote:blatantly, because no country covers this anomaly in their law system, until the canadians did it we didn't know what a threat was

That's not true. Threats aren't protected speech. Look up Assault laws. Despite what most people believe, Assault isn't violence, it's an act that causes the apprehension of violence, ie. a threat. The actual violence is legally defined as Battery.

i know, that was a joke, aurely you picked that up from the fact that i said we don't know what threats are?

anywho, battery is psyhical violence whereas assualt is the threat of violence

dogma wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

dogma wrote:

nomsheep wrote:
americans do have freedom of protest as do brits, thats why hippies can attack people outside animal research labaratories

What Constitutional amendment gives you that freedom?

U.S. Constitution - Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nothing about the freedom to protest in there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:
Neither is writing a news article. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutionally protected, and so it shall be.

Until they rule that it isn't, you know those activist judges!

What do you consider the right to peaceably assemble?

dogma wrote:Nothing about the freedom to protest in there.

Come now dogma, you know better. Protesting is the mixed exercise of the right to assemble and speak freely and occasionally to petition.

EDIT: The founding father's were crafty little devils. They knew they didn't have to spell out word for word everything the government wasn't allowed to tell people they couldn't do.

LordofHats wrote:

dogma wrote:Nothing about the freedom to protest in there.

Come now dogma, you know better. Protesting is the mixed exercise of the right to assemble and speak freely and occasionally to petition.

Unfortunately Dogma is more correct than you, though you aren't wrong either. The law doesn't work that way and it depends on how you interpret the constitution as to whether or not that is true, or at least considered true for the moment. A strict constructionist could argue that it isn't explicitly stated so it isn't guaranteed.

EDIT: The founding father's were crafty little devils. They knew they didn't have to spell out word for word everything the government wasn't allowed to tell people they couldn't do.

Actually since most of them were lawyers they did know that but not all of them were and they were under duress and working without a manual since no one had really made their own country before in that fashion. There have been arguments and debates about the subject even before the Constitution was finished. Hell, they weren't even sure they wanted a Bill of Rights let alone such certainty in their language as to assure no one ever being confused as to what they meant.

Platuan4th wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

metallifan wrote:The Canadian Bill of Rights considers protest a form of "Free Speech", and it's protected under such. I imagine the US constitution is on roughly the same page. Mind you, Canada doesn't have complete freedom of speech. You say to someone "I'm going to hurt you" or "I'm going to kill you" in a malicious context, for example, and you can be charged with uttering threats. The funny thing is, T.O. and Van City police are famous for being caught on film saying things like "Keep it up and I'll kick your ***" or "I'm about this close to bashing your brains out on this cruiser's hood" and not much is done about it. Do as they say, not as they do I suppose.

I assumed that this would also be true of American law, you are actually allowed to threaten people to your heart's content then?

nomsheep wrote:blatantly, because no country covers this anomaly in their law system, until the canadians did it we didn't know what a threat was

That's not true. Threats aren't protected speech. Look up Assault laws. Despite what most people believe, Assault isn't violence, it's an act that causes the apprehension of violence, ie. a threat. The actual violence is legally defined as Battery.

What I think Platuan4th is trying to point out is that the specific words used in the threat are what make it legal or illegal. Using the above examples, "I'm going to hurt you" is an informative statement, it does not offer a condition where the recipient will not get hurt and is therefore illegal. Where as something metallifan said the police are often heard saying such as "Keep it up and I'll kick your ***" is an ultimatum, not a threat. If the police officer were to acctually over react as such then they would be crossing the line into illegal but since the person being warned has an alternative to getting beat-up then it's fine, in the extreme this is simular to what some states refer to as "Fair Warning" but this doesn't apply in most cases. There are exceptions to this of course and what I did was make a broad generalization which I'm sure even now is being torn apart, but this is why we have lawyers to nit-pick details like those and courts to hear them and judges to misinterperate them etc ad infinum.

Sorry, but "I'm going to hurt you" is still considered a threat and you can be arrested. A judge would be likely to to believe it was a threat than you arguing "yeah, but I didn't say when or how so it isn't a threat". It doesn't work like that. Lawyers don't nit-pick details, those 'details' are the law, not some by-product.

We're still discussing the Freedom of Speech right? Because if we are, I like it.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
What do you consider the right to peaceably assemble?

The right to peaceably assemble. Peaceable assembly isn't even a synonym for protest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Come now dogma, you know better. Protesting is the mixed exercise of the right to assemble and speak freely and occasionally to petition.

You might believe that, but what if I don't? There is no law forbidding me from banning protest.

LordofHats wrote:
EDIT: The founding father's were crafty little devils. They knew they didn't have to spell out word for word everything the government wasn't allowed to tell people they couldn't do.

As Ahtman said, they really weren't all that crafty. The Constitution isn't a particularly well written document.

dogma wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
What do you consider the right to peaceably assemble?

The right to peaceably assemble. Peaceable assembly isn't even a synonym for protest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
Come now dogma, you know better. Protesting is the mixed exercise of the right to assemble and speak freely and occasionally to petition.

You might believe that, but what if I don't? There is no law forbidding me from banning protest.

LordofHats wrote:
EDIT: The founding father's were crafty little devils. They knew they didn't have to spell out word for word everything the government wasn't allowed to tell people they couldn't do.

As Ahtman said, they really weren't all that crafty. The Constitution isn't a particularly well written document.

Dogma, check out this link. It's got some good info on protesting and how and why it's protected under law. http://www.firstamendmentonline.org/Assembly/FAQs.aspx?&printer-friendly=y

I think freedom of speech is a good thing but unfortunately it is a fine line from freedom of speech and insiting violence etc. im glad that in the UK people have been arrested and banned from inciting people, not sure about other countries

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
Dogma, check out this link. It's got some good info on protesting and how and why it's protected under law. http://www.firstamendmentonline.org/Assembly/FAQs.aspx?&printer-friendly=y

Nothing there describes the freedom to protest, in fact it explains that protests can be banned. I think you're making the mistake of assuming that things that are like protesting are protesting, they aren't.

I'm being very, very literal in my statements in order to illustrate that our rights are not quite so protected as often assumed.

dogma wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
Dogma, check out this link. It's got some good info on protesting and how and why it's protected under law. http://www.firstamendmentonline.org/Assembly/FAQs.aspx?&printer-friendly=y

Nothing there describes the freedom to protest, in fact it explains that protests can be banned. I think you're making the mistake of assuming that things that are like protesting are protesting, they aren't.

I'm being very, very literal in my statements in order to illustrate that our rights are not quite so protected as often assumed.

Well, it seems like you are trying to define the difference between protesting and peaceably assembling. A group of people are allowed the right as you know to peaceably assemble and while they are being peaceful they can protest.

"The U.S. Supreme Court held on Feb. 28, 2006, in a case involving anti-abortion protests, that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

Do we have an unfettered right to protest on government property?

No. The government can limit such protests depending on several factors. First, violent protests are outlawed anywhere. The text of the First Amendment provides for “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” The key word is “peaceably” — violent protesting is not allowed."

(http://www.firstamendmentonline.org/Assembly/FAQs.aspx?&printer-friendly=y)

Peaceful protesting is allowed though.

garret wrote:Right know im watching a documentary about Nazi america. They are explaining how they twisted free speech tto there own ideals. For some reason i find it hard to believe these people and others like them with extreme ideals are protected under free speech. And THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO DEFEND THIS RIGHT(like the aclu). Yet we let them march and spread there hate. Can someone please explain this to me. Why do we let people who spew idiocracy as news(im looking at you fox)

As others have mentioned what gives them that right is the US Constitution. Unfortunately freedoms cut both ways, and the same thing that gives you the right to call Nazi America idiots allows them to spew their venom.

While we are on the topic of freedoms a lot of people get the mistaken idea that freedom of speech is freedom from consequences of that speech. You are entirely within your rights to yell "Fire" in crowded movie house... and suffer the consequences of getting arrested for inciting a public disturbance. Say something hateful to someone about their mother and you might experience their freedom of expression in the form of their fist in your snot locker (and experience the consequences of his or her actions).

This general concept extends out to all areas of life and freedom is a powerful thing, both for good and for evil. Freedom has allowed our country to prosper and grow both economically and militarily to the point where the US dominates the globe (though not to the extent we used to). It also allows groups that you don't agree with to organize and leverage their common resources. In the end the fringe groups won't have enough resources to compete and the mainstream groups will grow and prosper.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
Well, it seems like you are trying to define the difference between protesting and peaceably assembling. A group of people are allowed the right as you know to peaceably assemble and while they are being peaceful they can protest.

I'm not trying to define anything. I'm doing exactly what I said above: explaining that the phrase 'peaceable assembly' is not the word 'protest'. Take that sentence in an exact, literal fashion.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
"The U.S. Supreme Court held on Feb. 28, 2006, in a case involving anti-abortion protests, that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations.

Do we have an unfettered right to protest on government property?

No. The government can limit such protests depending on several factors. First, violent protests are outlawed anywhere. The text of the First Amendment provides for “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” The key word is “peaceably” — violent protesting is not allowed."

(http://www.firstamendmentonline.org/Assembly/FAQs.aspx?&printer-friendly=y)

Peaceful protesting is allowed though.

If the government wishes to allow it. Being able to do something does not indicate that you have the right to do it. For example, you have no right to eat steak, but you can do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:
While we are on the topic of freedoms a lot of people get the mistaken idea that freedom of speech is freedom from consequences of that speech. You are entirely within your rights to yell "Fire" in crowded movie house... and suffer the consequences of getting arrested for inciting a public disturbance. Say something hateful to someone about their mother and you might experience their freedom of expression in the form of their fist in your snot locker (and experience the consequences of his or her actions).

So, you would have no problem with the state killing dissenters? After all, they were free to speak, and free to suffer the consequences of speaking.

Ahtman wrote:Sorry, but "I'm going to hurt you" is still considered a threat and you can be arrested. A judge would be likely to to believe it was a threat than you arguing "yeah, but I didn't say when or how so it isn't a threat". It doesn't work like that. Lawyers don't nit-pick details, those 'details' are the law, not some by-product.

Isn't that what he just said? That saying "I'm going to hurt you" could be considered a threat and therefore illegal?

Hordini wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Sorry, but "I'm going to hurt you" is still considered a threat and you can be arrested. A judge would be likely to to believe it was a threat than you arguing "yeah, but I didn't say when or how so it isn't a threat". It doesn't work like that. Lawyers don't nit-pick details, those 'details' are the law, not some by-product.

Isn't that what he just said? That saying "I'm going to hurt you" could be considered a threat and therefore illegal?

Yes, he was saying that "I'm going to hurt you" is a threat while "Keep it up and I'll smack your a** down" is an ultimatum. A threat is illegal, an ultimatum is less so (in some circumstances).

The Green Git wrote:While we are on the topic of freedoms a lot of people get the mistaken idea that freedom of speech is freedom from consequences of that speech.

The Dr. Laura debacle is good example of people who don't understand the concept, considering the number of morons who subsequently flapped their gums about, 'abloo abloo, what about Dr. Laura's 1st amendment rights?'

Unless Congress subsequently went and passed a law preventing her from saying n****r on the radio, and I just missed it.

I fething love Dr. Laura.

Again, she's not someone I agree with all the time, but I love how much she pisses people off. I hope she lives for a thousand years.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Sorry, but "I'm going to hurt you" is still considered a threat and you can be arrested. A judge would be likely to to believe it was a threat than you arguing "yeah, but I didn't say when or how so it isn't a threat". It doesn't work like that. Lawyers don't nit-pick details, those 'details' are the law, not some by-product.

Isn't that what he just said? That saying "I'm going to hurt you" could be considered a threat and therefore illegal?

Yes, he was saying that "I'm going to hurt you" is a threat while "Keep it up and I'll smack your a** down" is an ultimatum. A threat is illegal, an ultimatum is less so (in some circumstances).

Yeah, yeah...I got it. I was just pointing it out because Ahtman seemed to be implying that he was saying "I'm going to hurt you" isn't a threat, which was the opposite of what he was actually saying.

Hordini wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Sorry, but "I'm going to hurt you" is still considered a threat and you can be arrested. A judge would be likely to to believe it was a threat than you arguing "yeah, but I didn't say when or how so it isn't a threat". It doesn't work like that. Lawyers don't nit-pick details, those 'details' are the law, not some by-product.

Isn't that what he just said? That saying "I'm going to hurt you" could be considered a threat and therefore illegal?

Yes, he was saying that "I'm going to hurt you" is a threat while "Keep it up and I'll smack your a** down" is an ultimatum. A threat is illegal, an ultimatum is less so (in some circumstances).

Yeah, yeah...I got it. I was just pointing it out because Ahtman seemed to be implying that he was saying "I'm going to hurt you" isn't a threat, which was the opposite of what he was actually saying.

Yes...and I was agreeing with you.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Hordini wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Sorry, but "I'm going to hurt you" is still considered a threat and you can be arrested. A judge would be likely to to believe it was a threat than you arguing "yeah, but I didn't say when or how so it isn't a threat". It doesn't work like that. Lawyers don't nit-pick details, those 'details' are the law, not some by-product.

Isn't that what he just said? That saying "I'm going to hurt you" could be considered a threat and therefore illegal?

Yes, he was saying that "I'm going to hurt you" is a threat while "Keep it up and I'll smack your a** down" is an ultimatum. A threat is illegal, an ultimatum is less so (in some circumstances).

Yeah, yeah...I got it. I was just pointing it out because Ahtman seemed to be implying that he was saying "I'm going to hurt you" isn't a threat, which was the opposite of what he was actually saying.

Yes...and I was agreeing with you.

Yeeesss.....

werwen't the last three posts just people agreeing with each other?

No, they most certainly were not.

nomsheep wrote:werwen't the last three posts just people agreeing with each other?

Yeah. Pretty cool, eh? I'm glad we could experience that together.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:You can not like someones behavior (i.e. burning the US flag) and you can still feel strongly about protecting their right to do it.

"They are explaining how they twisted free speech tto there own ideals. For some reason i find it hard to believe these people and others like them with extreme ideals are protected under free speech." does not sound to me like someone who dislikes the message but respects the right, at least to me. Someone saying something you don't like is not 'twisting' freedom of speech.

Hordini wrote:

nomsheep wrote:werwen't the last three posts just people agreeing with each other?

Yeah. Pretty cool, eh? I'm glad we could experience that together.

I feel...dirty and...violated.






Agreement on the OT Forum? Not on!

In theory, Dogma is sort of correct. Given that the SCOTUS has final say on interpreting the constitution, they could rule that "freedom of speech" only applies to conversations in pig latin on Tuesdays during lent.

OTOH, in a common law system, precedent is of such importance that the practice of first amendment law is a lot more predictable. Of course, the rights you can win after suing, and the rights you can practice without making a federal case of it can often be very distinct.

By the way, there is a pretty good theory behind free speech. Basically there are two major prongs (beyond simply Liberalism): that government will almost assuradely abuse any ability to ban certain ideas, and that in a free market, the best ideas will thrive, while the worst will eventually be laughed out.

Most American's would probably be ok with banning Nazi speech. But what about communist speech? Far right Christian speech? Slippery slope is a logical fallacy, but a pretty good rule of thumb for governmental control.

AS for the free market, by allowing Nazi's to air their beliefs, all it does it get more and more people to realize how crazy they really are.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:You can not like someones behavior (i.e. burning the US flag) and you can still feel strongly about protecting their right to do it.

"They are explaining how they twisted free speech tto there own ideals. For some reason i find it hard to believe these people and others like them with extreme ideals are protected under free speech." does not sound to me like someone who dislikes the message but respects the right, at least to me. Someone saying something you don't like is not 'twisting' freedom of speech.

I don't understand how your comment relates to mine. Are you saying you don't believe that I can dislike the burning of the US flag but still feel strongly about protecting their right to do it?

He's saying that you seem insincere.

I thought there was a caveat about inciting hatred under the 1st Amendment?

It's free speech. Love it or leave it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Nope.

The Green Git wrote:While we are on the topic of freedoms a lot of people get the mistaken idea that freedom of speech is freedom from consequences of that speech. You are entirely within your rights to yell "Fire" in crowded movie house... and suffer the consequences of getting arrested for inciting a public disturbance. Say something hateful to someone about their mother and you might experience their freedom of expression in the form of their fist in your snot locker (and experience the consequences of his or her actions).

You've gotten a couple of different points about free speach confused there and it's resulted in a very odd conclusion on your part. Not only could you be punished afterwards for yelling fire in a crowded theatre, if you announced your intent to do so and began walking into the theatre then people could stop you and there'd be well within their constitutional rights to do so. The purpose of the 'shouting fire' analogy is to demonstrate that free speech doesn't mean we have the right to say anything and everything - deliberately malicious, false speech is not protected.

The second point you make, about free speech not meaning consequence free, is also true, but not in the sense you meant. Speech being consequence free means that the speaker can still be mocked for his stupid opinions, and that private citizens are free to make whatever legal responses they'd like, such as no longer shopping at the store owned by the guy giving the Nazi speeches. Private citizens are free to respond to someone else's speech in whatever legal ways they consider necessary, but it absolutely does not mean that government can still punish you, being exempt from punishment by government is the one big thing that free speech means.

del'Vhar wrote:I thought there was a caveat about inciting hatred under the 1st Amendment?

No, thats just current PC speech codes on college campuses.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:I don't understand how your comment relates to mine. Are you saying you don't believe that I can dislike the burning of the US flag but still feel strongly about protecting their right to do it?

Are you some kind of egomaniac who thinks that any comment must be directed at you personally? I don't think that a person stating "They are explaining how they twisted free speech tto there own ideals. For some reason i find it hard to believe these people and others like them with extreme ideals are protected under free speech." dislikes the message but respects the right. The OP made that statement, I made a brief response to him, then you responded apparently believing that a post that did not quote or mention you was directed straight to you, I explained the quote that indicated that the OP does not share your beliefs, and you still don't seem able to understand that my original comment that did not quote or mention you was not directed at you.

Modquisition. Politeness is still required even in OT. Lets get it back to compliance people-you included BearofSalvation

dogma wrote:He's saying that you seem insincere.

I'll clear that up for you Dogma, I'm not insincere. I'm not sure how you could infer that since you have known me for all of two threads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:I don't understand how your comment relates to mine. Are you saying you don't believe that I can dislike the burning of the US flag but still feel strongly about protecting their right to do it?

Are you some kind of egomaniac who thinks that any comment must be directed at you personally? I don't think that a person stating "They are explaining how they twisted free speech tto there own ideals. For some reason i find it hard to believe these people and others like them with extreme ideals are protected under free speech." dislikes the message but respects the right. The OP made that statement, I made a brief response to him, then you responded apparently believing that a post that did not quote or mention you was directed straight to you, I explained the quote that indicated that the OP does not share your beliefs, and you still don't seem able to understand that my original comment that did not quote or mention you was not directed at you.

Thank you for the personal attack. Your original post had the quotes messed so it appeared that you were in fact quoting and responding to me. Is it too much a stretch of the mind to then think that you were responding to me? Also, why are you so upset?

Frazzled wrote:

del'Vhar wrote:I thought there was a caveat about inciting hatred under the 1st Amendment?

No, thats just current PC speech codes on college campuses.

The key difference between US law and European law in this area is that various types of expression are illegal in Europe.

For example, in Germany, display of Nazi regalia is illegal.
In France and Austria, Holocaust Denial is illegal.
In the UK, inciting racial hatred and glorifying terrorism are both illegal.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
I'll clear that up for you Dogma, I'm not insincere. I'm not sure how you could infer that since you have known me for all of two threads.

I didn't. I said that it seems as though BearersOfSalvation was inferring that.

Principles can't be allowed to bend for individual cases: Allowing them to do so would be dangerous should the state or the people ever lean towards an immoral ideology (think the American infatuation with eugenics in the '20s).

Thus democratic principles must be held as sacred.

dogma wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
I'll clear that up for you Dogma, I'm not insincere. I'm not sure how you could infer that since you have known me for all of two threads.

I didn't. I said that it seems as though BearersOfSalvation was inferring that.

Rog.

Henners91 wrote:Principles can't be allowed to bend for individual cases: Allowing them to do so would be dangerous should the state or the people ever lean towards an immoral ideology (think the American infatuation with eugenics in the '20s).

Thus democratic principles must be held as sacred.

I thought there was some common saying like "Your right to swing your fist ends at my face" or something. I assume the oratory equivalent would be something like "Your right to free speech ends at inciting a mob to kill me....that and my mother, leave her out of this".

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:I don't understand how your comment relates to mine. Are you saying you don't believe that I can dislike the burning of the US flag but still feel strongly about protecting their right to do it?

Are you some kind of egomaniac who thinks that any comment must be directed at you personally? I don't think that a person stating "They are explaining how they twisted free speech tto there own ideals. For some reason i find it hard to believe these people and others like them with extreme ideals are protected under free speech." dislikes the message but respects the right. The OP made that statement, I made a brief response to him, then you responded apparently believing that a post that did not quote or mention you was directed straight to you, I explained the quote that indicated that the OP does not share your beliefs, and you still don't seem able to understand that my original comment that did not quote or mention you was not directed at you.

A right to free speech...
We also need the right to stop particular people breeding.

Kilkrazy wrote:The key difference between US law and European law in this area is that various types of expression are illegal in Europe.

For example, in Germany, display of Nazi regalia is illegal.
In France and Austria, Holocaust Denial is illegal.
In the UK, inciting racial hatred and glorifying terrorism are both illegal.

While that's true, there is a tendency of Americans to consider they have speech which is more free than people elsewhere, when the truth is that different things are restricted in different places.

You're certainly more capable of seeing nudity and adult content on television outside the US. Then there's confidentiality clauses and the like, outside the US the right to speak on public issues is seen as greater than the contract's importance.

OoieGoie wrote:A right to free speech...
We also need the right to stop particular people breeding.

No, we don't (unless the "We" is China of course).

Frazzled wrote:

OoieGoie wrote:A right to free speech...
We also need the right to stop particular people breeding.

No, we don't (unless the "We" is China of course).

China doesn't stop 'particular' people breeding. It does minimise the damage though.