Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.