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.

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?