BF2S Forums Exceptions To Free Speech.

Mason4Assassin444 wrote:

There are no exception to free speech. Only reprocussions.

There needs to be in their case.
They are insane, and their words have no redeeming qualities.

God hates them, now if only he would smite them verily.

Actually, there is one thing we are not allowed to say.

You are not allowed, under federal law, to say you want to kill the President of the United States.

Those people sicken me.  I think that phelps guy needs to be institutionalised for his lack of value for human life.

Cougar wrote:

Actually, there is one thing we are not allowed to say.

You are not allowed, under federal law, to say you want to kill the President of the United States.

You cant shout FIRE FIRE in a crowded theater (unless its on fire of course).

And that guy is fucking crazy and scary. Brainwashing people is always dangerous.

Cougar wrote:

Actually, there is one thing we are not allowed to say.

You are not allowed, under federal law, to say you want to kill the President of the United States.

Also inciting people to violence is a crime, no?

So, should you be allowed to declare that elected US officials need to die, ATG?

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-05-07 06:38:55)

Cougar wrote:

Actually, there is one thing we are not allowed to say.

You are not allowed, under federal law, to say you want to kill the President of the United States.

You are not allowed, under federal law, to say you want to kill anyone

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-05-07 07:17:15)

ATG wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Cougar wrote:

Actually, there is one thing we are not allowed to say.

You are not allowed, under federal law, to say you want to kill the President of the United States.

Also inciting people to violence is a crime, no?

So, should you be allowed to declare that elected US officials need to die, ATG?

yes, the line you cannot cross is to say you are going to do it.

Okay, fine, but he didn't say he was going to kill anyone.  He just, like you, declared that people needed to die.

ATG wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

ATG wrote:

yes, the line you cannot cross is to say you are going to do it.

Okay, fine, but he didn't say he was going to kill anyone.  He just, like you, declared that people needed to die.

So, you are equating my political ramblings with those lunatics?

I am saying that based on you definition of where to draw the line what he says is acceptable.

If you press the issue, however, you'll learn that I consider some of your statements to border on lunacy.

ATG wrote:

This from the guy who considers the 9/11 hijackers patriots and freedom fighters.
pfft.

You honestly think that was serious?

Cougar wrote:

Actually, there is one thing we are not allowed to say.

You are not allowed, under federal law, to say you want to kill the President of the United States.

Bubbalo wrote:

Also inciting people to violence is a crime, no?

So, should you be allowed to declare that elected US officials need to die, ATG?

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

You are not allowed, under federal law, to say you want to kill anyone

You are all wrong. You can say you want someone to die. You can say someone needs to die.

What you can't say is "I am going to kill [Joe Blow]." That's a threat.

zeidmaan wrote:

You cant shout FIRE FIRE in a crowded theater (unless its on fire of course).

Good point. This is the example cited in Schenck v. United States , 249 U.S. 47 (1919) by my favorite jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes. This is a truncated quote from his majority (unamious) opinion:

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

However, this case was overturned, and the clear and present danger test was replaced with the "imminent lawless action" test in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1964). So, the limits placed on free speech were actually further restricted!

Per Curiam Opinion wrote:

"[our] decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

So, for me, I say that wackjob gets to spew as much virtol and hate as he wants. It bothers me, but doesn't affect me. When his actions start to infringe on my rights, that's when he can be acted upon. Until then, speech has never killed anyone. I say we need more nutters excerizing their rights to free speech. I find them entertaining.

Just wait a few years for them to all get genetic diseases caused by their inbreeding.

Exceptions To Free Speech.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man who told a small child that santa claus did not exist.