Well, I'm hoping that they can apply this to the pending Supreme Court case. Failing that, I would support an Amendment or each state government passing bans.eleven bravo wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
Im ACLU. I disgaree.
Tu Stultus Es
I agree with the ACLU on certain things... although I probably disagree with them more often than I agree with them.
Turq, this is nothing short of insane! Are you seriously suggesting that the nation should legislate against unpopular speech? Isn't that a terrible idea, that whole tyranny of the majority and whatnot?
Free speech is just that--free. It's distasteful what these guys do at funerals, and it may cause distress to families, but seriously...just fight free speech with free speech.
Free speech is just that--free. It's distasteful what these guys do at funerals, and it may cause distress to families, but seriously...just fight free speech with free speech.
There's absolutely nothing we can, nor anything we SHOULD do besides heavily support the Patriot Guard (guys on motorcycles who drown them out). It's free speech. There's nothing the supreme court will do about that.
Free speech, free speech for the dumb
Free speech, free speech for the dumb
Free speech, free speech for the dumb
Free fucking speech
Free speech, free speech for the dumb
Free speech, free speech for the dumb
Free speech, free speech for the dumb
Free fucking speech
Free speech, free speech for the dumb
Free speech, free speech for the dumb
Free fucking speech
Free speech, free speech for the dumb
Free speech, free speech for the dumb
Free speech, free speech for the dumb
Free fucking speech
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, I guess I'm not an absolutist on free speech as much as I thought. I think every freedom has a rational and reasonable limit. To me, funeral protests go beyond that reasonable limit.SenorToenails wrote:
Turq, this is nothing short of insane! Are you seriously suggesting that the nation should legislate against unpopular speech? Isn't that a terrible idea, that whole tyranny of the majority and whatnot?
Free speech is just that--free. It's distasteful what these guys do at funerals, and it may cause distress to families, but seriously...just fight free speech with free speech.
Call it insane, but I call it practical.
The reasonable limits to free speech have already been established--inciting imminent lawless action and obscenity being the prime ones. The funeral protests are neither of these, and thus should not be blocked from free speech protections. They are distasteful, sure, but to limit everyone's freedom because you think they are 'beyond that reasonable limit'? Come on. Free speech (especially the unpopular kind) is to be protected, not limited.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess I'm not an absolutist on free speech as much as I thought. I think every freedom has a rational and reasonable limit. To me, funeral protests go beyond that reasonable limit.
Call it insane, but I call it practical.
I guess we define reasonable differently. I believe the limits set back then have since become outdated.SenorToenails wrote:
The reasonable limits to free speech have already been established--inciting imminent lawless action and obscenity being the prime ones. The funeral protests are neither of these, and thus should not be blocked from free speech protections. They are distasteful, sure, but to limit everyone's freedom because you think they are 'beyond that reasonable limit'? Come on. Free speech (especially the unpopular kind) is to be protected, not limited.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess I'm not an absolutist on free speech as much as I thought. I think every freedom has a rational and reasonable limit. To me, funeral protests go beyond that reasonable limit.
Call it insane, but I call it practical.
Again, I know it's popular to view the Constitution in a strict manner, but I see it as more of a living document.
i'll bet you wouldn't mind legislating from the bench!
Fuck yeah... lol... There are a LOT of things I'd like to change about our system.burnzz wrote:
i'll bet you wouldn't mind legislating from the bench!
Less judicial activism and more constitutional activism. Freedom of speech.
after this ..... lets go after NAMBLA
Does free speech mean I can start going up to people's little kids in public yelling things like faggot, queer, ass banger......... No, that is against the law. What these religion freaks are doing is profane, therefore not protected.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … peech.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … peech.html
Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2010-10-06 12:37:18)
Works for me.SEREMAKER wrote:
after this ..... lets go after NAMBLA
Sigh, you would rather the constitution grow to limit your freedoms instead of expanding them?Turquoise wrote:
I guess we define reasonable differently. I believe the limits set back then have since become outdated.SenorToenails wrote:
The reasonable limits to free speech have already been established--inciting imminent lawless action and obscenity being the prime ones. The funeral protests are neither of these, and thus should not be blocked from free speech protections. They are distasteful, sure, but to limit everyone's freedom because you think they are 'beyond that reasonable limit'? Come on. Free speech (especially the unpopular kind) is to be protected, not limited.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I guess I'm not an absolutist on free speech as much as I thought. I think every freedom has a rational and reasonable limit. To me, funeral protests go beyond that reasonable limit.
Call it insane, but I call it practical.
Again, I know it's popular to view the Constitution in a strict manner, but I see it as more of a living document.
I want the freedom of speech to protect the right to say whatever you want, no matter how distasteful. It seems you want the freedom of speech to protect you from things you find distasteful.
The speech itself is protected. The behavior is not.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Does free speech mean I can start going up to people's little kids in public yelling things like faggot, queer, ass banger......... No, that is against the law. What these religion freaks are doing is profane, therefore not protected.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl … peech.html
The anti-war protesters at the RNC convention in NYC in 2004 hurt my feelings. I want them all retroactively thrown in jail indefinitely.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It really depends on the situation. In some cases, I think we need more limits on freedom. In other cases, I think we need more freedom.SenorToenails wrote:
Sigh, you would rather the constitution grow to limit your freedoms instead of expanding them?Turquoise wrote:
I guess we define reasonable differently. I believe the limits set back then have since become outdated.SenorToenails wrote:
The reasonable limits to free speech have already been established--inciting imminent lawless action and obscenity being the prime ones. The funeral protests are neither of these, and thus should not be blocked from free speech protections. They are distasteful, sure, but to limit everyone's freedom because you think they are 'beyond that reasonable limit'? Come on. Free speech (especially the unpopular kind) is to be protected, not limited.
Again, I know it's popular to view the Constitution in a strict manner, but I see it as more of a living document.
I want the freedom of speech to protect the right to say whatever you want, no matter how distasteful. It seems you want the freedom of speech to protect you from things you find distasteful.
I'm not a blanket supporter of either agenda.
If they were protesting at a funeral, I'd support implementing a fine.JohnG@lt wrote:
The anti-war protesters at the RNC convention in NYC in 2004 hurt my feelings. I want them all retroactively thrown in jail indefinitely.
But you can take anything to an extreme. This thread was just inspired by a very specific situation.
actually I would just skip all the court system and go straight for the shootingTurquoise wrote:
Works for me.SEREMAKER wrote:
after this ..... lets go after NAMBLA
Well... I'll put it this way... depending on the situation... it would probably be hard to get a jury to convict you.SEREMAKER wrote:
actually I would just skip all the court system and go straight for the shootingTurquoise wrote:
Works for me.SEREMAKER wrote:
after this ..... lets go after NAMBLA
In what other areas would you propose to restrict/expand freedom?Turquoise wrote:
It really depends on the situation. In some cases, I think we need more limits on freedom. In other cases, I think we need more freedom.
I'm not a blanket supporter of either agenda.
You're suggesting a sledgehammer when a flyswatter will suffice.Turquoise wrote:
If they were protesting at a funeral, I'd support implementing a fine.JohnG@lt wrote:
The anti-war protesters at the RNC convention in NYC in 2004 hurt my feelings. I want them all retroactively thrown in jail indefinitely.
But you can take anything to an extreme. This thread was just inspired by a very specific situation.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Well, we'll probably agree on most of the expansion areas...SenorToenails wrote:
In what other areas would you propose to restrict/expand freedom?Turquoise wrote:
It really depends on the situation. In some cases, I think we need more limits on freedom. In other cases, I think we need more freedom.
I'm not a blanket supporter of either agenda.
End the War on Drugs, open up work visas to whatever the market bears, end Affirmative Action, open up telecommunications infrastructure to all competition, end most TV censorship, allow gay marriage, end DADT, end the Cuba Embargo
There are some others I can't think of right now...
Restrictions are mostly regarding the financial sector, but this thread represents one of the areas where I'm more socially conservative.