Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

eleven bravo wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone
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
Member
+1,399|5229|foggy bottom
Im ACLU.  I disgaree.
Tu Stultus Es
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
I agree with the ACLU on certain things...   although I probably disagree with them more often than I agree with them.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6100|North Tonawanda, NY
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.
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6508|Long Island, New York
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.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England
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
"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
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

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.
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.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6100|North Tonawanda, NY

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.
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
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

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.
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.
I guess we define reasonable differently.  I believe the limits set back then have since become outdated.

Again, I know it's popular to view the Constitution in a strict manner, but I see it as more of a living document.
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6467

i'll bet you wouldn't mind legislating from the bench!
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

burnzz wrote:

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.
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6586|do not disturb

Less judicial activism and more constitutional activism. Freedom of speech.
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6538|Mountains of NC

after this ..... lets go after NAMBLA
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6153|Ireland
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

Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2010-10-06 12:37:18)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

SEREMAKER wrote:

after this ..... lets go after NAMBLA
Works for me.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6100|North Tonawanda, NY

Turquoise wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

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.
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.
I guess we define reasonable differently.  I believe the limits set back then have since become outdated.

Again, I know it's popular to view the Constitution in a strict manner, but I see it as more of a living document.
Sigh, you would rather the constitution grow to limit your freedoms instead of expanding them?

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.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6100|North Tonawanda, NY

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 speech itself is protected.  The behavior is not.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England
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
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

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.
I guess we define reasonable differently.  I believe the limits set back then have since become outdated.

Again, I know it's popular to view the Constitution in a strict manner, but I see it as more of a living document.
Sigh, you would rather the constitution grow to limit your freedoms instead of expanding them?

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.
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.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

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.
If they were protesting at a funeral, I'd support implementing a fine.

But you can take anything to an extreme.  This thread was just inspired by a very specific situation.
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6538|Mountains of NC

Turquoise wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

after this ..... lets go after NAMBLA
Works for me.
actually I would just skip all the court system and go straight for the shooting
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

SEREMAKER wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

after this ..... lets go after NAMBLA
Works for me.
actually I would just skip all the court system and go straight for the shooting
Well...  I'll put it this way...  depending on the situation...  it would probably be hard to get a jury to convict you.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6100|North Tonawanda, NY

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.
In what other areas would you propose to restrict/expand freedom?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5328|London, England

Turquoise wrote:

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.
If they were protesting at a funeral, I'd support implementing a fine.

But you can take anything to an extreme.  This thread was just inspired by a very specific situation.
You're suggesting a sledgehammer when a flyswatter will suffice.
"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
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

SenorToenails wrote:

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.
In what other areas would you propose to restrict/expand freedom?
Well, we'll probably agree on most of the expansion areas...

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.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard