Conversely a lot of our liberties are built on the assumption people will avoid using them to be assholes, generally speaking. If you make a habit of being a jerk using specific elements of the law, then frankly we need to change the law to inhibit that.
I sincerely disagree. When you say "our" who do you mean? I think you would be hard pressed to find something in the constitution of the US or the bill of rights, or even in general law, that would say "You have this right, unless you are a dick about it".
A right to free expression - the right to express ideas or messages regardless of the merit or content of those ideas or messages - is incoherent if made conditional on the content of your speech not being dickish/evil/incorrect. This exists both as a fundamental right and as a check on government - if a government can decide what can and can't be said, the primary means by which the people prevent or discourage tyranny is neutered.
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
We have laws in place that prevent discrimination based on various reasons. Those discriminatory acts are within people's right to free thought and speech. Why don't you guys get in an uproar about that?
Oh that's right, because it's fucked up to act on those discriminatory beliefs. Just as it's fucked up to act in the manner of protest at a funeral.
no ones saying they're not free to sprout there asshatness, they just cant do it anywhere they want. That's not banning anything, it's just curtailing 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.
We have laws in place that prevent discrimination based on various reasons. Those discriminatory acts are within people's right to free thought and speech. Why don't you guys get in an uproar about that?
Which law, exactly, prevents discriminatory speech in a public area?
Oh that's right, because it's fucked up to act on those discriminatory beliefs. Just as it's fucked up to act in the manner of protest at a funeral.
Again, the KKK can legally protest the inferiority of minorities, so I'm curious as to what laws you're talking about. More so, I'm curious how you feel about requiring flag burners and gay pride parades to not be banned from public places the majority didn't want them in and instead to designated free speech zones they don't have to deal with them in.
Really, what I would like for you to do is actually give an objective definition of what is and isn't offensive that doesn't boil down to "I knows it when I sees it".
Quid on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
And what happens when freedom of speech ends up causing people's emotional distress to push to a point of action? Who is the wrong-doer here, the one provoked (something considered in law) or the one doing the provoking (the protesters)?
And what happens when freedom of speech ends up causing people's emotional distress to push to a point of action? Who is the wrong-doer here, the one provoked (something considered in law) or the one doing the provoking (the protesters)?
Unfortunately, the law protects free speech.
So the law falls on the side of the asshole rather than the person that opted to resort to physical violence.
Again, the KKK can legally protest the inferiority of minorities, so I'm curious as to what laws you're talking about. More so, I'm curious how you feel about requiring flag burners and gay pride parades to not be banned from public places the majority didn't want them in and instead to designated free speech zones they don't have to deal with them in.
Really, what I would like for you to do is actually give an objective definition of what is and isn't offensive that doesn't boil down to "I knows it when I sees it".
It changes with the time in society. 50 years ago homosexuality would've been offensive on many fronts, and now it's becoming widely acceptable. These are things to hard code into written law because they're ever changing.
no ones saying they're not free to sprout there asshatness, they just cant do it anywhere they want. That's not banning anything, it's just curtailing 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.
OLOL FUNNY GIFS.
What'd you just get out of an enlightning argument from 4chan?
It changes with the time in society. 50 years ago homosexuality would've been offensive on many fronts, and now it's becoming widely acceptable. These are things to hard code into written law because they're ever changing.
So, it was okay to ban gay pride parades in the 1950s?
Quid on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
It changes with the time in society. 50 years ago homosexuality would've been offensive on many fronts, and now it's becoming widely acceptable. These are things to hard code into written law because they're ever changing.
So, it was okay to ban gay pride parades in the 1950s?
You're so literal with things it's fucking aggravating. Which is why you having this hard-on for freedom of speech despite how fucking wrong it is to display in these situations makes me want to lay you out flat on the ground.
Henroid on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
These are private ceremonies, right? That means you can be sued for any disruption.
They are not at the ceremonies. They are up the street from the ceremonies. In public.
They could be heard from the ceremony and harassed those going to the ceremony.
That's an issue for the cemetery owners to deal with. The protesters are on public ground unless you want to decide it's okay to ban free speech in public areas based on whatever the majority finds offensive.
These are private ceremonies, right? That means you can be sued for any disruption.
They are not at the ceremonies. They are up the street from the ceremonies. In public.
They could be heard from the ceremony and harassed those going to the ceremony.
No, they specifically put them up the street from the ceremonies. These protests are generally held outside of a church. They are not heard at the ceremony. However they are certainly heard by those going into the ceremony. This is not illegal though. You do NOT have a right to not be offended. You can't sue someone for making you feel bad.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
It changes with the time in society. 50 years ago homosexuality would've been offensive on many fronts, and now it's becoming widely acceptable. These are things to hard code into written law because they're ever changing.
So, it was okay to ban gay pride parades in the 1950s?
You're so literal with things it's fucking aggravating. Which is why you having this hard-on for freedom of speech despite how fucking wrong it is to display in these situations makes me want to lay you out flat on the ground.
You realize people feel the exact same way about gay pride parades right? Should they or should they not be able to get the things they find offensive banned? If not, what makes your opinion objectively right and what's going to keep the people who hate gay pride parades from using the exact same reasoning to ban them?
How about instead of getting super emotional and demanding we ban all forms of speech you personally don't like you explain how to do so in a way that isn't horribly detrimental to society.
These are private ceremonies, right? That means you can be sued for any disruption.
They are not at the ceremonies. They are up the street from the ceremonies. In public.
They could be heard from the ceremony and harassed those going to the ceremony.
Sounds like a law we already have, disturbing the peace. It does sometimes get used to trounce on the first amendment by bad cops, but most of the time it's for causing a public disturbance.
There's a difference between what you say and how you say it. You can't do anything about the former but it's certainly possible to overstep your bounds in the latter.
I mean you can't legally write political messages on bricks and throw them at people.
These are private ceremonies, right? That means you can be sued for any disruption.
They are not at the ceremonies. They are up the street from the ceremonies. In public.
They could be heard from the ceremony and harassed those going to the ceremony.
That's an issue for the cemetery owners to deal with. The protesters are on public ground unless you want to decide it's okay to ban free speech in public areas based on whatever the majority finds offensive.
Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.
Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.
Read past the first paragraph.
The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves.
These are private ceremonies, right? That means you can be sued for any disruption.
They are not at the ceremonies. They are up the street from the ceremonies. In public.
And the public has a right to non-disturbance.
Not exactly. So long as they are not "Disturbing the Peace" they are fine. Basically as long as they aren't too loud about it. They can't have giant amplifiers in which they shout "god hates fags".
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
It changes with the time in society. 50 years ago homosexuality would've been offensive on many fronts, and now it's becoming widely acceptable. These are things to hard code into written law because they're ever changing.
So, it was okay to ban gay pride parades in the 1950s?
You're so literal with things it's fucking aggravating. Which is why you having this hard-on for freedom of speech despite how fucking wrong it is to display in these situations makes me want to lay you out flat on the ground.
You realize people feel the exact same way about gay pride parades right? Should they or should they not be able to get the things they find offensive banned? If not, what makes your opinion objectively right and what's going to keep the people who hate gay pride parades from using the exact same reasoning to ban them?
How about instead of getting super emotional and demanding we ban all forms of speech you personally don't like you explain how to do so in a way that isn't horribly detrimental to society.
Gay pride parades are a political statement that people disagree with.
Protests at funerals, since they don't target the individuals involved with the funerals according to the lawyers, are political statements chosen to take place in locations for malicious purposes. Their political message is that God hates fags and such, it's a message that can be taken anywhere else. If it has nothing to do with the funeral, why is it at the funeral?
As I said, for malicious purposes. To cause emotional distress in others, and given any of their psychiatric profiling could be a danger to their mental health.
We have laws in place that prevent discrimination based on various reasons. Those discriminatory acts are within people's right to free thought and speech. Why don't you guys get in an uproar about that?
Oh that's right, because it's fucked up to act on those discriminatory beliefs. Just as it's fucked up to act in the manner of protest at a funeral.
And what happens when freedom of speech ends up causing people's emotional distress to push to a point of action? Who is the wrong-doer here, the one provoked (something considered in law) or the one doing the provoking (the protesters)?
Honestly, and I'm not trying to be an asshole here, you clearly don't know what is considered in law or not in first amendment cases.
Conduct is not equivalent to speech. You can fight centuries of case law, common sense and the conclusions inevitably brought about by the combination of a few seconds time, rudimentary logic and the life experiences of a kindergartner but I don't think you're going to make much headway. But arguing that speech and conduct should be treated the same is essentially calling for the elimination of the concept of free speech anyway, so good luck with that
Being really upset is not a defense in criminal court. You aren't allowed to hit someone after yo mama joke 43. While there's theoretically a limit on "fighting words", no law has ever survived court review of that definition and it has been de facto overturned, and resultant violent action would not be protected.
I'm not convinced we've earned the right for free speech
Earned? You don't earn them. You just have them. They are Inherent.
Hardly. The only reason you have them is because the law grants them to you. If the law didn't enforce it, I could club you upside the head for saying something I don't like.
If the law is the only thing stopping me from doing that, how is it still a right?
Gay pride parades are a political statement that people disagree with.
And that many others find offensive. Many people find homosexuals in and of themselves offensive, much less a loud celebration heading down the street dedicated to them. They are offended by this. In some areas these people make up the majority. Should they or should they not be able to ban gay pride parades?
Protests at funerals, since they don't target the individuals involved with the funerals according to the lawyers, are political statements chosen to take place in locations for malicious purposes. Their political message is that God hates fags and such, it's a message that can be taken anywhere else. If it has nothing to do with the funeral, why is it at the funeral?
So can flag burning and gay pride parades, two things many people find offensive and want banned or, barring that, moved somewhere people don't have to deal with them.
As I said, for malicious purposes. To cause emotional distress in others, and given any of their psychiatric profiling could be a danger to their mental health.
If you can prove this is actually happening to a degree that there's considerable harm you might have a case. Can you prove this is actually happening?
no ones saying they're not free to sprout there asshatness, they just cant do it anywhere they want. That's not banning anything, it's just curtailing 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.
OLOL FUNNY GIFS.
What'd you just get out of an enlightning argument from 4chan?
You just managed to lose an argument on the internet. Your statement was a formal contradiction, by saying curtailing free speech was not curtailing free speech. You will receive only scorn and derision, don't try to puff yourself up now
Gay pride parades are a political statement that people disagree with.
Protests at funerals, since they don't target the individuals involved with the funerals according to the lawyers, are political statements chosen to take place in locations for malicious purposes. Their political message is that God hates fags and such, it's a message that can be taken anywhere else. If it has nothing to do with the funeral, why is it at the funeral?
As I said, for malicious purposes. To cause emotional distress in others, and given any of their psychiatric profiling could be a danger to their mental health.
So now you're not only judging the worthiness of the content of the speech but the purity of intent of the speaker?
Free speech zones (also known as First Amendment Zones, Free speech cages, and Protest zones) are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech in the United States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.
Read past the first paragraph.
The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves.
Whose safety, exactly, is endangered here?
you mean the second paragraph? And i would argue that given the incediary nature of Westboro's remarks, there is a high propability for an altercation. Now we could either spend hundreds of dollars on police to keep there protest safe, or we can dictate when and where they can protest within reason. There's no need to resort to slippery slope arguments over this, it's cut and fucking dry.
no ones saying they're not free to sprout there asshatness, they just cant do it anywhere they want. That's not banning anything, it's just curtailing 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.
OLOL FUNNY GIFS.
What'd you just get out of an enlightning argument from 4chan?
You just managed to lose an argument on the internet. Your statement was a formal contradiction, by saying curtailing free speech was not curtailing free speech. You will receive only scorn and derision, don't try to puff yourself up now
What the fuck ever pants. It's nothing about puffing myself up, it's about me calling you on your bullshit. but it's fine, No one wants to argue with a silly goose like you anyways.
Jokerman on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
edited March 2010
I'm so fucking sorry for making this thread. I was typing up a response to Pants and I'm giving up because you people are too fucking much.
My opinion? Not all events are equal. Funerals are technicaly a form of free speech in that you gather to honour the deceased in a semi-public ceremony (respectfull silence is a form of speech).
Heckling is not free speech at all and interfering with someone elses free speech is heckling.
Is what Fred Phelps is doing heckling that is the question.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
It changes with the time in society. 50 years ago homosexuality would've been offensive on many fronts, and now it's becoming widely acceptable. These are things to hard code into written law because they're ever changing.
So, it was okay to ban gay pride parades in the 1950s?
You're so literal with things it's fucking aggravating. Which is why you having this hard-on for freedom of speech despite how fucking wrong it is to display in these situations makes me want to lay you out flat on the ground.
What you're saying is incredibly offensive to me and always will be. It's disgusting. And yet I somehow don't want to make what you're saying against the law. SHOCKING!
you mean the second paragraph? And i would argue that given the incediary nature of Westboro's remarks, there is a high propability for an altercation.
Cool, can you cite this? Also, define high probability.
Also, explain why this logic doesn't apply to gay pride parades and flag burning.
I'm not convinced we've earned the right for free speech
Earned? You don't earn them. You just have them. They are Inherent.
Hardly. The only reason you have them is because the law grants them to you. If the law didn't enforce it, I could club you upside the head for saying something I don't like.
If the law is the only thing stopping me from doing that, how is it still a right?
Maybe you are familiar with "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Or maybe you are familiar with philosophers such as Locke or Hobbes. Maybe Paine. Or Jefferson. Or a whole plethora of others.
Barring that it is still a right because the law says it is so. This is called a legal right. Some people only believe in legal rights. Either way, you don't earn them, you just have them.
Now stop being such a silly goose. I suggest thinking before opening your mouth next time.
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
I'm so fucking sorry for making this thread. I was typing up a response to Pants and I'm giving up because you people are too fucking much.
Listen, you want to make a law based on what you feel. This is a bad idea. It's always a bad idea because people feel differently about different things. And while you think it's great to restrict these people's speech, others think it's great to restrict PETA's speech. Everyone's definition of "assholes who shouldn't be allowed to exercise free speech" differs and if you allow this you allow for their definitions as well.
Posts
Private buildings aren't public areas. More so, shouting fire in a theater can cause injury and death.
What does the protesting do other than offend people?
Because in those cases... they aren't rights.
Number 3 - You have the right to free speech/So long as you're not dumb enough/to actually try it
A right to free expression - the right to express ideas or messages regardless of the merit or content of those ideas or messages - is incoherent if made conditional on the content of your speech not being dickish/evil/incorrect. This exists both as a fundamental right and as a check on government - if a government can decide what can and can't be said, the primary means by which the people prevent or discourage tyranny is neutered.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Oh that's right, because it's fucked up to act on those discriminatory beliefs. Just as it's fucked up to act in the manner of protest at a funeral.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Again, the KKK can legally protest the inferiority of minorities, so I'm curious as to what laws you're talking about. More so, I'm curious how you feel about requiring flag burners and gay pride parades to not be banned from public places the majority didn't want them in and instead to designated free speech zones they don't have to deal with them in.
Really, what I would like for you to do is actually give an objective definition of what is and isn't offensive that doesn't boil down to "I knows it when I sees it".
Unfortunately, the law protects free speech.
So the law falls on the side of the asshole rather than the person that opted to resort to physical violence.
It changes with the time in society. 50 years ago homosexuality would've been offensive on many fronts, and now it's becoming widely acceptable. These are things to hard code into written law because they're ever changing.
Oh I wasnt aware that a cemmetary, (which is usualy private property, right?), was a public space.
OLOL FUNNY GIFS.
What'd you just get out of an enlightning argument from 4chan?
So, it was okay to ban gay pride parades in the 1950s?
I dunno about sued, but the funerals being, in essence, private makes a difference.
They are not at the ceremonies. They are up the street from the ceremonies. In public.
but they're listening to every word I say
They could be heard from the ceremony and harassed those going to the ceremony.
You're so literal with things it's fucking aggravating. Which is why you having this hard-on for freedom of speech despite how fucking wrong it is to display in these situations makes me want to lay you out flat on the ground.
And the public has a right to non-disturbance.
That's an issue for the cemetery owners to deal with. The protesters are on public ground unless you want to decide it's okay to ban free speech in public areas based on whatever the majority finds offensive.
No, they specifically put them up the street from the ceremonies. These protests are generally held outside of a church. They are not heard at the ceremony. However they are certainly heard by those going into the ceremony. This is not illegal though. You do NOT have a right to not be offended. You can't sue someone for making you feel bad.
but they're listening to every word I say
I imagine any actual harrasment of the funeral goers by the protestors could be construed as disturbing the peace.
You realize people feel the exact same way about gay pride parades right? Should they or should they not be able to get the things they find offensive banned? If not, what makes your opinion objectively right and what's going to keep the people who hate gay pride parades from using the exact same reasoning to ban them?
How about instead of getting super emotional and demanding we ban all forms of speech you personally don't like you explain how to do so in a way that isn't horribly detrimental to society.
Sounds like a law we already have, disturbing the peace. It does sometimes get used to trounce on the first amendment by bad cops, but most of the time it's for causing a public disturbance.
There's a difference between what you say and how you say it. You can't do anything about the former but it's certainly possible to overstep your bounds in the latter.
I mean you can't legally write political messages on bricks and throw them at people.
Hmmm like thats never happened before..
Read past the first paragraph.
Whose safety, exactly, is endangered here?
Not exactly. So long as they are not "Disturbing the Peace" they are fine. Basically as long as they aren't too loud about it. They can't have giant amplifiers in which they shout "god hates fags".
but they're listening to every word I say
Gay pride parades are a political statement that people disagree with.
Protests at funerals, since they don't target the individuals involved with the funerals according to the lawyers, are political statements chosen to take place in locations for malicious purposes. Their political message is that God hates fags and such, it's a message that can be taken anywhere else. If it has nothing to do with the funeral, why is it at the funeral?
As I said, for malicious purposes. To cause emotional distress in others, and given any of their psychiatric profiling could be a danger to their mental health.
Honestly, and I'm not trying to be an asshole here, you clearly don't know what is considered in law or not in first amendment cases.
Conduct is not equivalent to speech. You can fight centuries of case law, common sense and the conclusions inevitably brought about by the combination of a few seconds time, rudimentary logic and the life experiences of a kindergartner but I don't think you're going to make much headway. But arguing that speech and conduct should be treated the same is essentially calling for the elimination of the concept of free speech anyway, so good luck with that
Being really upset is not a defense in criminal court. You aren't allowed to hit someone after yo mama joke 43. While there's theoretically a limit on "fighting words", no law has ever survived court review of that definition and it has been de facto overturned, and resultant violent action would not be protected.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Hardly. The only reason you have them is because the law grants them to you. If the law didn't enforce it, I could club you upside the head for saying something I don't like.
If the law is the only thing stopping me from doing that, how is it still a right?
So can flag burning and gay pride parades, two things many people find offensive and want banned or, barring that, moved somewhere people don't have to deal with them.
If you can prove this is actually happening to a degree that there's considerable harm you might have a case. Can you prove this is actually happening?
You just managed to lose an argument on the internet. Your statement was a formal contradiction, by saying curtailing free speech was not curtailing free speech. You will receive only scorn and derision, don't try to puff yourself up now
So now you're not only judging the worthiness of the content of the speech but the purity of intent of the speaker?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
you mean the second paragraph? And i would argue that given the incediary nature of Westboro's remarks, there is a high propability for an altercation. Now we could either spend hundreds of dollars on police to keep there protest safe, or we can dictate when and where they can protest within reason. There's no need to resort to slippery slope arguments over this, it's cut and fucking dry.
What the fuck ever pants. It's nothing about puffing myself up, it's about me calling you on your bullshit. but it's fine, No one wants to argue with a silly goose like you anyways.
Heckling is not free speech at all and interfering with someone elses free speech is heckling.
Is what Fred Phelps is doing heckling that is the question.
What you're saying is incredibly offensive to me and always will be. It's disgusting. And yet I somehow don't want to make what you're saying against the law. SHOCKING!
You mess with the dolphin, you get the nose.
Cool, can you cite this? Also, define high probability.
Also, explain why this logic doesn't apply to gay pride parades and flag burning.
Maybe you are familiar with "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Or maybe you are familiar with philosophers such as Locke or Hobbes. Maybe Paine. Or Jefferson. Or a whole plethora of others.
Barring that it is still a right because the law says it is so. This is called a legal right. Some people only believe in legal rights. Either way, you don't earn them, you just have them.
Now stop being such a silly goose. I suggest thinking before opening your mouth next time.
but they're listening to every word I say
Listen, you want to make a law based on what you feel. This is a bad idea. It's always a bad idea because people feel differently about different things. And while you think it's great to restrict these people's speech, others think it's great to restrict PETA's speech. Everyone's definition of "assholes who shouldn't be allowed to exercise free speech" differs and if you allow this you allow for their definitions as well.