RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech!

RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 10:43:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Free = Not subject to external restraint Speech = Expressing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words. Alright, so let's say.. someone wanted to tell an eight-year old girl all about how he was going to rape her. (But he didn't actually intend on raping her, he was just talking, expressing his thoughts.) Would you argue that this is legal? Not to back you into a corner, but I'm looking to understand your feelings. The essential difference is the lack of any State Actors. ( Neither party to the issue is The State ) Aside from that, you'd have to examine State Law in the hypothetical case you describe. In ANY EVENT, the 8 year old girl has a duty to herself to remove any persistent threats. She can simply kill her attacker, and worry about the Jury agreeing with her reasoning.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 10:49:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The essential difference is the lack of any State Actors. ( Neither party to the issue is The State ) Aside from that, you'd have to examine State Law in the hypothetical case you describe. In ANY EVENT, the 8 year old girl has a duty to herself to remove any persistent threats. She can simply kill her attacker, and worry about the Jury agreeing with her reasoning. You're right.. neither party here is acting on behalf of the state. Still, how does the presense or absense of the state in an interaction change the rights of the private parties involved? Also, I'd ask you not default to state law. State law would hold him accountable as he's not practicing protected speech (i.e., corrupting a minor). This seems to be in contradiction to your view- which is why I ask you, would you support this man, as he's simply excerising free speech? For the final point, is an eight-year old truly able to identify such situations in a mature and informed manner? Also, is an eight-year old often able to kill an adult man? Should she, if he's just practicing free speech to her?

mrbob726 -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 11:20:21 AM)
I'm not saying you're wrong about free speech, just quote a recent ruling instead of assuming that every decision made by the court since its inception has been wrong. Even you can't believe that!

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 11:36:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The essential difference is the lack of any State Actors. ( Neither party to the issue is The State ) Aside from that, you'd have to examine State Law in the hypothetical case you describe. In ANY EVENT, the 8 year old girl has a duty to herself to remove any persistent threats. She can simply kill her attacker, and worry about the Jury agreeing with her reasoning. You're right.. neither party here is acting on behalf of the state. Still, how does the presense or absense of the state in an interaction change the rights of the private parties involved? There are no "Guaranteed Rights" between two equal Natural Persons. There is a Court of Equity to decide Torts arising from infringing other people's "Rights". Of course, the existence of State Created Artificial Legal Entities sometimes blurs the division between State and Corporation. quote: Also, I'd ask you not default to state law. State law would hold him accountable as he's not practicing protected speech (i.e., corrupting a minor). This seems to be in contradiction to your view- which is why I ask you, would you support this man, as he's simply excerising free speech? The State has Jurisdiction, so why not default to State Law? Support? No, I wouldn't. But, if it's not my child, it's not my place to suppress it, either. quote: For the final point, is an eight-year old truly able to identify such situations in a mature and informed manner? Also, is an eight-year old often able to kill an adult man? Should she, if he's just practicing free speech to her? If an 8 year old ISN'T able to use force to terminate an imminent threat, I would suggest her parents have neglected her upbringing.

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 11:38:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mrbob726 I'm not saying you're wrong about free speech, just quote a recent ruling instead of assuming that every decision made by the court since its inception has been wrong. Even you can't believe that! I believe that any body which fucks up as badly as the Supreme Court, isn't worthy of a second chance, myself. Seeing as they fucked up the RKBA so bad, too, what other evidence would one require of the incompetence?

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 11:42:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle There are no "Guaranteed Rights" between two equal Natural Persons. There is a Court of Equity to decide Torts arising from infringing other people's "Rights". Of course, the existence of State Created Artificial Legal Entities sometimes blurs the division between State and Corporation. An interesting view.. that no one has actual rights in the absense of a state. So what if a group, outside of a state, arrises in such that it enforces rule, as a state would, but does not claim to be a state? Then they are able to constrain speech, aren't they? At what point is a person or an entity a state, and at what point are they a "natural person"? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle The State has Jurisdiction, so why not default to State Law? Because we're talking about your views on free speech, what you want.. not the law that's being enacted. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Support? No, I wouldn't. But, if it's not my child, it's not my place to suppress it, either. I'm asking for your view on a hypothetical situation, not for actions you might take. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If an 8 year old ISN'T able to use force to terminate an imminent threat, I would suggest her parents have neglected her upbringing. You honestly feel that an eight-year old girl should be able to kill an adult man when he's the one that comes to her on his own terms? Conversely, are you proposing that a man can not defend himself from an eight-year old girl?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 12:03:08 PM)
Please, you're raising issues that come out of an 11th-grade civics class. No one pretends that free speech means untrammeled speech. Just speaking as an authority on bullshit. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Alright, so let's say.. someone wanted to tell an eight-year old girl all about how he was going to rape her. (But he didn't actually intend on raping her, he was just talking, expressing his thoughts.) Would you argue that this is legal? Not to back you into a corner, but I'm looking to understand your feelings.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 12:14:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Please, you're raising issues that come out of an 11th-grade civics class. No one pretends that free speech means untrammeled speech. Raising issues? I'm playing Devil's Advocate here to get farglebargle to define the extents of his views. I'm.. rather disappointed that this may not have been obvious. quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Just speaking as an authority on bullshit. I'm certainly glad to see you were both receptive to my humor and mature enough to speak civily in any hypothetical absense of understanding.

Sinergy -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 12:16:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Such topics tend to inspire a curiousity in me. Just how many people understand how free speech is harmful? Such an important topic in our time, yet I can not recall anyone else ever successfully articulating the problem. Allow me to clarify it for you. Person A says something. Person B is upset by what Person A says. Therefore, Person A should be prevented from saying something. Clear as mud? Sinergy

Lordandmaster -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 12:21:36 PM)
I don't know what "civily in any hypothetical absense of understanding" means, but let me just ask you a question. (And then I'll be done with this, since your posturing has already attracted too much attention.) On the previous page you announced that you don't recall anyone "else" ever framing the problems associated with free speech as successfully as you have. Then when you finally condescended to tell us your views, you explained that certain hateful and dangerous kinds of speech should not be tolerated. So here's my question. Do you really think no one "else" has ever discussed those issues? That's what I meant by your MMORPG world. If you read more and postured less, you might discover that people other than CuriousLord have had useful things to say in OUR world. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord I'm certainly glad to see you were both receptive to my humor and mature enough to speak civily in any hypothetical absense of understanding.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 12:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Such topics tend to inspire a curiousity in me. Just how many people understand how free speech is harmful? Such an important topic in our time, yet I can not recall anyone else ever successfully articulating the problem. Allow me to clarify it for you. Person A says something. Person B is upset by what Person A says. Therefore, Person A should be prevented from saying something. Clear as mud? I certainly appreciate the attempt at clarification. I'd have to ask for further, though. Would you consider the reasons behind the why 'Person B' might be upset to be important to the freedom of speech? Also, what is it to "say" something? Does this include simply face-to-face verbal speech, telecommunicated speech, text, graphics, programs, etc? What are the constraints in which one may express self (such as, might one be, in the freedom of speech, to communicate through loud nude dancing outside of another's church)?

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 12:26:49 PM)
No. "Freedom of Speech" refers only to the unalienable right of the Sovereign Individual to be free of restrictions from The State. I think the problem here is for some weird reason you believe The State has some sort of obligation to protect the Individual? You are incorrect. That responsibility will always, EXCEPTING SOCIALISTS AND COMMIES, rest on the Individual.

NavyDDG54 -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 12:33:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: yourMissTress Could you please elaborate here? I think I'm confused. How is free speech harmful? too much of ANYTHING can be harmful. How can free speech be harmful? My great uncle spent 3 years at Dachau and Treblinka as well as time in the Vilna getto. He immigrated to Skokie, IL following the War. In the name of free speech Neo-Nazis dressed up like WWII nazis and did a gestapo style march through the town, which had alot of holocaust survivors...who were just starting to be able to get on with their lives. Many of them had recurrences of the nightmares, panic attacks, nervous breakdowns. when they saw fully uniformed Nazis marching down their street again. all in the name of Free Speech. Still think Free Speech cant be harmful?

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 12:38:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster I don't know what "civily in any hypothetical absense of understanding" means, but let me just ask you a question. (And then I'll be done with this, since your posturing has already attracted too much attention.) On the previous page you announced that you don't recall anyone "else" ever framing the problems associated with free speech as successfully as you have. Then when you finally condescended to tell us your views, you explained that certain hateful and dangerous kinds of speech should not be tolerated. So here's my question. Do you really think no one "else" has ever discussed those issues? That's what I meant by your MMORPG world. If you read more and postured less, you might discover that people other than CuriousLord have had useful things to say in OUR world. "civlity in any hypothetical absense of understanding" was teasing you for not understanding, and being rude as a result. (The "hypothetic absense of understand" wasn't hypothetical. An absense of understanding can be considered a misunderstanding. So the statement reduces to "civlity in any misunderstanding".) I hope the statement's more clear now. And, please. Let's not get into "you're posturing" arguments. You sincerely amuse me. If you find this arrogant, so be it, I'll coop to it. But nothing I've said has been with concern for outward appearances. Rather, should I have been concerned with such a thing, I'd be far more ready to smile and not allow any controversy to arise. (By the way, I'm answering this in order. Just a bit pressed for time, so I didn't split it up.) No, I haven't told you my views yet. I've only been playing Devil's Advocate, asking others to explain their ideas in areas I believe worth exploring. It's better to get some ideas on the table before just randomly blurting things out, isn't it? By the same token, you may feel free to ask me where I stand on things as well. As much as I'm sure you're paranoid about posturing and whose penis will appear to be longer by the end of a discussion, I would like to encourage you to sit back and find some amusement in a simple and playful debate. However, however you come to interpret this isn't truly my concern. I'm amused, nonetheless; I never did tend to care much for drama and hurt feelings. Now, the intereptation on "certain hateful and dangerous kinds of speech". How do you feel these might be defined? Honestly, while I do enjoy teasing you, this is a rather important point if we are to get to the discussion itself. So, if you're ready to put aside the "posturiing", would you mind elaborating on this? Alright. Just about near the end. Seems odd, to respond to individual sentenses without citing the individual one. Kind of neat, though. No, I'm pretty sure I made clear that I wasn't saying others didn't discuss such issues before. This is sort of one of the points I was teasing you on misunderstanding. I'd encourage you to put this one aside until later, when such a point might be more readily received. Alright, I'm still missing the "MMORPG" thing. How is not reading others' opinions like an MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game)?

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 12:42:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle No. "Freedom of Speech" refers only to the unalienable right of the Sovereign Individual to be free of restrictions from The State. I think the problem here is for some weird reason you believe The State has some sort of obligation to protect the Individual? You are incorrect. That responsibility will always, EXCEPTING SOCIALISTS AND COMMIES, rest on the Individual. Rather, I'm asking you, if the individual might impose his will on another individual, via the absense of natural rights, as you've previously mentioned (post 34), why might the state suffer from any restrictions that the individual does not? In other words, why may the state not impose its intentions on individuals anymore than other individuals would? It is simply by virtue of claiming the status of a state? If so, can such a state not reliquensh such a title to gain the ability to act without guarentee of natural rights as a collection of individuals might? I'd ask you not make assumptions about my views in these questions, as I'm not expressing them. Rather, I'm inquaring into your views, asking you to elaborate into your logic and explanations.

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 12:51:30 PM)
"why might the state suffer from any restrictions that the individual does not? " See: The Declaration of Independence, Your State Constitution and the Federal Constitution. We limit the authority of The State because The People don't trust The State to remain faithful.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 12:59:09 PM)
Just to say, I appreciate you elaborating on your points so well. I'd like to ask: what do you believe the obligations and responsiblities of the state to be?

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 1:06:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Just to say, I appreciate you elaborating on your points so well. I'd like to ask: what do you believe the obligations and responsiblities of the state to be? Whatever The People delegate. That's the purpose of State and Federal Constitutions. They EXPLICITLY specify those delegated responsibilities.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 1:09:59 PM)
How is it to be dealt with when the People delegate to the State to abridge free speech? Or does the Constitution constrain the People against doing such a thing? (I realize the Constitution does not allow for the government to prevent free speech, but if the People act, through their representatives, to do so, can they, or does the Constitution come before the People?) PS- It's good to discuss this sort of things, and I'm certainly enjoying someone pointing out their beliefs. Still, I undertand answering question after question can be tedious, and I'd be understanding if you decide you'd like to pick back up later (or if at all). As much as I'm enjoying this, my time's about up, so I may have to excuse myself until later. To let you know my thoughts, I just wanted to see your view a bit before asking specific questions about it. To me, there seems to be a number of contradictions on finer points which I feel stand as a cause to many societial issues. I'd like to talk about these, for perhaps you or someone else might have resolutions to such that I haven't seen, though I think it's best to get an agreed-upon basis to work off of before then.

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 1:16:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord How is it to be dealt with when the People delegate to the State to abridge free speech? Or does the Constitution constrain the People against doing such a thing? (I realize the Constitution does not allow for the government to prevent free speech, but if the People act, through their representatives, to do so, can they, or does the Constitution come before the People?) The Constitution IS the EXPLICIT constraint against abridging enumerated Rights. The 9th and 10th Amendements to the Federal Constitution reserve anything not explicitly delegated to The People, and State respectively. If, say, someone wanted to permit warrentless surveillance of internet traffic, they would have to repeal the 4th Amendment first.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625