RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech!

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

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

Message

Sinergy -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 1:23:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord 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)? Well, the Bill of Rights is fairly clear about Freedom of Speech. Since Jefferson wrote the document, Supreme Court after Supreme Court has been called on to interpret the meaning behind that right. There are restrictions, one of the more famous ones is the proscription against yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre. This came about because it was done, people trampled other people to death trying to get out of the theatre, the person who yelled it tried to use the free speech clause in the Bill of Rights as their defense, and the Supreme Court determined (if memory serves) that public safety issues trump that individual's right to yell "Fire." The impression I am taking from the article is that after years and years of railing against freedom of other people to speak freely about topics the Religious Right wants to prevent, the Religious Right has suddenly realized it is a slippery slope. A ruling that prohibits somebody else from speaking freely could then be used against them when they want to speak freely. Person B has every right to state why they are upset with what Person A says. If Person B has issues with Person A stating those reasons, perhaps a mirror and a rubber chicken graph would help clarify things for them. What Person B does not have the right to do is try to stop Person A from saying it. Sinergy p.s. We already have obscenity laws governing what can be shown on TV, what a person has to wear dancing round in front of somebodies church, etc. While these all chisel away at Freedom Of Speech, but they were instituted by the body politic and upheld by the Supreme Court as an attempt to create an interpretation of the basic law that (almost) everybody could live with.

popeye1250 -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 1:28:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord 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. CL, good fucking luck.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 1:34:28 PM)
I feel you look at things through a much more American view than I do. (Well, "American", as in "based in legal American doctorine", with the Constitution and such.) It's strange to consider, what our society would be like if we should have perfect freedom of speech, lacking in the profane and dangerous constraints. I must admit, I would rather fear the reprocutions of the Constitution, as it was in the beginning. The right to bear arms mixed with the right to free speech? How many times would major cities and capitals be held ransom by nuclear bomb planted in the center? How many of these times would the threat be realized, demolishing the city? Would the people not act and abridge the freedoms to bear arms in such a case? The freedom of speech, against those threatening a similar attack? At what point do the people wish to contradict the Constitution to not suffer the consquences of a dated document? I question, too, the wisdom in the freedom of speech for all things. Evolution's been pretty much shoved down many Christians' collective throat, reason in speech coming before the petty emotions. When it comes down to it, the Blind Fates are the bane of mortal dispair; should we do away with the ignorance which muses them, to what end would our own humanity come? At what point can a government-like body arise, in place of the former United States, unbound by the Constitution? In a sense, if the people no longer wish to bind the Government to the Constitution, is the Constitute not moot? Who would not readily concede that this government is not strict to the Constitution? Further, who would contest that the majority is relatively content under the basic grounds in which the Constitution has been abandoned?

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 1:43:08 PM)
It sounds like, then, that the freedom of speech is subjective to the applied general will of the population. Things percevied as dangerous and/or profane to the majority can be made illegal, under Constitutional claim, should this majority be surficient in extent and concern. Perhaps this majority may not even need to be half of the population? If we contend that the limits on free speech are set by the majority, then is it really freedom of speech, or a limited domain in which speech is allowed?

Lordandmaster -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 1:46:15 PM)
Uh huh, and instead of pretending to be everyone's teacher, why don't you just state your views like everyone else? You always act as though the protocols that apply to the rest of humanity don't apply to you. It gets very tiresome, and it makes me wonder whether you're simply AFRAID to come out and state your views. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord 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.

Arpig -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 1:59:06 PM)
quote: When it comes down to it, the Blind Fates are the bane of mortal dispair; should we do away with the ignorance which muses them, to what end would our own humanity come? HUH????

mnottertail -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 2:00:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord It sounds like, then, that the freedom of speech is subjective to the applied general will of the population. Things percevied as dangerous and/or profane to the majority can be made illegal, under Constitutional claim, should this majority be surficient in extent and concern. Perhaps this majority may not even need to be half of the population? If we contend that the limits on free speech are set by the majority, then is it really freedom of speech, or a limited domain in which speech is allowed? Ja, you have to put up with shit like that, sometimes. Ask Lenny Bruce. I think the country that gave us Berthold Brecht, Adolf Hitler, Immanuel Kant, Nietsche, Herman Goering, Andreas Bader and Ulrica Meinhof (just to name a few)--has had a pretty good record of freedom of speech overall....but that doesn't mean you can stand on a streetcorner and call Helmut Kohl a cocksucker...you will be seeing crepo and saps directly. Freedom of speech is only that, you start slandering or blubbering state secrets or avowing terroristic threats, then other laws may impinge on the principle of free speech.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 2:01:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster Uh huh, and instead of pretending to be everyone's teacher, why don't you just state your views like everyone else? You always act as though the protocols that apply to the rest of humanity don't apply to you. It gets very tiresome, and it makes me wonder whether you're simply AFRAID to come out and state your views. I'm halfway surprised you haven't started sending me pictures of your penis, daring me to send back pictures of mine. Then again, I haven't checked my mailbox yet. Meh. Now I'm grimacing. For the record, though, any penis pictures you send me, I reserve the right to tease you about.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 2:07:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig quote: When it comes down to it, the Blind Fates are the bane of mortal dispair; should we do away with the ignorance which muses them, to what end would our own humanity come? HUH???? Sorry, big fan of Greek mythology for a while. A myth goes that the "Blind Fates" were these mystical sort of creatures given to humanity as a gift from some deity or something. (It's fuzzy now.) In any case, the Blind Fates keep men from thinking of the day they'll die, so we can concentrate on the present, instead of dwelling on the future in which we die/are-dead constantly. Muses were other creatures that provide insight to other people. (Apologies if you know this, I'm just unsure of your Greek Myth background, so trying to be complete.) They help people think 'n such. I believe the Blind Fates were sort of like muses, so I was going for a bit of irony in citing muses to the Blind Fates, particularly when the muses to already-great muses were ignorance in conception. In short, I was just saying.. "Ignorance of the cold hard truth of life lets us live in happiness. If we were forced to realize life for what it is, we'd be suffering angst all of the time." It was part of my point about how people can live in ignorance to be happy, and how free speech is in determent to this basis of happiness.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 2:20:24 PM)
Yeah, I guess we do have to put up with free speech being constrained at times. Is it still free speech, though? One of my main concerns is, with regards to American law, the "pursuit of happiness" and the conflicts it may have with the freedom of speech, particularly when one is made unhappy be another's speech. Is this a largely considered point? Is there an established mode of dealing with such conflicts, such as one trumps the other?

Arpig -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 2:21:09 PM)
For a big fan of greek mythology you sure mangled it.

kittinSol -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 2:36:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster The last paragraph of this news item is cute: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bong_hits quote: The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner. [snip] Frederick said the banner was a nonsensical message that he first saw on a snowboard. He intended the banner to proclaim his right to say anything at all. His principal, Deborah Morse, said the phrase was a pro-drug message that had no place at a school-sanctioned event. Frederick denied that he was advocating for drug use. [snip] Conservative groups that often are allied with the administration are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion. "Ah, Snellworth, it's time we started backing free speech, you know. If they start clamping down on free speech, we might not be allowed to express our hatred of fags and fetus-killers!" What's a bong? [8\|]

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 2:43:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig For a big fan of greek mythology you sure mangled it. What'd I mess up? Edit: My time's up. I'll catch this later. Just incase you were thinking I meant a reference to the fates being blind, that's not what this is. I actually meant the "Blind Fates". While I'd like to say it's Hesoid, that'd only be a guess at the moment, as it's been a couple of years and I'm horrid with names. If it doesn't make sense later, we can look it up and check on it. (My Greek Myth book has to be around here somewhere.)

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 2:47:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol What's a bong? [8\|] "bong", Urban Dictionary. (Incase you were serious.)

orfunboi -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 2:54:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I personally have taken several bong hits because of christ. Ravi 'Ron' Shankar Amen to that one, in fact i think i'll have another please......

kittinSol -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 2:55:33 PM)
Huh... if I admit I wasn't serious, and therefore that I knew what a bong was, could it be held against me?

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 2:58:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Huh... if I admit I wasn't serious, and therefore that I knew what a bong was, could it be held against me? Could what be held against you? The deception about the bong, or the bong itself? :P

orfunboi -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 3:01:58 PM)
rev Phelps preaches that it is ok to kill gays because God hates fags....He gets away with this because of free speech. The boys who killed Matthew Shepard claimed their minister also told them it was ok, again because of free speech. Now i am not saying i think free speech is bad or should be stopped, but yes it can and does hurt people. quote: ORIGINAL: yourMissTress 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. Could you please elaborate here? I think I'm confused. How is free speech harmful?

kittinSol -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 3:18:45 PM)
Neither. The fact that I KNEW what it was in the first place: what if a cop was lurking around?

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 3:43:59 PM)
More importantly, you post has been copied and archived by the NSA. Pray they never want to pick you up and investigate further.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875