RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech!

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

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

Message

Vendaval -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 4:41:25 PM)
An ironic situation, to be sure. The religious fundies on the same side as a kid who put the words "bong" and "Jesus" in the same sentence. The ramifications for Joseph Frederick's family were very troubling, glad his father won the lawsuit. (Scroll down to the bottom of the article) "Frederick, now 23, said he later had to drop out of college after his father lost his job. The elder Frederick, who worked for the company that insures the Juneau schools, was fired in connection with his son's legal fight, the son said. A jury recently awarded Frank Frederick $200,000 in a lawsuit he filed over his firing." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bong_hits quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster 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.

Vendaval -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 5:39:23 PM)
You really have mangled this metaphor. "The Fates" " The Moerae were also known as the Fates. The blind daughters of Zeus and the Titan Themis, their names were Atropos, Clotho and Lachesis. They were in charge of the life of every living being - even the Gods could not change fate. They assigned every man his share of good and evil at birth, although the way he lived his life could alter the proportions of each. Life was a thread, spun by Clotho, representing birth, measured by Lachesis, who decided what the life would be like, and cut by Atropos, the smallest but most terrible of the three, in charge of death. Only once were the Fates ever cheated - by Asclepius the physician. This son of Apollo managed to bring a man back to life, so Hades1 and the Fates collaborated to persuade Zeus to kill Asclepius with a thunderbolt. " "The Muses" " The Muses were the daughters of Zeus and the goddess Mnemosyne. They inspired artists and even accompanied Apollo, because of his love for music. There were nine Muses: Calliope, muse of epic poetry, Clio, muse of history, Polyhymnia, muse of mime, Euterpe, muse of the flute, Tersichore, muse of the dance, Erato, muse of love poetry, Melpomene, muse of tragedy, Thalia, muse of comedy, Urania, muse of astronomy. The Muses would glorify gods and heroes in their song, thereby keeping their names and deeds alive. It was a great dishonour to be forgotten by the Muses. " http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A649983 quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord 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.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 6:03:26 PM)
"The pursuit of happiness" isn't even in the Constitution. And yes, there is over two hundred years' worth of legal precedent regarding the right to free speech. It's not as though no one had any idea of the ramifications before CuriousLord came around. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord 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?

Real0ne -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 6:19:48 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? No freedom of speech is exactly as the constitution states. Yelling fire in a crowded theater and claiming freedom of speech is cool, i would give this person that. Where we get screwed is that there are laws on the books to cover the crimes committed. murder, public disturbance, and i am sure there are several other laws that would cover it. The point is there was no need to restrict the right to freedom of speech with "narrow" definitions. The problem of course is mission creep. that one narrow leads to 2 then 3 and finally wider until why have freedom of speech at all? may as well throw it out entirely. So there is not need to violate our inalienable rights as has been in the judicial its just the slow nibbling away at our rights till we have none.

farglebargle -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 7:16:38 PM)
AND you DAMN WELL BETTER YELL "FIRE" in a Crowded Theater IF THERE'S A FUCKING FIRE!!!

TheHeretic -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 8:11:53 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? That's a good way to singe off your eyebrows...

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 8:46:59 PM)
Ah, that's why I posted later the clarification that the "Blind Fates" are not the "blind Fates". They're another myth involving fates.. Greek mythology isn't one, solid piece, you know. ;) It's good to see some content posted, though. Almost be neat to make a thread out of Greek Myth, but what would the official subject be?

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 8:57:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster "The pursuit of happiness" isn't even in the Constitution. And yes, there is over two hundred years' worth of legal precedent regarding the right to free speech. It's not as though no one had any idea of the ramifications before CuriousLord came around. quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord 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? Auctually, I was referring to the Declaration of Independence, as farglebargle had previously cited it.. And, seriously. I basically asked for the background of the conflict between the notions. Such as, court rulings. All you did is tell me that such a background exists which is a pretty obvious guess. Which, is in and of itself, alright; stating the obvious can be okay.. though I can't help but feel this was moreso made to cause drama. So, if you're going to post, I'd ask you contribute something other than your whining. Questions, answers- they're both good. But trolling? Com'n man. Either grow up or calm down, whether it's maturity or emotions that have you acting like this.

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 9:03:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne 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? No freedom of speech is exactly as the constitution states. Yelling fire in a crowded theater and claiming freedom of speech is cool, i would give this person that. Where we get screwed is that there are laws on the books to cover the crimes committed. murder, public disturbance, and i am sure there are several other laws that would cover it. The point is there was no need to restrict the right to freedom of speech with "narrow" definitions. The problem of course is mission creep. that one narrow leads to 2 then 3 and finally wider until why have freedom of speech at all? may as well throw it out entirely. So there is not need to violate our inalienable rights as has been in the judicial its just the slow nibbling away at our rights till we have none. Would you say that the Constitution can be vague on the issue? The problem seems to come in when people have to bring up what a "public disturbance" is. Does this mean one can not speak controversally or on edgy subjects? To say something that scares people? The idea of free speech being mitigated when it causes a public disturbance bothers me. In what cases do people really care if you speak if it causes no disturbance? Are there any restrictions on what a public disturbance might be?

uwinceismile -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 9:19:37 PM)
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. ............... just say..... ignorance is bliss! then exclain how incredibly happy you are :)

CuriousLord -> RE: Religious Right rediscovers free speech! (6/25/2007 9:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: uwinceismile ignorance is bliss! then exclain how incredibly happy you are :) Quite, when everything's out out there. Still, not quite so much as most. Beautiful to be human, isn't it? I'm certainly glad you embrace it. ;)

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875