It's time.
POSTED BY: Jonus
UPDATED: Monday, March 27, 2006 00:25
VIEWED: 15488
PAGE 7 of 14
Heres an idea... lets stop looking at thes incredibly eary ass piece of work and get on with our incredibly eary ass day?! what Im getting at people is, free speach good, if ya don't like what he is saying plz don't post, choose to ignore it or choose not to, up to you, and FYI Im a little scared that you chose to follow this path based off of a movie, I personally enjoyed this movie as well, but Im not gunna go off and try and dismantel the government... and a true Browncoat would not be saying that a true browncoat does anything a specific way other then love Firefly and serentiy a bit too much, a good example, go watch the serenity intro by joss or read a transcript of it, tells you right there what a browncoat is... said my peace, now im done.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Actually, WhoMe is correct. It is not protected by the constitution if you say for example "lets all kill the president". You can say how much you despise the president or want him out of office. Hell, you can even say that you wish he was dead, but announcing that you are going to commit an illegal act that threatens someone's safety, or telling someone else to commit such an act is probable cause for you to be searched and/or watched and/or detained. In fact, I can guaruntee that the NSA boys down at Project Echelon (the NSA's communication monitoring division; yes it does exist; the government has never officially admitted its there, but they haven't really bothered to keep it secret)are getting a red flag on their computer screens because I used the phrase "kill the president"(oops, another red flag; right about now, they are probably reading this to check the context to see if its a real threat).
No he isn't. My quote is accurate, the "There's a difference between what's just annoying and what's illegal." part was added later but what WhoMe said is still wrong, just slightly less inaccurate.
The original (unedited) text went like this:
Quote:
Originally posted by WhoMe:Quote:
that means puttin up with folks spouting stuff ya don't agree with, which has seemed to slip right by most folks these days..
That's a common, but completely erroneous, belief.
Notice how the statement is a rebuke to the idea that you have to put up with what other people say even if you don’t agree with it.
Frankly I’m not concerned with what the American Constitution says on the matter, I’m not American. Fact is Freedom of Speech isn’t necessarily what Americans or your constitution decide it is, at least for the world at large.
However if you believe such things are not covered by Free Speech please stop typing. I disagree with what your saying so I bar you from saying it
.More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No beast so fierce but knows some touch of pity. But I know none, and therefore am no beast.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
Actually, WhoMe is correct. It is not protected by the constitution
Respectively...
No he is not.
Yes it is.
Amendment I
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.
Do you see the words slander, or libel, or threat, in there ?
I surely don't.
Anything beyond this basic context is not constitutional in nature, but in proper observance of Amendments IX and X, within the jurisdiction of the states themselves to decide what is and isn't proper, for example espousing profanity in front of women and children in michigan is a no-no in michigan, but that is a state decision, not a federal one.
So, while announcing a direct threat against a person may indeed constitute probable cause for action, that action is not in the province of the federal government, nor legally it's jurisdiction and any law, act or executive order that would say so fails the test of constitutional trump on the spot and is then invalid.
In short, the Constitution does indeed protect said speech - whether your state does or does not is between you and your state government.
It would really, really help a discussion like this if folks would GO READ THE FREAKIN THING.
And I've said my piece, no sense kickin a dead horse over it, and it's not my job to educate folk who don't seem the least bit interested.
Oh, and Jen ? c'mon, the right to dissent is universal, kid, if you want to be able to state your opinion, ya gotta let other people state theirs, otherwise it's a pointless exercise that just swaps out which side gets to oppress the other.
Respect - gotta bring some, to get some.
-Frem
Okay... I just looked it up, and you're right. The constitution is supposed to protect ALL speech, but it doesn't because the government stopped paying attention to parts of the constitution a long time ago. Just look at the part about no excessive bail. It hasn't been ammended, but the government allows judges to set whatever bail they want to, even if it's in the millions. The fact is, the constitution says that we can say whatever we want, but the government says otherwise. There are laws out there that say that we can't say whatever we want. They are federally enforced. Constitutional or not, that's reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And that's the bottom line.
Originally posted by reaverman:
There are laws out there that say that we can't say whatever we want. They are federally enforced. Constitutional or not, that's reality.
The government uses the Constitution as a guideline, more than actual rules.
Corporations and influence peddelers control all, and changes must be systematic and comprehensive to be effective.
Violence as a tool for social change at this point would turn this country into something resembling a 'Road Warrior' like existence, and BEG another country *COUGH-China* to overtake us.
Just like global warming, the U.S. is going in a direction that can't just be fully reversed.
Lasting revolutionary change can't start with killing the 'bad' guys, they are us. If you point the finger at Bush and Cheney, you have to also point at all who voted for them, all who didn't vote at all, all who shop at Wal-Mart, and all in the military for accepting the orders they are given, and not 'rising up'.
WE AS A PEOPLE need to be educated as to our choices, and I think we're doing just a little bit of that right here. And for anyone to say they're gonna defeat ANY government this big, powerful and reactionary with violence...well, they must just love the romantic idea of dying in Serenity Valley.
Work towards changing Corporate Economics and practice, and the world will change.
I identify myself as a Post-Serenity Valley Browncoat; one that ain't stupid, and one who'll see more change come from a broadwave than a bayonette.
Uncharacteristically serious Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:
Jonus, thats because most of these people aren't true browncoats, they would be working for the Alliance, they like to fancy themselves as browncoats but its just not so IMO.
I disagree. There are always the crazy radicals out there (Sam Adams and his rock throwing, rabble-rousing, tea partiers and Son of Liberty).
Real revolutions, the ones that last, they come when the conservatives decide to make it happen (John Adams, George Washington, along with some farmers, shopkeepers, and the guys who make shoes). They are the Browncoats. So Jonus and the assorted Pirates can fluster and preen all they want about 'making things happen'. Its when all the Heroes stand up that the world best take notice. And I'm one Hero that more then satisfied to support the President and laugh at the opposition.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You have to support him; you have no choice in the matter.
Originally posted by Hero:
And I'm one Hero that more then satisfied to support the President and laugh at the opposition.
I voted for Clinton, and I can freely say I made a bad choice. Your ego and professional position don't allow for you to 'take anything back', or admit error, so you'll back him even if it comes to armageddon, and God's gonna blow this whole gig sooner or later, who better than his faithful instrument Bush Jr to get things started in that direction, eh?
WTF, you'll be in Heaven while the rest of us are doin' eternal time at the Hot Sing-Sing, right?
If we could all see things as clearly as you can...
No slave to a belief system Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Do you really believe there is a WAR ON TERROR?? I mean do you really believe that, have you seen the administration go after any terroist..tell me who does homeland security effect, does it effect U.S citizens or does it effect terrorist.?
PirateJenny, you don't really understand sarcasm, do you?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverman:
There are laws out there that say that we can't say whatever we want. They are federally enforced. Constitutional or not, that's reality.
Thank you, ReaverMan, for getting to the heart of the matter.
People forget that the first amendment is, in fact, and amendment. It was the first step in refining what is a dynamic and living foundation for federal government. The founding fathers included a provision for amending the constitution because they expected it to change over time, as society changed, as needs changed, and issues arose which they could not have foreseen while holed up in a small, smelly, hot building in Philadelphia in the summer. (Little-known fact- they shutteerd all the windows to avoid interference and eavesdropping from the outside.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fremdfirma said:
Quote:
Do you see the words slander, or libel, or threat, in there ?
I surely don't.
Anything beyond this basic context is not constitutional in nature, but in proper observance of Amendments IX and X, within the jurisdiction of the states themselves to decide what is and isn't proper, for example espousing profanity in front of women and children in michigan is a no-no in michigan, but that is a state decision, not a federal one.
So, while announcing a direct threat against a person may indeed constitute probable cause for action, that action is not in the province of the federal government, nor legally it's jurisdiction and any law, act or executive order that would say so fails the test of constitutional trump on the spot and is then invalid.
In short, the Constitution does indeed protect said speech - whether your state does or does not is between you and your state government.
Nope. The very first federal libel law was passed in 1798, eleven years after the Bill of Rights was created, which shows that the founding fathers NEVER really intended "free speech" to encompass all manner of speech. (The text of that act is listed here: http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/sedact.shtml)
Similar laws have followed, including, most recently, the Patriot Act.
Your refusal to "educate" me is really cute, considering that I seem to know a lot more about this topic than you do.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"That's what governments are for, to get in a man's way."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[img]
[/img]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME