Legislators quick to limit Free Speech to protect Grieving Families
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Monday, January 24, 2011 02:36
VIEWED: 6327
PAGE 3 of 9
As I've pointed out, I understand *WHY* they're doing it, and can even sympathize. But I am against the fact THAT they're doing this.
Are the WBC hideous and heinous? Sure. But at some level, so are liberals, according to the GOP. And so are conservatives, according to the Democrats.
Those who agree with banning the WBC and keeping them X distance away - are you also agreeing with the so-called "Free Speech Zones" at political conventions? Will you support the G20's "right" to not have their economic summit disturbed by the "heinous and hideous behavior" of protestors?
THAT is the slippery slope.
Not every repugnant behavior requires a law to be passed prohibiting it. Sometimes people just step forward with their own unique solutions to the problem at hand. Counter-protests, ridicule, "Angel's Wings"... all are solutions to the WBC, and none of them had to be passed into law to be used against the WBC.
This Space For Rent!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well said!
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Those who agree with banning the WBC and keeping them X distance away - are you also agreeing with the so-called "Free Speech Zones" at political conventions? Will you support the G20's "right" to not have their economic summit disturbed by the "heinous and hideous behavior" of protestors?
THAT is the slippery slope.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I guess I'm the jerk who gets to defend the repugnant arsehole.
I don't believe in 'Free Speech Zones,' and this is a terrible precedent.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
I'm with Anthony on this. We should not infringe on our rights to keep a few grievers from being subjected to the abuse of rude religous assholes. See, we all know that once they get away with telling us where and when we can assemble, and start guessing what we will say and how we will act depending on the assemblers....we've got a problem. Sure it is tasteless(what these folks normally do) and they are the last people the family wants to hear, But the bigger picture is far greater than the feelings of a few......
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I'm probably the lone holdout, but I still live in a world which isn't black and white, in which not everything that happens is a harbinger of government takeover.
If you think about it, whether I'm in favor of it or not, they DID have "free speech zones" when Bush was in power (and I'll bet at other times), and gee, we haven't slid down that "slippery slope" yet. I don't think the American people would put up with stuff like that--certainly not for long, we're too independent and mistrustful a bunch. But on this specific issue, I have no problem.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Well, I'm probably the lone holdout, but I still live in a world which isn't black and white, in which not everything that happens is a harbinger of government takeover.
If you think about it, whether I'm in favor of it or not, they DID have "free speech zones" when Bush was in power (and I'll bet at other times), and gee, we haven't slid down that "slippery slope" yet. I don't think the American people would put up with stuff like that--certainly not for long, we're too independent and mistrustful a bunch. But on this specific issue, I have no problem.
Yes, we had them at other times - during Clinton's presidency, for one. So both sides are not immune to enforcing this kind of thing. As to whether or not we've slid down a slippery slope or not, the idea that some think it's no big deal - whether done by Clinton or Bush, federal government or state - tells me we have indeed begun to slip down that slope, and I'd prefer to give neither tacit nor explicit consent to continue that slide.
This Space For Rent!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I disagree; each time it's been done, there's been public outcry. And I think, given it has been done before and no further erosion of freedom of speech has occurred, AND that the public didn't like it when it did happen, that we're not endangered by it. I think any serious curtailing of freedom of speech would raise a heckofa public outcry, myself. I don't know which is more vociferousl guarded, the first or the second amendment, but they're damned close. That is, despite either side screaming that their freedom of speech is being curtailed by the other side most of the time.
Sorry, I'll continue not to live in a black-and-white world...or, put another way: Moderation in all things. Extremism never benefits anyone.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
And I think, given it has been done before and no further erosion of freedom of speech has occurred,
Free speech zones started on college campuses in the 60s and 70s with protests against Vietnam. The govt didn't start doing it until the late 80s. In the 90's, cities began implementing free speech zones a little bit more. In the 2000's, they became routine with Bush. Now, people are accustomed to the idea of limiting embarrassing protests to areas out of the line of sight.
You may not see an erosion, but many others do. Erosion is by definition a slow, incremental process. It is not an avalanche.
Quote:The point Mike made was not that there isn't public outcry, but that with each decade of free speech zones, there is less and less public outcry. Again, it's a slippery slope, not a slippery cliff.
...there's been public outcry.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geez, the legislation doesn't stop them from making their hideous protest, only stopping them from being within 300 metres of a funeral.
There protests are akin to abusive behaviour, in my view. If someone is continually abusive towards me, I can take legal action which limits them from approaching and talking to me. Abuse is not free speech.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
And I think, given it has been done before and no further erosion of freedom of speech has occurred,
Free speech zones started on college campuses in the 60s and 70s with protests against Vietnam. The govt didn't start doing it until the late 80s. In the 90's, cities began implementing free speech zones a little bit more. In the 2000's, they became routine with Bush. Now, people are accustomed to the idea of limiting embarrassing protests to areas out of the line of sight.
You may not see an erosion, but many others do. Erosion is by definition a slow, incremental process. It is not an avalanche.Quote:The point Mike made was not that there isn't public outcry, but that with each decade of free speech zones, there is less and less public outcry. Again, it's a slippery slope, not a slippery cliff.
...there's been public outcry.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
Perfectly put. Thank you!
This Space For Rent!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What is the difference between abuse and dissent?
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Abuse is not free speech.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME