Real World Event Discussions

Legislators quick to limit Free Speech to protect Grieving Families

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Monday, January 24, 2011 02:36
VIEWED: 6327
PAGE 4 of 9

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, January 17, 2011 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Abuse is not free speech.
What is the difference between abuse and dissent?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

abuse=

to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.
2.
to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.
3.
to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.
4.
to commit sexual assault upon.
5.
Obsolete . to deceive or mislead.

dissent =
to differ in sentiment or opinion, esp. from the majority; withhold assent; disagree (often fol. by from ): Two of the justices dissented from the majority decision.
2.
to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government; take an opposing view.
3.
to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.

NIKI2

Monday, January 17, 2011 8:31 PM

Quote:
There (sic) 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.

My opinion, too. Also the difference between dissent and abusing the rights of free speech. Their intent is not to “dissent”, it is purely and totally to harass, nothing more.

Quote:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and mannerbut not content”of expression.

Westboro isn’t assembling to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, obviously.

But as to it starting in the '60s and '70s, I sure never encountered it done by the GOVERNMENT, and what I found was

Quote:
Some universities resorted to limiting student protests and demonstrations to certain select areas of the campus called free-speech zones in the 1960s and early 1970s

The first mention I find of the GOVERNMENT using them is

Quote:
During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up an official "free speech area" so the convention would not be disrupted. A pro-choice demonstrator against an Operation Rescue group said Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young "put us in a free-speech cage." "Protest zones" were used during the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential nominating conventions.

I find reference to them being expanded a lot by Bush:

Quote:
The most prominent examples were those created by the United States Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration. Free speech zones existed in limited forms prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush; it was during Bush's presidency that their scope was greatly expanded.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/011711a.html

And yes, Obama has continued the practice (as he had so many of Bush’s other infringements on our civil rights), you’ll get no argument from me. No doubt future Presidents will as well; once one of them starts something, few future ones are willing to give it up. That's the danger of setting precedent, and in that I agree. Another lovely thing we can thank Bush for.

But I hold my ground that limiting the Westboro nuts (especially as it's probably going to be found unconstitutional and done away with) isn't going to lead to any slippery slope...Bush's expansion of them has done more along those lines.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Monday, January 17, 2011 8:52 PM

ok i type in a hurry sometimes....

NIKI2

Monday, January 17, 2011 8:59 PM

What was wrong with what you typed? I think it was right on in explaining the definition, so it answered the question.

I looked into a bit more deeply...was typing as you posted this last, just FYI.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 17, 2011 9:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
But as to it starting in the '60s and '70s, I sure never encountered it done by the GOVERNMENT, and what I found was
Quote:
Some universities resorted to limiting student protests and demonstrations to certain select areas of the campus called free-speech zones in the 1960s and early 1970s
The first mention I find of the GOVERNMENT using them is
Quote:
During the 1988 Democratic National Convention, the city of Atlanta set up an official "free speech area" so the convention would not be disrupted.

Niki, that's exactly what I said.

Quote:
CTS: 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.

You write as if you're correcting me, but there is nothing to correct.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, January 17, 2011 10:04 PM

I think things would be a lot better if..

1. Fred Phelps was allowed to protest.

2. The cops all got the flu at the same time.

3. Lime and shovels were put on sale, or free.

Just saying...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

P.S I'm all out of fuken bubblegum.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, January 17, 2011 10:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
to use wrongly or improperly; misuse: to abuse one's authority.

Not applicable, because free speech is not an issue of authority.

Quote:
to treat in a harmful, injurious, or offensive way: to abuse a horse; to abuse one's eyesight.

This sounds like physical harm and injury. It is very hard to prove physical harm resulting from words, but usually, that falls under child emotional abuse or hate crimes. There are already laws against that. This type of speech would not be subject to free speech zones, because they would already be illegal everywhere.

Quote:
to commit sexual assault upon.

Not applicable.

So we are really talking about this definition:

Quote:
to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign.

Now let's contrast this against "dissent."

Quote:
to differ in sentiment or opinion,...
to disagree with the methods, goals, etc., of a political party or government...
to disagree with or reject the doctrines or authority of an established church.

OK, it pretty much means "to disagree," esp with those in authority.

Now, let's take some examples.

1. "Bush is the worst fucking president ever because he fucking lied about WMDs to take his country to war."

Is this "abuse" or "dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

2. "The Bush administration is comprised of dirty, rotten, immoral war criminals who instituted torture as an acceptable method of interrogation."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

3. "God hates Bush. No one who kills Iraqi babies can be a Christian."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

4. "If there is such a thing as a deity, it must be grievously angered by the collective actions of the Bush administration, perhaps so much it might send Bush to an agonizing eternity."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

Should the Secret Service protect Bush from this series of verbal "abuses" or verbal "dissent" by limiting these protests to areas outside of his view?

-------

The differences are subjective, mostly based on whether the audience agrees with the message and its delivery. It is impossible to legally distinguish between the two.

There are some laws against verbal abuse, mostly dealing with the abuse of authority (such as verbal abuse by a boss) or defamation in a publication (very difficult to prove). But there are no laws against someone calling you "stupid" to your face. As abusive as Kaneman is towards Niki, there are no laws making what he says illegal, unless you want to pursue his threats of rape as assault.

The fact of the matter is, NEITHER verbal "abuse" nor verbal "dissent" (of the protesting type) is illegal under United States law. What we've done is simply put legal limitations of either "abuse" or "dissent," by limiting any undesirable messages to areas outside the line of sight.

The slippery slope is this: today I might agree the message is undesirable. Tomorrow, I might not, but it will be too late for my desirable message to be seen.

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NIKI2

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:00 AM

Sorry CTTS, I misread, I thought you wrote that the government had been using free-speech zones since the '60s, etc. Mea culpa.

While I recognize the difference between the two terms, I still don't see Westboro as deserving the right to put their little play on. They aren't "dissenting" against anything, nor are they "protesting", etc., etc. They are merely CONDEMNING, in the worst possible way, the individuals at a funeral. I just don't believe this represents a slippery slope. Just my opinion, nothing more.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

KWICKO

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 12:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Now, let's take some examples.

1. "Bush is the worst fucking president ever because he fucking lied about WMDs to take his country to war."

Is this "abuse" or "dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

2. "The Bush administration is comprised of dirty, rotten, immoral war criminals who instituted torture as an acceptable method of interrogation."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

3. "God hates Bush. No one who kills Iraqi babies can be a Christian."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

4. "If there is such a thing as a deity, it must be grievously angered by the collective actions of the Bush administration, perhaps so much it might send Bush to an agonizing eternity."

Is this "abuse" or dissent"? Is this an insult or a disagreement?

Should the Secret Service protect Bush from this series of verbal "abuses" or verbal "dissent" by limiting these protests to areas outside of his view?

I'd say those statements are neither abuse nor dissent; they're just plain truth.

I'd further add that for the most part, they apply to Obama as well. Sure, he didn't "take us to war", but he sure as fuck didn't take us OUT of it, either.

This Space For Rent!

CANTTAKESKY

Tuesday, January 18, 2011 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Sorry CTTS, I misread,

Ah, yeah, ok. That happens. No prob.

Quote:
I still don't see Westboro as deserving the right to put their little play on.

Neither does the KKK or NAMBLA. But we can't place certain groups out of sight cause they're disgusting and vomit inducing to most people. Once we get used to that, it'll be war and tax protesters next in that free speech zone. Those folk piss off a lot of Americans too, you know.

Imagine that liberal activists go through the trouble and expense of traveling to a Tea Party convention to protest the Tea Party agenda. They show up to protest on the public sidewalk outside the hotel. But then they are forced 100 yards away, far out of the traffic of the convention. One football field away. The excuse for the move? "Libtards do nothing but condemn us all day long. We don't want to see their ugly, abusive messages."

How would you feel about that?

It's the classic corollary to the Golden Rule, right? Don't do unto others if you don't want it done unto you?

Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.