Legislators quick to limit Free Speech to protect Grieving Families
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Monday, January 24, 2011 02:36
VIEWED: 6327
PAGE 5 of 9
Quote:
No. He’d hear them whether at an event or otherwise, just as Obama has heard al the abuse about his not being an American, being a socialist, Hitler, hating America, etc. There’s no reason politicians shouldn’t hear anything said about them. But that’s not the point. The point should be:
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?
Should grieving families have to endure people screaming “God hates you” and “I’m glad your daughter was killed” by people who have NOTHING to do with their daughter’s death but only want to make a scene to get their point across that America is evil because we don’t kill homosexuals. That has NO comparison to the other.
But if you’re taking about free-speech zones and politicians, I’m against them, for the reasons I stated in the beginning.
CTTS, I never said I liked free-speech zones. And of course everyone knows about NAMBLA and the KKK. As far as I know, neither has demonstrated somewhere that has nothing to do with their issue but specifically targets a group totally uninvolved in their issues (whatever those may be!). They are as much exhibitionists as Westboro, and I have no problem with their free speech. I have a problem with Westboro because they have no “grievances” to be redressed and they do what they do for no other reason than to abuse others and get attention. Getting attention is fine with me, but deliberately targeting those they do is unconscionable TO ME.
Like I said, it’s my opinion, nothing more. I don’t expect to change anyone else’s mind and I don’t expect anyone to change mine ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. On this issue only; that I have no problem with keeping the Westboros away from a child’s funeral, especially as it’s a temporary measure which will not stand up in court, and I don’t think it is a step down the slippery slope.
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:Targeting those they do is unconscionable to everyone on this board, Niki.
Originally posted by Niki2:
Getting attention is fine with me, but deliberately targeting those they do is unconscionable TO ME.
Nobody here likes them or what they say. I think that is one more thing we ALL agree on, now that "Jessica Alba is hot" is no longer unanimous.
All we got now for consensus is 1) Firefly rules, and 2) WBC is intolerable and disgusting.
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 Niki2:
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.
I just noticed a typo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTTS: You're no doubt right. And I certainly vote for those two things!
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 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?
-------
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.
So lets say that I was to camp outside your house with a placard that says 'a stupid, fucking bitch lives here' because I really disagree with a lot of your beliefs. Wouldn't you have any legal recourse to remove me?
if I was to go to a church service, with 50 or so of my atheist buddies, and chant and march around with placards that said 'all christians are morons', there would be nothing the congregation could do to stop us?
If I was to visit Washington, stop off at the whitehouse and do a big crap out the front, and then wipe my arse with the American flag, all in protest at your foreign policy, of course, are you saying that there would be no legal repercussions for me. Excellent, I'm on my way to the States right now< Gonna buy a glock from Wulf when I get there too.
Nothing is preventing these people from airing their views. They can state them freely, write about them, lobby their representative. None of these will land them in jail.
People in public life, particularly politicans, are usually expected to be fairly robust about how the general public treats them, and for politcians, I guess that is fair enough. They make decisions on our behalf, so they need to be able to tolerate scrutiny, criticism and protest. But these are private citizens, grieving private citizens. It seems to me that the law simply acts like a restraining order, preventing protesters from getting to close. I can't see that it is an issue with free speech at all.
As for the slippery slope, that term is so overused and misleading in all kinds of situations. My mother used to say that marijuana smoking put you onto the 'slippery slope' to heroin, but you see that isn't true all of the time either.
Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution. It happens in places where there is already chaos and lawlessness. It doesn't normally come to pass where people wake up and say,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So lets say that I was to camp outside your house with a placard that says 'a stupid, fucking bitch lives here' because I really disagree with a lot of your beliefs. Wouldn't you have any legal recourse to remove me?
Quote:No.
if I was to go to a church service, with 50 or so of my atheist buddies, and chant and march around with placards that said 'all christians are morons', there would be nothing the congregation could do to stop us?
Quote:There you run into health regulations, so yes, they can stop this.
If I was to visit Washington, stop off at the whitehouse and do a big crap out the front,
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:Tell that to the Germans who lived through the Third Reich.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Nazi_Germany
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment
Fact is tyranny CAN happen with a 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 canttakesky:Quote:No.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
So lets say that I was to camp outside your house with a placard that says 'a stupid, fucking bitch lives here' because I really disagree with a lot of your beliefs. Wouldn't you have any legal recourse to remove me?Quote:No.
if I was to go to a church service, with 50 or so of my atheist buddies, and chant and march around with placards that said 'all christians are morons', there would be nothing the congregation could do to stop us?Quote:There you run into health regulations, so yes, they can stop this.
If I was to visit Washington, stop off at the whitehouse and do a big crap out the front,
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
Hello,
There is a caveat of private property. You'd have to perform these activities on public lands.
I'd also add the caveat of preserving the ability to pass through the lands being protested upon. Protestation should not be used to trap people in an area.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Fact is tyranny doesn't normally happen with a slippery slope, it happens with violent overthrow, military coups,invasion, revolution. It happens in places where there is already chaos and lawlessness. It doesn't normally come to pass where people wake up and say, 'hey, we're living in a police state and I never noticed'."
Hello,
The lessons of my ancestors are that both kinds of tyranny are possible and do happen.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, thank you for bringing this up.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
There is a caveat of private property. You'd have to perform these activities on public lands.
If you protest on the public sidewalk outside my house or the church, there are no laws to stop you.
You can also protest on your own private land.
I once saw a picture of a sign posted in one guy's front yard. It had an arrow pointing to his neighbor's house, and said, "I own guns. My neighbor believes in gun control and does not own any guns."
Many people found that sign dangerous and abusive. But there are no laws to make him take it down.
Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME