The right of free speech, like all rights, is not an absolute right.
The government has the right (and some would say the duty) to place time, place and manner restrictions on speech.
For example, protestors cannot block a freeway. (They may try, but it is against the law.) No one has the right to set up a band in a public cul de sac and start blasting music at 3:30 AM. People can be removed for disrupting a government meeting even though they are speaking about political issues.
In a park such as the one in the picture, does a speaker have the right to come and stand on your picnic table and start blasting out messages with a megaphone?
The issue is always going to be that there are times when "rights" clash. Time, place and manner restrictions are often overly broad and overly used, but there is a balance that must be sought when the rights of one person clash with the rights of another.
It always seems to me that the those that choose to create havoc on legitimate protests (i.e. the socialist left) are given a free pass whereas those on the right who choose protest are held to different standard. The left are more likely to stage protests of the type you object to, as would I, but the right are more likely to fall foul of the law. Go figure.
"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." — First Amendment
The entire United States is a free speech zone. But note the word I've highlighted. The First Amendment does not protect violent or abusive "speech".
So you think repeated death threats over a disagreement is protected by the First Amendment? You think rioting, looting, and arson are protected by the First Amendment? You think publicly lying about someone to destroy their life is protected by the First Amendment? You think shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is none (causing people to die) is protected by the First Amendment?
"Thank you for creating all those arguments which I did not advance."
Those were precisely the kinds of things I had in mind when I made my post. Therefore, YOUR initial response was "creating arguments which I did not advance.
Your first example is no more enforceable than thefts of pocket change. Your second is debate over the propriety of war, which is unavoidable and necessary within nations.
Those were precisely the kinds of things I had in mind when I made my post.
Too bad you didn't say those things and instead put out other thoughts that were incorrect. I addressed the things that you wrote, not the things that were floating around in your head that are unknown to the rest of the world.
Your first example is no more enforceable than thefts of pocket change.
Yet that is the very type of speech that you said was not covered by the First Amendment.
To further compound your poor attempt at a justification, are you really saying that "theft of pocket change" is not theft and therefore not a crime?
Your second is debate over the propriety of war, which is unavoidable and necessary within nations.
You may take to be that but it is also "violent speech" which you said was not covered under the First Amendment. Now you seem be saying that such a statement is acceptable.
Flip flop much?
Finally, I notice that you haven't admitted that you were wrong on your statement that "the entire United States is a free speech zone."
Still not mature enough to say when you are wrong or what you wrote was incorrect?
And this boys and girls, is why I have zero respect for the left. Word twisting, tortured "interpretations", and straw man arguments are flatly dishonest. I'm done wasting my precious time on a troll only interested in distorting words to engage in hateful attacks.
The First Amendment, by including the word "peaceable", does not protect "free speech" like the events in Baltimore over the past several days. It really is that simple.
If you're having trouble understanding the word "peaceable", try learning what a dictionary is and how to use one.
"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"
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states that: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
“When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar; you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” — Tyrion Lannister
"No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth" - Plato
Is the American national anthem politically incorrect? From the 4th verse: Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
Mohammad
The truth can be offensive to some but it must be said
Prof. Feynman: It is a lot better to walk alone than with a crowd going in the wrong direction.
"HATE SPEECH" is free speech: The U.S. Supreme Court stated the general rule regarding protected speech in Texas v. Johnson (109 S.Ct. at 2544), when it held: "The government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea offensive or disagreeable." Federal courts have consistently followed this. Said Virginia federal district judge Claude Hilton: "The First Amendment does not recognize exceptions for bigotry, racism, and religious intolerance or ideas or matters some may deem trivial, vulgar or profane."
Even some advocacy of violence is protected by the 1st Amendment. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that speech advocating violent illegal actions to bring about social change is protected by the First Amendment "except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
The double standard: Atheists can put up signs and billboards saying that Christianity is wrong and that is hunky dory. But if a Christian says that homosexuality is wrong, that is attacked as "hate speech"
ALL Leftist speech is hate speech. They are always talking about something in the world around them that they hate
One for the militant atheists to consider: "...it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -- Thomas Jefferson
"I think no subject should be off-limits, and I regard the laws in many Continental countries criminalizing Holocaust denial as philosophically repugnant and practically useless – in that they confirm to Jew-haters that the Jews control everything (otherwise why aren’t we allowed to talk about it?)" -- Mark Steyn
A prophetic comment on Norwegian hate speech laws: As Justice Brandeis once noted, repressive censorship “breeds hate” and “that hate menaces stable government,” rather than promoting safety; “the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies.”
Voltaire's most famous saying was actually a summary of Voltaire's thinking by one of his biographers rather than something Voltaire said himself. Nonetheless it is a wholly admirable sentiment: "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I am of a similar mind.
The traditional advice about derogatory speech: "Sticks and stones will break your bones but names will never hurt you". Apparently people today are not as emotionally robust as their ancestors were.
Why conservatives should not respond to Leftist abuse: "Never wrestle with a pig, because you'll both just get dirty, and the pig likes it.”
The KKK were members of the DEMOCRATIC party. Google "Klanbake" if you doubt it
A phobia is an irrational fear, so the terms "Islamophobic" and "homophobic" embody a claim that the people so described are mentally ill. There is no evidence for either claim. Both terms are simply abuse masquerading as diagnoses and suggest that the person using them is engaged in propaganda rather than in any form of rational or objective discourse.
Leftists often pretend that any mention of race is "racist" -- unless they mention it, of course. But leaving such irrational propaganda aside, which statements really are racist? Can statements of fact about race be "racist"? Such statements are simply either true or false. The most sweeping possible definition of racism is that a racist statement is a statement that includes a negative value judgment of some race. Absent that, a statement is not racist, for all that Leftists might howl that it is. Facts cannot be racist so nor is the simple statement of them racist. Here is a statement that cannot therefore be racist by itself, though it could be false: "Blacks are on average much less intelligent than whites". If it is false and someone utters it, he could simply be mistaken or misinformed.
Categorization is a basic human survival skill so racism as the Left define it (i.e. any awareness of race) is in fact neither right nor wrong. It is simply human
Whatever your definition of racism, however, a statement that simply mentions race is not thereby racist -- though one would think otherwise from American Presidential election campaigns. Is a statement that mentions dogs, "doggist" or a statement that mentions cats, "cattist"?
If any mention of racial differences is racist then all Leftists are racist too -- as "affirmative action" is an explicit reference to racial differences
Was Abraham Lincoln a racist? "You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this be admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated. It is better for both, therefore, to be separated." -- Spoken at the White House to a group of black community leaders, August 14th, 1862
Gimlet-eyed Leftist haters sometimes pounce on the word "white" as racist. Will the time come when we have to refer to the White House as the "Full spectrum of light" House?
The spirit of liberty is "the spirit which is not too sure that it is right." and "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it." -- Judge Learned Hand
Mostly, a gaffe is just truth slipping out
Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)
First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean
It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.
It seems a pity that the wisdom of the ancient Greek philosopher Epictetus is now little known. Remember, wrote the Stoic thinker, "that foul words or blows in themselves are no outrage, but your judgment that they are so. So when any one makes you angry, know that it is your own thought that has angered you. Wherefore make it your endeavour not to let your impressions carry you away."
"Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely, and with less danger, scout into the regions of sin and falsity than by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of reason?" -- English poet John Milton (1608-1674) in Areopagitica
Leftists can try to get you fired from your job over something that you said and that's not an attack on free speech. But if you just criticize something that they say, then that IS an attack on free speech
Leftists don't have principles. How can they when "there is no such thing as right and wrong"? All they have is postures, pretend-principles that can be changed as easily as one changes one's shirt
When you have an argument with a Leftist, you are not really discussing the facts. You are threatening his self esteem. Which is why the normal Leftist response to challenge is mere abuse.
The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) could have been speaking of much that goes on today when he said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
I despair of the ADL. Jews have enough problems already and yet in the ADL one has a prominent Jewish organization that does its best to make itself offensive to Christians. Their Leftism is more important to them than the welfare of Jewry -- which is the exact opposite of what they ostensibly stand for! Jewish cleverness seems to vanish when politics are involved. Fortunately, Christians are true to their saviour and have loving hearts. Jewish dissatisfaction with the myopia of the ADL is outlined here. Note that Foxy was too grand to reply to it.
There are also two blogspot blogs which record what I think are my main recent articles here and here. Similar content can be more conveniently accessed via my subject-indexed list of short articles here or here (I rarely write long articles these days)
NOTE: The archives provided by blogspot below are rather inconvenient. They break each month up into small bits. If you want to scan whole months at a time, the backup archives will suit better. See here or here
13 comments:
The government has no right to set a Free Speech area.
And a permit may be required!?
Every public space is a free speech area. If not, why not?
The right of free speech, like all rights, is not an absolute right.
The government has the right (and some would say the duty) to place time, place and manner restrictions on speech.
For example, protestors cannot block a freeway. (They may try, but it is against the law.) No one has the right to set up a band in a public cul de sac and start blasting music at 3:30 AM. People can be removed for disrupting a government meeting even though they are speaking about political issues.
In a park such as the one in the picture, does a speaker have the right to come and stand on your picnic table and start blasting out messages with a megaphone?
The issue is always going to be that there are times when "rights" clash. Time, place and manner restrictions are often overly broad and overly used, but there is a balance that must be sought when the rights of one person clash with the rights of another.
@ 5:27
It always seems to me that the those that choose to create havoc on legitimate protests (i.e. the socialist left) are given a free pass whereas those on the right who choose protest are held to different standard. The left are more likely to stage protests of the type you object to, as would I, but the right are more likely to fall foul of the law. Go figure.
"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."
— First Amendment
The entire United States is a free speech zone. But note the word I've highlighted. The First Amendment does not protect violent or abusive "speech".
So you think repeated death threats over a disagreement is protected by the First Amendment? You think rioting, looting, and arson are protected by the First Amendment? You think publicly lying about someone to destroy their life is protected by the First Amendment? You think shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is none (causing people to die) is protected by the First Amendment?
Abolish the National Park Service they have no right to set aside areas when we can express out 1st Amendment rights
Dear Luke,
Thank you for creating all those arguments which I did not advance. It must be wonderful to sit there and type angrily in agreement with yourself.
Adults admit when they make mistakes Luke. There is no shame in it.
You blew your initial point and are now trying to walk it back.
Luke never accepts he's wrong, whether over religion or other opinions.
"Thank you for creating all those arguments which I did not advance."
Those were precisely the kinds of things I had in mind when I made my post. Therefore, YOUR initial response was "creating arguments which I did not advance.
Your first example is no more enforceable than thefts of pocket change. Your second is debate over the propriety of war, which is unavoidable and necessary within nations.
Luke,
Those were precisely the kinds of things I had in mind when I made my post.
Too bad you didn't say those things and instead put out other thoughts that were incorrect. I addressed the things that you wrote, not the things that were floating around in your head that are unknown to the rest of the world.
Your first example is no more enforceable than thefts of pocket change.
Yet that is the very type of speech that you said was not covered by the First Amendment.
To further compound your poor attempt at a justification, are you really saying that "theft of pocket change" is not theft and therefore not a crime?
Your second is debate over the propriety of war, which is unavoidable and necessary within nations.
You may take to be that but it is also "violent speech" which you said was not covered under the First Amendment. Now you seem be saying that such a statement is acceptable.
Flip flop much?
Finally, I notice that you haven't admitted that you were wrong on your statement that "the entire United States is a free speech zone."
Still not mature enough to say when you are wrong or what you wrote was incorrect?
And this boys and girls, is why I have zero respect for the left. Word twisting, tortured "interpretations", and straw man arguments are flatly dishonest. I'm done wasting my precious time on a troll only interested in distorting words to engage in hateful attacks.
The First Amendment, by including the word "peaceable", does not protect "free speech" like the events in Baltimore over the past several days. It really is that simple.
If you're having trouble understanding the word "peaceable", try learning what a dictionary is and how to use one.
Post a Comment