masterrig 1 #26 December 27, 2004 No, I meant to say what I did. I just don't agree with some of the Supreme court decisions in regard to the First Ammendment. But, that's just my opinion and, I'll fight for their right to say it, whether I like it or not because, this is America! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #27 December 27, 2004 Fighting words, words (or other "speech") likely to incite immediate violence, encouraging the overthrow of the government, encouraging/teaching criminal enterprises, words likely to directly cause physical harm. That's about all that is not covered by First Amendment. The written words has been included as speech, whether on paper, t-shirts, or posters. Nothing in the First Amendment recognizes any right to infringe on someone else's private property rights, or any right to be protected from other people striking back at your free speech with speech of their own.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #28 December 28, 2004 I'm not sure what you said, then. How has the First Amendment been stretched? How would you have it otherwise? Are we talking about the speech part, or the religion part? Most of the judicial action of late has been with the latter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #29 December 28, 2004 Maybe he was referring to the johnny-come-lately idea that one can say anything he wants, then claim no one can attack him because he was using the first amendment. Some people seem to want blanket protection for their own speech and absolute bans on any negative speech resulting from their own.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #30 December 28, 2004 QuoteMaybe he was referring to the johnny-come-lately idea that one can say anything he wants, then claim no one can attack him because he was using the first amendment. Some people seem to want blanket protection for their own speech and absolute bans on any negative speech resulting from their own. Yeah, it was great in the old days when the cops tear gassed and beat the shit out of protesters. Sorry, it's totally unclear what his complaint is. And it's hard to tell your's, with the fuzziness of words like "attack" and "negative speach." I'm afraid to ask you to define the second one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #32 December 28, 2004 I understand what you are saying and I have to agree with you. As you mentioned, those are exactly the folks I have a hard time with. Folks that try to 'use' the Ammendments for their 'benefit' but, anyone opposing them cannot. "A nod is as good as a wink, to a blind horse!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #33 December 28, 2004 QuoteQuotePersonally, I feel, the First Ammendment to the U.S. Constitution has been stretched, contorted and twisted to a near breaking point. Anything said or written, someone, somewhere is going to take offense. To me, anyone offended by something written or spoken, has the same right to voice their opinion. Someone who writes or speaks something potentially offensive to someone else, should be prepared to hear the responses. I don't know, how far it'll get you... The pendulum swings both ways. It's all there in the First Ammendment. Chuck Did you mean to say it has been constricted? It's hard to stretch it beyond where it started. I believe what he is trying to say is that the interpretation of the first amendment has been skewed well beyond anything that the founding fathers could have ever imagined, let alone, condoned. Common sense and morals used to govern that interpretation, now it is ruled by a system that can't find it's backbone and realise that you CANNOT make everyone happy, and to try is to fail.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,175 #34 December 28, 2004 QuoteQuoteMaybe he was referring to the johnny-come-lately idea that one can say anything he wants, then claim no one can attack him because he was using the first amendment. Some people seem to want blanket protection for their own speech and absolute bans on any negative speech resulting from their own. Yeah, it was great in the old days when the cops tear gassed and beat the shit out of protesters. . Shooting was OK too. (Haymarket, Kent State...)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #35 December 28, 2004 Some people want to believe that the First Amendment offers free speech with no consequences. That's just not the case. If someone says something unpopular, then it is everyone else's right to express their disagreement. THe "protections" of the first are only to say what you want. They do not prevent other people from telling you to take a long walk off a short pier. There are still consequences to free speech. example: -music group dixie chickenheads say something their fans don't like -former fans express outrage and disagreement in very obvious ways -group's record sales falter -group complains theat they were only engaging in free speech and that their fans have no right to be pissed off I guess they think the first amendment only applies to speech that agrees with them.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 December 28, 2004 Quote I believe what he is trying to say is that the interpretation of the first amendment has been skewed well beyond anything that the founding fathers could have ever imagined, let alone, condoned. Common sense and morals used to govern that interpretation, now it is ruled by a system that can't find it's backbone and realise that you CANNOT make everyone happy, and to try is to fail. Yet another vague bitch session, totally devoid of any actual examples. At least Kennedy coughs one up, but sadly a strawman. I don't recall anyone saying that the First guaranteed the Dixie Chicks ticket sales no matter what they do. They mouthed off, got hit with retributions, some said that was too bad, and it happened right on course. Nothing to indicate anything was wrong with the system there. There's nothing skewed about the notion of free speech. You either have it, or you don't. The only judicial action of late running contrary to that is the McCain-Feingold Civil Liberties Repeal Act. If you want to bitch about the state of religion freedoms wrt separation of church and state, you have an actual leg to stand on. But none of you have indicated such, even with several openings given to do so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #37 December 28, 2004 Quote If you want to bitch about the state of religion freedoms wrt separation of church and state, you have an actual leg to stand on. But none of you have indicated such, even with several openings given to do so. That's because we are trying to keep the thread on the topic it was intended to cover. QuoteI don't recall anyone saying... So of course it couldn't have happened, right? The fact is a lot of people bitch when they get hit with those repercussions. They cry about freedom of speech and censorship. The fact is neither have anythig to do with the situation. They were free to say what they wanted. No one censored them. They don't like the reaction they are getting (which, inconveniently for them, is also covered by the first) so they cry about bigger (unrelated) issues to try to salvage what they can.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 December 28, 2004 QuoteThat's because we are trying to keep the thread on the topic it was intended to cover. Well, my point is there's nothing wrong with the freedom of speech. It's doing just fine as a guaranteed freedom. Quote The fact is a lot of people bitch when they get hit with those repercussions. They cry about freedom of speech and censorship. The fact is neither have anythig to do with the situation. They were free to say what they wanted. No one censored them. They don't like the reaction they are getting (which, inconveniently for them, is also covered by the first) so they cry about bigger (unrelated) issues to try to salvage what they can. People bitching doesn't concern me, nor does it have any effect on the freedom of speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Of course people bitch when it affects them. Unless they go to state that "government needs to do something about it," it doesn't mean a thing. So unless there was some serious proposal (beyond bitch about it) to do something in response to the Dixie Chicks flap, it's a meaningless example, yet the only one anyone has offered. The NRA's list of media to avoid is in fact an attempt at censorship. But it's a private effort, so it's perfectly fine, if mildly ridiculous. As we all know, bitching is protected speech too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #39 December 28, 2004 They (Dixie Chicks) said it in England... those folks don't go by our laws, constitution, etc.. Soo, were they 'covered' by the First Ammendment? They pissed-off Toby Keith, too! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricTheRed 0 #40 December 30, 2004 Here's what Desmond Tutu recently said regarding out freedom of speech. QuoteI was teaching in Jacksonville, Fla., [during the election campaign] and I was shocked, because I had naively believed all these many years that Americans genuinely believed in freedom of speech. [But I] discovered there that when you made an utterance that was remotely contrary to what the White House was saying, then they attacked you. For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here [during apartheid]—vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view. It's kinda sad to me that we compare with the aparthied government of SA. We should strive to be better. We don't need to listen to what people have to say if we don't like it but to actively try to silence them is just wrong.illegible usually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #41 December 30, 2004 QuoteHere's what Desmond Tutu recently said regarding out freedom of speech. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I was teaching in Jacksonville, Fla., [during the election campaign] and I was shocked, because I had naively believed all these many years that Americans genuinely believed in freedom of speech. [But I] discovered there that when you made an utterance that was remotely contrary to what the White House was saying, then they attacked you. For a South African the déjà vu was frightening. They behaved exactly the same way that used to happen here [during apartheid]—vilifying those who are putting forward a slightly different view. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's kinda sad to me that we compare with the aparthied government of SA. We should strive to be better. We don't need to listen to what people have to say if we don't like it but to actively try to silence them is just wrong. um, how was he attacked? Was he forcibly silenced by thegovernment? or just verbally disputed with? sorry but I don't know enough details to be able to judge this one way or the other. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #42 December 31, 2004 So he was beaten, thrown in prison, and abandoned for decades for disagreeing with White House positions? I didn't think so. This is what I was saying about people thinking the first amendment only applies to what they have to say, not what others have to say in return. It goes both ways or it doesn't go at all. Suck it up, people.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
