Research help for new speech


December 16, 2003, 11:49 AM
High Road friends,

I'm preparing for a speech I am going to record and play on in January about Freedom of Speech. Want to get your thoughts about statements you can’t say, like shouting “Fire!” in public, the “Emperor is Naked”, etc.

I bought a service that allows me to publish on the web audio that doesn’t require you to download anything to hear it. Just click and enjoy. I wanted to make it so I could provide a monthly oration (sounds nasty doesn’t it?) for subscribers but I may just do it every now and then in a pay per event kinda deal and everyone that pays for one gets the rest for free. Please consider subscribing to it.

Any who, help a brother out and send me your thoughts of things you can’t say though we have the freedom to speak in America.


If you enjoyed reading about "Research help for new speech" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
December 16, 2003, 12:46 PM
I would imagine that since 9/11, anyone who mentions hijack, weapons or terrorist on an airplane is not very well received.

WR Olsen
December 16, 2003, 01:06 PM
Political Correctness is rampant. For example mentioning that minorities have the same rights of individual protection as any one else is greetedwith horror by the eloi if you mention that those rights include the 2nd Amendment.

Also there seems to be a desire for big brother to rule individual behavior. The Seattle City government just passed legislation that will deny trash pickup to any one who does not seperate their trash and recycle material. One tin can and you are banned!

The Reaper
December 16, 2003, 01:16 PM
So long as your speech does not cause harm, go for it.

Do not yell fire in a crowded theater, the resulting panic is sure to cause harm. Yelling fire in an alley while being attacked is perfectly acceptable.

Having said that I suppose it is up to our <ahem> justice system to actually determine if there was harm done.

December 16, 2003, 01:25 PM
I hate the "Fire in a theater" example. In point of fact, doing so is perfectly justified... if there is a fire.
Anyway, good luck w/ the site. Good to see someone stand up to the Al Sharptons of the world.

December 16, 2003, 01:25 PM
What if I yell fire and nobody panics? If the prohibition on yelling fire has to do with the resulting harm it could cause, then it is nothing but prior restraint.

Which of course, would today be seen as OK, but is not a moral argument. Prior restraint is unconsitutional...or used to be anyway.

Yelling fire has nothing to do with causing panic. If you yell fire in a crowded theater you are disrupting the proprietors ability to do business. It's a property rights issue. The theater is private property and by yelling fire you are infringing on the owners rights.

- Gabe

Phil Ca
December 16, 2003, 01:42 PM
Kenn, I read on the net recenctly about the PC crowd in Canada and their latest ploy in monitoring conversation in public places. It seems that the RCMP is being assigned to go in civilian clothes to restaurants and coffee shops and sit around drinking coffee and listening to people talk. If they overhear a customer make a comment about waitstaff or other people of minority race in a derrogatory way, they are to accost those making the comments and issue them a citation. I would have to do some research to get the full facts.

If we ever lose our 1st Amendment rights in this country we might as well be prepared for the ultimate showdown.


BTW, Where were you and in what agency as a federal officer? I spent 27 years with the USTD.

PS, I like your website but subscribing will have to come after we recover from being put out of business and pay off all our debts.

December 16, 2003, 09:38 PM
Yo Kenn!

Last time I checked, you can still say the emperor is butt naked.

Legally, you can't incite panic or riot, or say "Do/Don't Vote For X" on a TV ad 60 days before an election.

Furthermore, if you commit a crime against someone, and utter an epithet during the commision of said crime, it becomes 100% more evil, and is designated as a "hate crime". (Basically, this teaches the haters to shut the heck up while they administer their beatings...dubious thing, that.)

PC wise, you basically can't mention any minority without people squirming, especially if it's anything other than endorsing their status as victims. (Unless, of course, you happen to plausibly be a member of said minority, in which case you get a free ride to say whatever you want)

Depending on where you are, you may encounter chastisement for suggesting that any non designated victim group or group with power has any sort of virtue whatsoever.

These are all offenses against the victims (lesse' victime' ?) Any suggestion that the victims aren't victims, or that they contributed in even the slightest way to their plight, that the oppressors don't oppress, or to demonstate nothing less than total, personal culpability and contrition for every social ill in the known universe invites censure.

Finally, introducing such time honored tools such as logic, empiricism, the scientific method, or mathematics into the debate is to "use the tools of the white european male oppressors", and therefore any result of such a tool of oppression is invalid.

2+2 Does In Fact = 5.

December 17, 2003, 03:45 PM
You're right. I'm hoping that hearing my words may incite the fire under some butts in 2004. I have to keep trying. Keep them comings, mates!


Elmer Snerd
December 17, 2003, 04:36 PM

December 17, 2003, 04:50 PM
that freedom of speech does not extend to the removal of stereotypes.

For instance, Kenn Blanchard being a "Black Man With a Gun" is not afforded the same respect and aura of authority as the more politically correct black men.

If Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson makes some wild eyed, airhead statement, the entire US press corps hangs on every word.

If Kenn Blanchard says home owners of any color should be able to own a weapon to defend home and family, he's pretty much ignored. Or at best, trivialized.

Of course, I think Sharpton and Jackson are both phonies and opportunists; whereas Blanchard is a stand up guy. That may account for the press corps ignoring me, too.

The most damning indictment of the "media" is the rather blatant self-censorship of current news events.
For instance, every US serviceman wounded or killed in Iraq or Afghanistan gets reported in detail; however, that schools are open and functioning in greater numbers in Iraq than ever before is ignored. That the public life and life of regular people in Iraq is the best it has been in the last thirty years does not get mentioned.
Ever wonder how or why the "media" can't keep up with the news?

El Tejon
December 17, 2003, 09:20 PM
Black, I'm confused (gee, what's new). What exactly are we commenting upon? Non-protected speech categories? Fighting words? Criminalization of defamation? False statements? Perjury?

What's the . . . wait for it . . . dealie-o?:confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Research help for new speech" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!