"Free Speech" vs. "GET THE H*LL OUT!"

[GinSlinger]

"I could say to you that you do not serve the public good--that nobody's good can be achieved at the price of human sacrifices--that when you violate the rights of one man, you have violated the rights of all, and a public of rightless creatures is doomed to destruction."
-Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged p. 452, For the New Intellectual, p. 98.


Distasteful speech was what the First amendment was designed to protect. No-one would think of infringeing speech such as "I love my mother", or "The government is right". It is the speech that challenges ie "Bill Clinton is a liar" or "GWB wages war for oil" that needs protection. When one comes across an individual expressing thoughts that make you angry try calmly discussing the issue to possibly "set this person straight". Or, just ignore them.

My RKBA and other political thoughts enrage my employer, my father, and even some of my "friends". Should they be allowed to vote my right to speech away from me? Should the Brady Bunch shut down THR as being somehow "unAmerican"?

Please, how can one support one type of non-inflamatory free speech, and not another?

GinSlinger

 

[G-Raptor]

First off, all citizens and legal residents have the right to say whatever they want, up to and including saying nasty things about other people or the government. However, we all recognize that threatening violence, or inciting others to committ violence, is a no-no.

Legal visitors (those with valid visas) also have the right to speak their mind. However, when they use that freedom to promote violence against the citizens or the government, they become "unwelcome guests" and should be sent home.

Illegals only have the right to leave. If they don't want to get booted out, they should shut up and be quiet - although this is usually not a problem.

 

[Raoul Duke]

Tammara, I wasn't sure whether you put this in your post in jest or not:
>>So we could hold them without trial? Search their rooms while they were out and tap their phones? Deny them legal representation and "encourage" them to confess if held?

That would make the U.S. a real primo tourist destination. Right up there with Murmansk and Karl Marx Stadt. >>

I hope you'll forgive me if you said this in jest, but you do realize that this is happening as we speak?

 

[ahenry]

Tamara,

If someone says or does something that pisses you off, that you find stupid or annoying, then you feel you should have the right to physically assault them?

With qualifications, absolutely. Ever hear of fighting words?


Where in the world did the idea that there are no consequences for ones words come from?! Just a matter of a few years ago people grew up and lived their lives with the clear understanding that everything they did and said had consequences. Our nation has been greatly harmed by the loss that concept.

 

[nemesis]

Learning English however should not be required.

Balderdash! That is pap.

One of the many reasons that this country is in jeopardy today is that there is no longer sufficient incentive for immigrants to become an active part of our nation. Why should they? They can just bring their own here.

That is happening on our southern border, where I live. We have countless numbers of people here who despise America and give their alleigance to Mexico. Why should they enjoy the privileges of this country when they won't accept our common standards?

Please read the following:

As the US began to grow, immigrants started flowing into this new land of opportunity. Immigrants from Europe and Asia made up the majority of the newcomers. Thousands of miles of ocean separated the newcomers from their old homeland. The remoteness from their roots made it a little easier to ‘cut the ties’ from the homeland and assimilate into a new ‘American’ culture. For the last several decades immigration (illegal and legal) from Mexico has increased significantly and is now a major source of immigrants. But the closeness of Mexico made the acceptance of the American culture a lower priority than in the past. In many cases crossing the US–Mexican border is as easy as moving from state to state. In less than a days drive, someone can leave anywhere in the southwest and be in Mexico. The closeness of ones homeland makes acceptance of their new homeland less critical.

 

[Drjones]

Drjones,
Let me get this straight.

If someone says or does something that pisses you off, that you find stupid or annoying, then you feel you should have the right to physically assault them?

And you allege that you carry a gun in public?

Tam, I was reading over my replies, and I do not know what I said that could have caused anyone to infer this about me.

Of course I do not think or feel that way.

However, if someone exercised their right to free speech by saying or doing something grossly offensive and/or disgusting, I wouldn't be too upset if someone else exercised their ability to smack 'em a good one.

A perfect example are the scum who picketed with all those signs at Matthew Shepards' funeral: you know, things like "God hates fags" and other sweet sentiments.

If any sort of harm were to come to people like that, I wouldn't cry.

Again, this is NOT to imply that anyone should have the RIGHT to do it...

Or if someone says "your sister is a _____ . " Would you really be surprised if they got a black eye or two???

 

[doseyclwn]

While I may regard flag burning as distasteful, I can't see the logic in saying "It's okay to beat them up for it". I definitely don't believe the government should have any more right to stop that than I believe they should be able to stop me from carrying a firearm to protect myself. I think the community they live in/protest in can deter that via their attitudes.

I like what pax had to say about the original intent of flag-burning. Most protesters today have no idea what they are protesting against. They want to be cool like Cheech and Chong and they believe protesting is a part of this. Most of those folks could probably care less what happens to an Iraqi civillian or to an afhghani civillian. Some of them do. They burn flags to 1)Look cool and 2)Make people look like idiots by going after them physically.


One example. Here in Richmond, VA, the World Church of the Creator had some meetings at some local libraries. Local NAACP activists got all in an uproar about it and there were hundreds of protesters at the meetings, causing all kinds of chaos. What if they all decided that these White Supremacist wackos weren't worth their time and ignored them, no news coverage no protests. My guess is the group wouldn't last too long. People that do crap like that feed off of publicity.

That being said, I do believe illegal immigrants should be shipped back.

 

[grampster]

g-raptor has the essence of it: Illegal Aliens are ILLEGAL. They have the right of due process just prior to getting the boot. Nothing else. Arrest them, bring them before a magistrate, demonstrate probable cause, provide a trial and deportation or legal status depending upon the evidence. No school, no welfare, no false allusions, no nothing except due process.
Diversity......Bah, double bah. America does not stand for diversity. That is a bunch of Liberal Crap. Have any of you who promote that BS ever actually looked up the meaning of that word in the dictionary? What America truly is is a bunch of diverse people who came together and abrogated their diversity, tried to blend in and become American. We are a "melting pot". The implication of that is that it is a dish that is made up of many and varied ingredients, but it is in fact, in the end, a NEW dish by itself. That is not diversity. The implication of diversity is of separation not unity. It is like the buffet before you heap it on your plate and stuff it in your pie hole. America is after the meal is over and it is well tucked away and nourishing the body and the spirit. People who promote diversity, want to tear us down. Be careful about continuing the misunderstanding of this word. Teddy Roosevelt wrote and posed the question that if a man leaves his homeland and comes to America and refuses to assimilate into our American culture, what is he? Roosevelt posited that he was "nothing". He no longer was what he was because he ran away from there. He was certainly not an American because he refused to be one of us. Roosevelt said it would be better for that man to "be set adrift in a boat in the sea". The American culture is strong because our varied backgrounds, beliefs and cultures have given us a wide history and perspective. This is what makes us strong, E Pluribus Unum, from the many, one.
grampster, end of rant!

 

[2dogs]

grampster

Ah, the wisdom of (I assume) age.

Nicely put.

 

[Mark Benningfield]

Civil Rights

Hello All.

As I understand it, the Constitution confirms the fact that the people have certain rights that the government may not infringe upon. So, as I see it, only the government may violate a person's civil rights. The First Amendment says that the government may not lock you up for saying what you want, or printing it, or publishing it. That does not mean that you do not have to pay the social penalty for saying it, printing it, or publishing it. If someone were to burn Old Glory in front of me, I would punch him square in the mouth. I am not violating his protection under the First Amendment, because the First Amendment protects him from the government, not me. What I am doing is assaulting him, for which he can seek redress in the state courts. At which point, it is up to the jury to determine whether or not I am guilty of assault. That's just fine with me. You see, I don't think the Constitution needs any interpretation. The men that wrote it were well-educated men. They wrote exactly what they meant to write. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Seeker]

Good Stuf, Grampster!

 

[Tamara]

ahenry,

If, by "fighting words", you mean that Jim-Bob calling the parentage of Joe-Bob's girlfriend into question entitles him to a repercussion-free knuckle sandwich, I gotta disagree with the concept.

IMHO, the only words that should be allowed to trigger legally-sanctioned violence are as follows:

"Sir, you have insulted my honor. I demand satisfaction."
"Sir, I accept your challenge. My seconds will call on yours this evening."

 

[Diesle]

Amen Grampster. Go ahead on wit it.....!

Diesle

 

[Drjones]

Mark B. & Grampster:

AMEN!!!!!

 

[ahenry]

Tamara,

I’m with you on the dueling concept. However, I also think that the scenario you described, while somewhat mocking, is perfectly valid if you removed the “repercussion free†part. There is a reason we have a court system and there is nothing wrong with the “assaulted†party taking his opponent to court for damages if he thinks he can win. As things stand today, a man can say anything he wants about something or somebody and if I stand up and pop him in the jaw, I’m at fault (certain locals aside, I’m talking generalities across the nation). You have a better way than measured violence to instill responsibility with ones words feel free to mention it.

This is similar to my thinking on defending my property with deadly force. I do not choose to shoot the man stealing something; he chose to risk the consequences for a wrong action. Hmm, I still don’t think I’m expressing this thought well. Lets see, if you make a habit of walking down the middle of the highway and get hit, did you cause the accident or did the driver (look at the intent of that example, don’t get bogged down in the possibilities)? Similarly, if you make a habit of speaking impolitely to others and get popped in the jaw did the hitter cause the action or did you? Did that clarify anything?

 

[cuchulainn]

For the record: I oppose flag burning. I find it offensive for the same reasons everyone else does.

Every time you are physically violent against someone, you risk killing him. A punch can kill even if the puncher does not intend to kill. To fail to take that into consideration is akin to violating one of the four rules.

Never point a gun at something you are unwilling to destroy = never throw a punch at someone you are unwilling to see die as a result.

David Scott said:

and I think it qualifies as protected speech provided the burner buys his own flag.

Bingo. It always comes down to property rights, doesn't it? If it is speech, then it is protected. Period. If it isn't speech, then the flag is property to do with as the owner sees fit.

ahenry said:

This is similar to my thinking on defending my property with deadly force.

Actually it is night and day. If the protester owns the particular flag, you would be using physical violence to infringe his property rights (not to mention free speech rights).

To make your "defending my property" analogy even begin to work, you would need to be protecting one of your rights. What right of yours would you be protecting by assaulting a person who did something that offended you?

ahenry said:

Lets see, if you make a habit of walking down the middle of the highway and get hit, did you cause the accident or did the driver (look at the intent of that example, don’t get bogged down in the possibilities)? Similarly, if you make a habit of speaking impolitely to others and get popped in the jaw did the hitter cause the action or did you?

To make your analogy even begin to work, the driver would need to see the walker, have the option to hit or not hit him, get annoyed and swerve to purposely hit him with the intent of teaching him a lesson. Such criminal assault/murder would be the driver's fault.

Mark Benningfield:

I would punch him square in the mouth. I am not violating his protection under the First Amendment, because the First Amendment protects him from the government, not me.

Nonetheless, you would be violating his free speech rights. As you noted, the right is confirmed, not created by the amendment.

You also would be committing a violent crime by assaulting a person who did not threaten you physically. You would be charged with assault (or worse, even manslaughter) and probably convicted.

Is satisfying a momentary rage worth losing your money, freedom, time, voting rights, gun rights, etc?

 

[ahenry]

Cuchulainn,

How would anything Mark Benningfield or I proposed violate somebody’s right to free speech? Your constitutional right of free speech is protected against gov’t intrusion, not private (as this very board illustrates). We have a system of laws that dictates interaction between one individual and another. We have a constitution that dictates interaction between gov’t and the people. In either of the examples (or analogies) provided, the gov’t is not intruding on anything. Therefore your “Right to free speech†is not being violated.

To make your "defending my property" analogy even begin to work, you would need to be protecting one of your rights. What right of yours would you be protecting by assaulting a person who did something that offended you?

Apparently my example was poor. Allow me to clarify. To make my analogy “even begin to work†look at the point I was trying to illustrate (perhaps poorly). A consistent and firm consequence for an action places the onus for those consequences on the doer. In other words, if you pick a burning log and get burned whose fault was it? Clearly that is an extreme as there is no “fault†that can be placed on an inanimate object. But perhaps this time you get my drift? Lets change this situation some. Suppose the law allows for you to spit on somebody every time that person says the word government but at no other time can you spit on a person. If we are carrying on a conversation and I say government and you spit on me, who is in the wrong, you or me?

You also would be committing a violent crime by assaulting a person who did not threaten you physically. You would be charged with assault (or worse, even manslaughter) and probably convicted.

This is not necessarily correct. The Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine of fighting words, and while I think its a risky bit to rely on, the fact that it is part of our law is a fact.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I understand why a lot of people get very emotional over a piece of cloth with certain colors arranged in the right way. Many have given a great deal of their lives and energy for the country those colors represent. Those colors have a long and mixed history. The armies that marched behind the US flag won independence from tyranny, freed the slaves, liberated Europe and the S. Pacific, restored an elected government to Haiti, and stand ready to protect us all. On the other hand, they also put down the Whiskey Rebellion, killed the Indians, fought for unpopular dictators in Vietnam, took part in illegal clandestine operations all over the world. This is not to mention Waco, Ruby Ridge, Pine Ridge, Chicago, etc.

All of which is just to say that it's understandable why there are strong feelings across the board about the flag. Why some would want to burn it while others want to beat the snot out of those doing the burning, or have the state handle the matter for them. But when all is said and done, it's still just a piece of cloth. The idea of getting violent over those colors ultimately means exactly the same as Crips and Bloods capping each other over the colors of their hankies. Loyalty to colors is appropriate for high-school football fans. After that, there's no excuse.

 

[Tamara]

ahenry,

Good point on the nature of the Constitution.

The only way getting punched in the mouth for saying something could be construed as violating one's First Amendment rights is if the government implicitly condoned the action by refusing to prosecute cases of mouth-punching for certain words.

I'm of the opinion that once words stop and fists start flying, the interaction between the two people has changed not in degree, but in nature. At what point is it okay to shoot someone who takes a poke at you because you said something he didn't like? I grok your "consequences for words as well as actions" thing, but it's a risky business when the government starts declaring which words give folks a bye on assault charges. Personally, I think "keep your hands to yourself" is one of the basic laws that everyone can agree on.

 

[ahenry]

The only way getting punched in the mouth for saying something could be construed as violating one's First Amendment rights is if the government implicitly condoned the action by refusing to prosecute cases of mouth-punching for certain words.

To an extent, I agree. I take exception when, even if the law allows for prosecution of an action, a particular locations' "jury of peers" has consistently determined that getting punched in the mouth for saying a particular thing is acceptable so the DA stops wasting his time trying to prosecute.

I'm of the opinion that once words stop and fists start flying, the interaction between the two people has changed not in degree, but in nature. At what point is it okay to shoot someone who takes a poke at you because you said something he didn't like?...it’s a risky business when the government starts declaring which words give folks a bye on assault charges.

I think I agree with the point you are making. I think this is a very tangible reason why we have both civil and criminal courts. Allow a jury of your peers to make this distinction. In fact, there is absolutely no reason one location has to agree completely with another location as to what constitutes “inflammatory†speech. Nevertheless, the ability to “enforce†societal decreed “polite speech†is necessary. In fact, courts used to be the accepted method for determining such questions.

As a related aside, have you ever looked at court records from the early days of this country? Its insane how many times people wound up in court, at least it is from today’s perspective. Once I began thinking about it though, I began to understand things a bit better. “Way back when†it was relatively nothing to let an authority, a la the court, determine all manner of disagreements. It cost little in money, time, friendship, or anything else. Going to court over a disagreement didn’t infer the same negative connotation and it was common to be a opposed to somebody in one instance, and then shortly thereafter side with them in another case. It was hardly more than an agreed upon arbitrator, and an arbitrator that allowed for ones peers to dictate accepted actions and even words. Its too bad things aren’t like that anymore.

 

[cuchulainn]

ahenry,

Strong words from me, but we're friendly here, OK?

How would anything Mark Benningfield or I proposed violate somebody’s right to free speech? Your constitutional right of free speech is protected against gov’t intrusion, not private

my (cuchulain's) emphasis

Note that I didn't say that physical assault would violate his First Amendment rights but rather his free speech rights, which exist independently of the 1A. There is a difference between the right to free speech and the right to free speech as protected by the 1A.

I did not claim that prosecution would result from your violating those rights (though such laws might exist in some states) but simply that you would be violating them.

I said the prosecution would result from the criminal act of assault (shaky "fighting words" provisions notwithstanding).

(as this very board illustrates).

The board is private property (Olegs?). Thus he has both the property right and the free speech right to determine what gets said here, and he even could use physical force to enforce that (though I'm at a loss imagining such a scenario). However, Oleg could not cause someone else's website to omit things that offend him, and he certainly could not use physical violence to do so. He could ask or even demand, but he couldn't cause.

Similarly, you would have the right to use physical force to stop someone from burning a flag on your property or a flag which you own. But using physical force to stop a burning off your property of a flag that you do not own is a violation of the burner's free speech as well as a criminal assault (shaky "fighting words" provisions notwithstanding).

In other words, if you pick a burning log and get burned whose fault was it?

Mine. But again, faulty analogy. The log does not choose to burn me.

Do some acts justify physically violent reponse in which the "fault" lies with the initial actor? Absolutely -- threats to life or rights.

Does being offended justify such a physically violent response? No. Does the "fault" of the violence lie with the offensive party? No.

Why is offense sufficient reason for initiating violence? Can the mother of a child shot to death beat me to a bloody pulp to stop me from telling people that her child’s death is not sufficient reason to ban guns? Is her emotional offense any less than yours? Is it any less logical?

To make my analogy “even begin to workâ€

Yeah, that "even begin to work" seemed snide of me, didn't it? I didn't mean for it to be. Sorry

 

[cuchulainn]

Tamara:

The only way getting punched in the mouth for saying something could be construed as violating one's First Amendment rights is if the government implicitly condoned the action by refusing to prosecute cases of mouth-punching for certain words.

But it would nonetheless be a violation of free speech . It was a violation of free speech prior to December 15, 1791, and the ratification of the Bill of Rights did not change that.

 

[Shalako]

So, maybe you won't punch someone in the mouth for flag burning, but how about this (true story):

On 9-11-01, I returned from a surreal morning at the office where we all heard the news and were sent home. As I pulled into the driveway, I see my neighbor seated in his favorite chair in the front yard, smiling this big ol cheshire cat smile and laughing. He says to me as I get out, "now see what your president gone and done? He done got us into a war, fasheezy. America's greed done finally gots them peoples pissed off enough to fight back! Ha ha, I love it! Payback time."

Well, lets just say I had to draw on the most restraint I have ever known. The guy was just gloating about the deaths of thousands of Americans because he thinks people who work towards the productivity of the nation are greedy. I felt sorry that this guys only fault, other than being lazy, was to merely parrot what Farrakahn had told him to think about being an American.

Is this much different than burning a flag? Free speech right?

-Shalako

 

[cuchulainn]

Shalako:

Well, lets just say I had to draw on the most restraint I have ever known.

I commend you. You honored yourself by placing that scumbag's free speech above your emotions.

 

[Shalako]

cuchulain, I can't take credit for honoring that guy's free speech. I made a conscious choice that I would do the world and America a greater good by continuing my life, contributing to our society, and raising younguns, rather than planting that dirtbag six feet under. Conscious choice regarding my freedom, not his.

Thanks though!

-Shalako