Very Disappointed:

[JohnBT]

"If I have to think..."

But thinking is good.

TANSTAAFL

John

 

[Bruce H]

OK Keaner we will live with your rules. Just remember if you tell a lie about me I reserve the right to knock you in the dirt. This is entirely living within your everything is fine rules. Thinking and common sense is a very good thing. Tends to save lots of pain.

 

[Keaner]

A: Bruce: I believe i stated above, there is no constitutional right to assault.

B: The point is: as a listener/reader, you have the responsibility to think about what is read/heard, and not take it as absolute fact! By the shear fact that you reply in this thread with critism shows that you are capable of that! What I am saying is that the listener is to make sure he/she decerns truth from fact, not the speaker to make sure he/she speaks only in fact.

C: As JohnBT says: Thinking is good. Why is it that a few of the people on this planet think that everything that is said is the absolute truth? these are the people who believe the NYPost, or the Weekly World News! Should we as a society attend to the lowest sector, or the ones who have the ability to think?

If you pick the first part, I have a nice clone of Stalin for you, otherwise, we can have the real G.W.

 

[Bruce H]

There is no constitutional right to lie either.

 

[Moondoggie]

OK, Keaner, when you get to the part where it is the listener's responsiblity to discern truth from lies you've gone too far into the abstract.

The only person that I know of with such discernment was "Carnac the Great", and he died just last week! Now what are we to do?

 

[jefnvk]

A: Bruce: I believe i stated above, there is no constitutional right to assault.

Some people consider words assualt.

And if you can go around spewing lies about me, what can I do? You have made it clear that I cannot have you stopped, and I cannot stop you myself. All that is left is for me to ignore it, which may or (probably) may not be an option, especially if those lies start affecting my life; or to sink to your level and start spewing lies about you, which I am not too keen on doing, as it then drops my integrity right down. Either way, I am screwed.

 

[Keaner]

As I've said before, if you make even one limitation to speech, free speech doesnt exist! The second you start limiting, every right is gone. It is a truely sad time in our countries history when the founding documents are being pissed on repeatedly, day after day, and it is SUPPORTED by the people.

Someday in the near future, You are going to be living in a massively oppressive country, and All I can say, is that I warned you. And its not like we have our shot at fighting back any more either. So few americans have Automatic rifles, its not even worth mentioning, yet the government has millions of them. WE would have no shot, because we allowed the government to begin its infringement, and said nothing.

Any time the government starts limiting a right, the country is destined for oppression.

 

[Bruce H]

jefnvk exactly. Free speech is one thing. free speech without responsibility is purely idiotic. Truth is exactly that. Knowingly lying about someone or something isn't free speech but assault on ones character. Think before you speak, we can't all be politicians. If you do lie about someone or something, on being proven different an apology is in order.

 

[JohnBT]

"As I've said before, if you make even one limitation to speech, free speech doesnt exist!"

You can say it all you want, but it does not make it true. It just simply doesn't.

John

 

[Old Dog]

Someday in the near future, You are going to be living in a massively oppressive country, and All I can say, is that I warned you. And its not like we have our shot at fighting back any more either. So few americans have Automatic rifles, its not even worth mentioning, yet the government has millions of them. WE would have no shot, because we allowed the government to begin its infringement, and said nothing.

Okay now ... I see where you're going. If you see this happening, I submit that you must believe that our Constitution is flawed if it would allow this ...

But, I just can't agree with your conclusion here. I have spent some time in "massively oppressive countries ..." The difference between those countries and ours is the bedrock foundation upon which our system rests. And yes, our system provides for us to rise up in the event of a government that begins to oppress us ... Even considering the current assaults on certain portions of the Bill of Rights ... I just don't see this happening.

 

[Moondoggie]

Keaner, you've taken this thread to the level of a rant on the existence/value of navel lint.

No limits = anarchy. Pure and simple.

 

[Waitone]

Anarcho-libertarians (along with marxists, et al.) believe in the perfectability of human nature. I don't buy it.

Human nature is not perfectable so I therefore can not go along with an absolutist interpretation of some amendments to the constitution. The reason for government is to restrain the lawless and punish the guilty. There exists people who have no internal restraints on their behavior. The only restraint that exists is external as feeble as that is. If your concept of governance is limited to relying upon a citizen's good intentions, you are about to experience many unpleasant relevlations. Government will fail if it insists on trying to perfect human nature.

 

[Derius_T]

Keaner, not that I'm trying to rant at you or anything, but your ideas are just
slightly flawed. Now do not get me wrong, I also agree that free speech is
important, and protected, but believing that people have the right to say
whatever they want, and be immune to repercussions, well, its simply silly.
If there were true, there wouldn't be guidelines for 'verbal assualt', or
'verbal abuse', which do carry punishments under law, which is a good thing.
People being able to do or say whatever they want without fear of the
consequences is absurd. You say that stopping free speech leads to
stopping other 'rights'? Well, look at the other side of the coin if you will.

Having total free speech without and fear of consequences or punishment
will lead to people believing they also have the right to do other things
without those same fears. SAY what they want, turns into DO what they
want. If one side can be twisted toward bias, so can the other.

Then you said:

What I am saying is: if people are held to a standard about what they say, THEY MIGHT NOT SAY IT!

And this is always a bad thing? If what they are saying is hurtful, or ignorant
of others rights? Should it still be protected? If what they say in some way
violants MY rights, am I to stand idly by while MY rights are taken?

How about I say the same about guns? What if, in that same movie theater, you have a gun with open carry. The ENTIRE theater freaks out, runs out of the building, and some people get injured? Do YOU get held responsible? No, the people who ran out of the theater are responsible. Just because something will cause damage, doesnt mean it shouldnt be said.

I beg to differ. In FACT (LAW), even if there is an open carry policy in effect
and you were to cause an episode like that, you can and WILL be charged
with 'inciting a riot', 'inducing PANIC', and several others. The same charges
can be applied to things you SAY.

Lets use another instance to demontrate. Lets say I don't like you. In fact,
I secretly hate you for some reason. So, I peacefully set up a protest in a
public area, RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE! Soon hundreds of people
start to show up to my LEGALLY PROTECTED PEACEFUL DEMONSTRATION,
as I stand on my soapbox and tell them about your evil ways! I profane and
defame you day and night! And the crowd grows! They begin to take up
my evil chants about YOU and your family! Now keep in mind, that we are
just USING FREE SPEECH, and have not harmed, touched, or hindered you in
any way. The news comes to cover this protest. Now there are THOUSANDS
FLOCKING to my peaceful protest of YOU! The NATION hears of your evil,
misguided ways! Now, because they HATE you SO BAD, the speech begins,
(AS IT ALWAYS DOES) to filter into other areas. You can't leave your house
without being screamed and ranted at by the hateful mob! Your wife is
yelled at, and called horrible names in the grocery! Your children are the
object of open ridicule in school, and are made fun of and teased NON STOP.
And NOBODY CAN STOP THIS INSANITY....because we haven't touched you,
or phyically harmed you, and WE ARE FULLY LEGAL AND PROTECTED BY OUR
RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH!

See how something like this can snowball? Under your very own
interpretation of the law, this is ALLOWED to happen to you, and NO ONE,
not EVEN YOU, can do anything to stop it, because imposing ANY TYPE OF
consequence for their actions, is infringing on their RIGHTS, and is ILLEGAL.

Of course, people are basically good right? So nothing like this could EVER
happen to YOU! I believe your INTENTIONS in protecting our FREEDOMS are
good and just, and agree with you. Its just that you have to realize that
certain limitations MUST be imposed to prevent this type on abuse.....

 

[buzz_knox]

The writers of the Constitution were trying to balance the need for a stronger national gov't (compared to that of the Articles of Confederacy) with the absolute need to restrict that gov't's actions. The entire Constitution and Bill of Rights was designed around that careful balance. That by itself negates the idea that the founders had any interest in absolute rights. They didn't. They wanted inalienable rights that coexisted with the need for a civil order.

Remember that rights are meaningless in an anarchist situation, where might is the only actual right. Admittedly, they relied heavily on personal responsibility to curtail abuses of rights. That's why it took a while for dueling to be outlawed: you could say whatever you wanted, but I could kill you for it. If the law recognized this (which it did at the time the Constitution was written), then the law recognized and acknowledged a restriction on freedom of speech. In fact, the fighting words doctrine was a legitimate defense for decades after dueling was outlawed. As the gov't interceded in interpersonal relationships, it became necessary to replace the existing boundries with legal ones.

 

[roo_ster]

Keaner wrote:

Yes, I believe that Slander and Libel are completely legal
...
What I am saying is: if people are held to a standard about what they say, THEY MIGHT NOT SAY IT!
...
Griz: my problem is that someone has to draw the line on slander or libel.

Moondoggie wrote:

A study of Hamilton and Burr would reveal how libel and slander were dealt with by members of the high-minded founders in the period when the Bill of Rights was devised.

Zonamo wrote:

Why do you believe the right to free speech should provide you immunity from responsibility for real injury resulting from that speech?

Libel & slander do damage to others. The libeller and the slanderer can expect to be held responsible for their actions. This can be done on an ad-hoc basis, such as the Hamilton/Burr duel, or we can let a jury of our peers make the call.

Back in the day of the Founders, the fear of being called out and killed by the object of your lies kept slander/libel to a minimum. Today we have a looser, more permissive attitude toward lies told in the public square, with lighter punishment...and thus see more lies.

One way or the other, there will be consequences for slander & libel. I think it is better to let a jury of fellow citizens determine guilt/innocence and remuneration.

*******

Justin wrote:

So you'd arrest every single member of http://www.fark.com ?

Obvious parody is protected.

*******

Utopians and their ideas paved the road to the death-camps.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

[P95Carry]

A small reflection - strikes me there are two camps here ... the large and the very small. Neither will IMO agree with the other. Reading back - we have probably gone round in circles several times.

I can't see anything changing that.

 

[Keaner]

I will make one last point that I think is important: Because of the nature of the BOR, the government has no authority to limit them. Clear and simple. The same way a town government doesnt have the authority to create a law that directly violates a federal law, the federal government doesnt have the authority to limit the BOR.

The BOR is a recognition of rights handed down from the definition of humanity. Basically, as humans, we have "god" given rights, as recognized in the BOR. We as citizens may create social norms about the usage of these rights, but we have no right to tell someone they cannot use their right.

This continues into the other thread I just read, about the Iraqi prisoners needing to be treated as humans. THEY are humans, and therefore have the rights as set forth in the BOR. No Question.

 

[buzz_knox]

If I have to think about what I am about the consiquences of my speech, it will limit what I say, which hurts EVERYONE.

You realize that your statement is completely in opposition to what the intent of the 1st Amendment was, don't you? The 1st Amendment was supposed to protect the free exchange of ideas and beliefs, both of which presuppose prior thought. Failure to think about the consequences of one's actions (including one's speech) is a failure to think about said actions and speech itself, and is completely contrary both to the goal of the 1st Amendment and to the burden of personal responsibility the authors intended would govern and guide the expression of one's rights.

We as citizens may create social norms about the usage of these rights, but we have no right to tell someone they cannot use their right.

You are starting to lose coherence in your thoughts, a common problem among absolutists. You say that we can create social norms. Yet, how do we do that except by telling people what is acceptable, and thereby tell them (directly or indirectly) what is not acceptable? If, as I discern from your prior argument, the least infringement on one's rights is the same as the greatest infringement, then you have just argued in favor of what you oppose: the very setting of norms is itself an infringement.

Because of the nature of the BOR, the government has no authority to limit them. Clear and simple.

Question: do you believe that the founders intended that providing information to the enemies of the United States would be covered by the 1st Amendment? If you say yes, then we have a conflict within the document, since treason is a specifically mentioned crime. If you say no, then you don't believe your own argument.

 

[buzz_knox]

Here's another thought: if we accept that one person's rights ends when they infringe upon another person's rights (a standard that I believe we can all agree upon), then we have to determine the limits of said rights and when a violation occurs.

How do we determine the limits? In the best of all possible worlds and given our current society (if we argue for a different society, we don't need to discuss the Constitution at all), it's by reasonsed discourse, after due consideration of the Constitution, which results in a set of rules accepted by the majority and vetted by the courts. Surprisingly enough, those rules become known as laws (with the understanding that civil laws will be guided in part by legal decisions, issued by judges and policed via the judicial and legal systems). If allowed to stand by the courts, the determination of when the law is violated and what to do about it will be made by a presumably independent arbiter. Amazingly, we have just such a system in place, called the judicial system. Yes, I know it takes a lot to assume independence but remember the caveat in bold above.

Now, if you think that the above is far fetched, liberal, what have you, you haven't read your Constitution in a while. You see, what I just described is a shorthand version of how our system of gov't works in a perfect case. And you'll note that at every step of the way, the gov't plays a role in determining where one person's rights end and another's begin. In short, the gov't helps determine the limits on your rights, by acting as the agent of the body corporate of the nation.

 

[P95Carry]

Question: do you believe that the founders intended that providing information to the enemies of the United States would be covered by the 1st Amendment? If you say yes, then we have a conflict within the document, since treason is a specifically mentioned crime. If you say no, then you don't believe your own argument.

Buzz - seems a QED that one!

 

[jefnvk]

As if on cue:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.

It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday.

The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

"These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous," said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. "Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation's future."

The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says.

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.

The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four students saying they took the First Amendment for granted or didn't know how they felt about it. It was also clear that many students do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.

Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.

"Schools don't do enough to teach the First Amendment. Students often don't know the rights it protects," Linda Puntney, executive director of the Journalism Education Association, said in the report. "This all comes at a time when there is decreasing passion for much of anything. And, you have to be passionate about the First Amendment."

The partners in the project, including organizations of newspaper editors and radio and television news directors, share a clear advocacy for First Amendment issues.

Federal and state officials, meanwhile, have bemoaned a lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and history among young people. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on September 17, the date it was signed in 1787.

The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.

The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.

Students who take part in school media activities, such as student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.

About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.

More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.

"The last 15 years have not been a golden era for student media," said Warren Watson, director of the J-Ideas project at Ball State University in Indiana. "Programs are under siege or dying from neglect. Many students do not get the opportunity to practice our basic freedoms."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/01/31/students.amendment.ap/index.html

 

[Keaner]

As if on cue:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The way many high school students see it, government censorship of newspapers may not be a bad thing, and flag burning is hardly protected free speech.

It turns out the First Amendment is a second-rate issue to many of those nearing their own adult independence, according to a study of high school attitudes released Monday.

The original amendment to the Constitution is the cornerstone of the way of life in the United States, promising citizens the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly.

Yet, when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.

"These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous," said Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which sponsored the $1 million study. "Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation's future."

The students are even more restrictive in their views than their elders, the study says.

When asked whether people should be allowed to express unpopular views, 97 percent of teachers and 99 percent of school principals said yes. Only 83 percent of students did.

The results reflected indifference, with almost three in four students saying they took the First Amendment for granted or didn't know how they felt about it. It was also clear that many students do not understand what is protected by the bedrock of the Bill of Rights.

Three in four students said flag burning is illegal. It's not. About half the students said the government can restrict any indecent material on the Internet. It can't.

"Schools don't do enough to teach the First Amendment. Students often don't know the rights it protects," Linda Puntney, executive director of the Journalism Education Association, said in the report. "This all comes at a time when there is decreasing passion for much of anything. And, you have to be passionate about the First Amendment."

The partners in the project, including organizations of newspaper editors and radio and television news directors, share a clear advocacy for First Amendment issues.

Federal and state officials, meanwhile, have bemoaned a lack of knowledge of U.S. civics and history among young people. Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, has even pushed through a mandate that schools must teach about the Constitution on September 17, the date it was signed in 1787.

The survey, conducted by researchers at the University of Connecticut, is billed as the largest of its kind. More than 100,000 students, nearly 8,000 teachers and more than 500 administrators at 544 public and private high schools took part in early 2004.

The study suggests that students embrace First Amendment freedoms if they are taught about them and given a chance to practice them, but schools don't make the matter a priority.

Students who take part in school media activities, such as student newspapers or TV production, are much more likely to support expression of unpopular views, for example.

About nine in 10 principals said it is important for all students to learn some journalism skills, but most administrators say a lack of money limits their media offerings.

More than one in five schools offer no student media opportunities; of the high schools that do not offer student newspapers, 40 percent have eliminated them in the last five years.

"The last 15 years have not been a golden era for student media," said Warren Watson, director of the J-Ideas project at Ball State University in Indiana. "Programs are under siege or dying from neglect. Many students do not get the opportunity to practice our basic freedoms."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/0...t.ap/index.html

I change my mind... Americans are too stupid to have the Bill of Rights. We would be better off with a dictatorship it seems... now if only we have a dictator locked away somewhere we could give control of our government to.... (perhaps Bush WAS onto something!)

 

[Justin]

Keaner, perhaps you can clarify for me, but it seems that in your ideal society I could happily go about town or even in the media spreading lies about you, and you would have absolutely no recourse.

It seems to me that being held responsible for destroying someone else's life with out-and-out lies is no more an abrogration of the first amendment than denying one the "right" to shoot anyone he pleases is a violation of the second.

 

[Keaner]

The thing about the First amendment is: it applies to EVERYONE. So just because you were to say something about me, doesnt mean I wouldnt be allowed to refute it.

Also, in a true society, lying about me would absolutely not be in your best interest, like the "boy who cried wolf", I would only need to prove you wrong once, and noone would ever believe you again. AND, because people would always take what they hear with a grain of salt (as any intelligent person already does), they could prove you a to be lying immediately.

Unfortunately, the current american society celebrates the people who would believe anything that is told to them, so people are not TOUGHT to be cynical of what they hear. Politicians do that, because a stupid person is an easy person to trick.

Unfortunately, that IS america today. Although, I do feel that once rights are returned to the public, people will start educating themselves slightly more.

 

[jefnvk]

Just playing Devil's advocate here. The argument that every word was put into the constitution for a reason is often used for all civil rights arguments. I went back and reviewed the exact text of the first amendment. For other's sake, here it is:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

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.

Note how the amendment says that Congress shall not limit abridge the freedom of speech. Can that be read to interpret that any local governments can decide that particular language is vulgar?