Free Speech versus Inevitable Violence

Stuff we should click on.  Be sure to state Not Work Safe, if applicable.  KTHX.
Vince
Posts: 8624
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Post by Vince »

I've never understood why they couldn't force them to protest somewhere else like they do at the national conventions at election time. Here's where you get to express your freedom of speech.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 56735
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

Vince wrote:I've never understood why they couldn't force them to protest somewhere else like they do at the national conventions at election time. Here's where you get to express your freedom of speech.

I've only seen "Free Speech Zones" behind the barbed wire at the Democratic Nat'l Convention. Are they doing it at the RNC, too?

And the reason they don't have it at the funerals is because politicians are more important than regular people.




Edited By GORDON on 1271215014
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

Where do we say what is ok and not ok to say?

Which "we?" We, the governing body of this nation (supposedly), or we, the citizenry of this nation? The proper response from the government is to defend their right to their rally if it fulfills the legal definition of a legit protest. I'll grant them that.

What I'm arguing is that the government shouldn't go out of its way to protect people who either : (i) have inherently provocative beliefs & try to force them on others or (ii) try to pick a fight by making blatantly inflammatory remarks. If I stood on the steps of Congress tomorrow and shouted to the skies that they're all baby-eating zombie cannibals who rape puppies and have kittens drawn & quartered for their own personal amusement, I'd be hauled away to jail, period, no questions, no reprieve, no nothing, fuck the correct protest forms.

A satisfactory situation would be one if the reverend, or one of his followers, just says the wrong shit to the wrong mourner (in plain sight of couple dozen witnesses, preferably on tape or video, too) & sets him off. After god's servant has a couple of his limbs broken in a heated scuffle, the church brings a charge against the mourner, who walks away with a mandatory misdemeanor (perhaps a small fine plus community service or something) in light of the extenuating circumstances.

God protects fools and small children

Fortunately, he's explicitly cut out from the government's thought process. And there's plenty of places in the Bible where god kicks the ever-loving shit out of fools or sends someone to do it in his place. It's a violation of logic to do stupid shit intentionally & not expect negative consequences. The government probably shouldn't stop the dumb-asses from protesting, but there comes a point where they might want to let society sort itself out.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 70456
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

I've only seen "Free Speech Zones" behind the barbed wire at the Democratic Nat'l Convention.


These were quite popular at all the leftie protests and rallies during the Bush years. They claimed they were there for everyone's safety. Apparently, the left is very violent.

What I'm arguing is that the government shouldn't go out of its way to protect people who either : (i) have inherently provocative beliefs & try to force them on others or (ii) try to pick a fight by making blatantly inflammatory remarks.


Malcolm, I couldn't agree with you more, however there's a problem with that thinking.

Someone is still making the call as to what is provocative and/or picking a fight. That someone is going to be the party in power at that moment.

So if you say this church's speech isn't protected under the first amendment, what's to stop Obama from saying the tea party protests aren't protected speech or Bush from ending the aforementioned left wing protests?
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

I would really hate to see free speech curtailed to limit this sort of behavior. As much as I hate this church, I firmly believe there should not be a law (or solid court precedent) against what they are doing.

On the other hand, I also hate that there is a law against beating the crap out of them for it.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Malcolm
Posts: 32040
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 1:04 pm
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Malcolm »

Leisher wrote:So if you say this church's speech isn't protected under the first amendment, what's to stop Obama from saying the tea party protests aren't protected speech or Bush from ending the aforementioned left wing protests?

Their speech is protected, as in the gov't can't do anything to stop them from saying it. They can protest all they want.

If Potter Stewart said of pornography, "I know it when I see it," then why can't you apply that logic to words? I probably couldn't come up with a definitive list of "things to yell at a funeral that could result in serious physical injury," but I sure as hell can tell you whether or not what you just said was one of them.

On the other hand, I also hate that there is a law against beating the crap out of them for it.

As do I. When France decided to ban the wearing traditional Muslim garb, didn't someone make the claim that a society can make laws against, reject, & ostracize those groups they don't approve of?

Funeral processions on highways & streets already get to ignore traffic ordinances. The laws imply there is something about burying someone that we consider special.

There's also laws restricting your "free speech" if you cross a line somehow. You can't just walk into a public park, set up some speakers, amps, & have an impromptu concert at full volume at three in the morning. You can't make specific threats against someone's life. Fuck, there's states that think flame wars (cyber-bullying) are need to be legally regulated now.

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.

I see nowhere that it says, "Congress shall completely protect, isolate, and insulate the people from the consequences of their actions."




Edited By Malcolm on 1271258472
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
TPRJones
Posts: 13418
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Houston
Contact:

Post by TPRJones »

Maybe there's the solution: anti-noise ordinances. Make it illegal to shout near a cemetery during a funeral because that would be too loud.

That way it's not about what they are saying, but how and when they are saying it, and laws against that aren't as insidious. IMO.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
DoctorChaos
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:58 pm

Post by DoctorChaos »

Malcolm wrote:Funeral processions on highways & streets already get to ignore traffic ordinances. The laws imply there is something about burying someone that we consider special.
I hadn't even considered it in that right. Still, I don't have a good feeling about someone else determining who can say what, where, and when. The difference is, if I mouth off and get punched in said mouth, I probably had it coming and will say as much after I spit out some teef. I wouldn't pursue litigation. These assholes seem to be up to their necks in lawyers so...

I am a firm believer in the expression 'I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Wadda mean? Other people can read this?!
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 56735
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

I'm a firm believer that the world would be a better place if peeps were free to deliver much-needed ass kickings without fear of litigation.

An ass-kicking can be a very educational experience. It can change a life for the better.
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Post Reply