| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:19 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| He did something that is illegal. |
No, he is accused of doing something illegal. I seriously doubt whether he will be found guilty. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bigverne wrote: |
| Quote: |
| He did something that is illegal. |
No, he is accused of doing something illegal. I seriously doubt whether he will be found guilty. |
Same difference. If you violate a law, or are accused of violating the law, you must face the consequences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| That said, certain 'hate' laws need to be tightened up and made much less vague so they can not be used to blugeon true free speech into submission. |
"...if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true.
To deny this is to assume our own infallibility."
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).
"TRUE" free speech? Hmmmm ... double-plus good.
"Hate" speech ( however this is defined - fill in the blank ) stands a guarantee of a society's "free" speech respect & protection.
Creepy state censorship of any kind flies in the face of genuine "free" speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom
Simply b/c something may offend our fragile sensibilities, and we disagree with what is being put forward should mean therefore that it ought to be banned, locked in a cage, or muzzled.
Debated & criticized yes, murdered ... clearly not
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster.
And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
If the state is to regulate the public's verbal expressions what we end up with in the end is merely "CORRECT" speech.
Hardly free.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Evelyn Beatrice Hall writing as S.G. Tallentyre in 1906
(Commonly attributed to Voltaire of whom Hall wrote a biography).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you Igotthisguitar. Those are good quotes.
Free speech is an absolute right. The government has no right to regulate nor make any law regarding its exercise.
Then, there is the oft quoted, logically flawed line written by an IDIOT American Supreme Court Judge regarding fire in a crowded theater. The truth is, it is perfectly legal and within your rights to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. It is none of the government's business if you do. Freedom of speech means the government may not prohibit nor censor you. However, should it turn out that there was no fire, and there was damage as a result, the theater owner and the patrons might have a civil action against you. This action too, is none of the government's business.
Of course, while you have the absolute right to freedom of speech, the theater owner has the absolute right to determine which individuals may enjoy access to his property. If your "free speech" annoys him, he may eject you. Both of these rights are absolute and there is no conflict. Each may be exercised freely and peacably.
This is the same as slander and liable. The government has no right to censor or regulate or prohibit speach or press. If damage results, the injured parties have the right to sue to recover damages.
The government should not be allowed to make any law to regulate any peaceful voluntary actions of the people.
The government should be required to limit ALL laws, rules and regulations to the amount that would fit into a simple 100 page text book, able to be studied and learned in a one year, 10th grade High School course. Any more than that is TYRANNY. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
And, oh yeah!
John Stuart Mill
Murray Rothbard
Read about liberty, these are great for starters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Then, there is the oft quoted, logically flawed line written by an IDIOT American Supreme Court Judge regarding fire in a crowded theater. The truth is, it is perfectly legal and within your rights to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. It is none of the government's business if you do. Freedom of speech means the government may not prohibit nor censor you. However, should it turn out that there was no fire, and there was damage as a result, the theater owner and the patrons might have a civil action against you. This action too, is none of the government's business. |
Lets say the person making the claim had no money?
I tell you what next time you take a plane tell'em you got a bomb in your carry on bag.
Free Speech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is free speech. The government has no business making any rules about it. It is also a private airline. They can make their own rules about disturbing passengers and disrupting their business.
People with no money is an unrelated issue. However, few people with no money fly on airplanes. It takes some money to buy a ticket. Even for a movie.
Free speech is absolute. The rights of the business owner are absolute. The rights of the government are zero.
Liberty or Death. Live Free or Die. Don't Tread On Me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gorgias
Joined: 27 Aug 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm all for free speech, but I don't think it is a matter which can be argued. Everything is absurd. @Igotthisguitar, that "ought" to make sense to a person like you. Sure, we should keep churning out arguments in favor of free speech, because the herd actually think they make choices that way. But far better are flashy advertisements and simple brute force. "One more great effort Frenchmen, if you want to be Republicans!" -Sade; that didn't mean write another essay, that meant: storm the place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 3:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
It is free speech. The government has no business making any rules about it. It is also a private airline. They can make their own rules about disturbing passengers and disrupting their business.
People with no money is an unrelated issue. However, few people with no money fly on airplanes. It takes some money to buy a ticket. Even for a movie.
Free speech is absolute. The rights of the business owner are absolute. The rights of the government are zero.
Liberty or Death. Live Free or Die. Don't Tread On Me. |
Well it is illegal to make bomb threats on an airline. see if U can get the law changed - not that I am in favor of it.
People with no money can be sued but they don't have so much to lose. So saying that they can be sued for false statements would not deter them from doing so too much That is how - IMHO it is related. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
What I'm saying is that the law itself (regulating free speech in any way) is itself an illegal law. The law doesn't have to be changed. The government itself becomes a criminal when it violates the rights of individual citizens. The government and its agents are criminals. When governments violate the rights of the people it is our right and duty to abolish that government (as Jefferson wisely told us). Liberty is paramount to other political issues. Those who would sacrifice Liberty for security will have neither (Franklin?).
These issues are not new. The US government has joined the other governments in the world as a fascist socialist welfare warfare state. Liberty in the US has been in its deathbed since 1914. It passed away under Bush Jr. A rogue nation, as it is so aptly put in another thread.
Of course, it would be a major project to round up and prosecute these criminals. Nuremberg II will have to wait until the people of the world, and especially the US, wake up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| ontheway wrote: |
It is free speech. The government has no business making any rules about it. It is also a private airline. They can make their own rules about disturbing passengers and disrupting their business.
People with no money is an unrelated issue. However, few people with no money fly on airplanes. It takes some money to buy a ticket. Even for a movie.
Free speech is absolute. The rights of the business owner are absolute. The rights of the government are zero.
Liberty or Death. Live Free or Die. Don't Tread On Me. |
Well it is illegal to make bomb threats on an airline. see if U can get the law changed - not that I am in favor of it.
People with no money can be sued but they don't have so much to lose. So saying that they can be sued for false statements would not deter them from doing so too much That is how - IMHO it is related. |
Not true, it can still hurt you. My mother's uncle (way back in the 40's) hit a premed student with his car. He was sued (he had no insurance and no money) and money was taken directly out of his check every 2 weeks. Now this wasn't much for the shouldhavebeen doctor, but it was a lot for the uncle. While there are a few people who don't make legal money (ie don't get a paycheck and pay taxes), they are far and few between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Privateer wrote: |
| Why do we have politicians with so little respect for freedom and democracy? |
Politics is rarely ever about freedom and democracy. At rare, great moments in history, it is. But those moments are often necessary because of the first point.
All fall down. It is all falling apart. Less extraordinary measures, we are in some seriously deep shit. Extreme political tyranny and instability coupled with the coming global warming-related catastrophes...
Scary time to be alive if you are yet young. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| It gives me a chuckle when the liberals say "freedom is dying" and then vote for the bigger-government, less-freedom party. |
Nice cliche. Seeing as how for the last, oh, 25 years only the Democrats have reduced spending and government. Yeah, I saw your little nod to reality, but it was little. You still cling to stuff that hasn't been true since around the time you were born. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
It is free speech. The government has no business making any rules about it. It is also a private airline. They can make their own rules about disturbing passengers and disrupting their business.
People with no money is an unrelated issue. However, few people with no money fly on airplanes. It takes some money to buy a ticket. Even for a movie.
Free speech is absolute. The rights of the business owner are absolute. The rights of the government are zero.
Liberty or Death. Live Free or Die. Don't Tread On Me. |
f-ing a, man. nice post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChimpumCallao
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: your mom
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| joe_doufu wrote: |
| It gives me a chuckle when the liberals say "freedom is dying" and then vote for the bigger-government, less-freedom party. |
Nice cliche. Seeing as how for the last, oh, 25 years only the Democrats have reduced spending and government. Yeah, I saw your little nod to reality, but it was little. You still cling to stuff that hasn't been true since around the time you were born. |
from your previous posts i see that you have a slightly skewed vision of politics and pretty much everything else. democrats centralizing government is NOT a cliche. its the truth. how can democrats reduce spending by promising bigger spending on public programs? it goes against everything the dems stand for which is greater public spending and 'free' programs and services. this can only be done with a more central government that delights itself on taking your money and using it for 'free' programs for those they deem fit.
the republicans are a bunch of centralist statists nowadays too, but to argue that the dems are into reduced spending and small government flies in the face of everything that they stand for and is therefore a laughable statement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
