On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:44:48 -0400, SODDI wrote:
> "Radix Lecti Artemia Salina" <y2k@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:9amdnZwlhogUjLfanZ2dnUVZ_tvinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Thu, 01 Nov 2007 13:16:58 -0400, SODDI wrote:
>>
>>> As for public "free speech"? That WAS a nice idea, wasn't it? But, in
>>> the
>>> days of "designated demonstration" zones and "don't tase me bro", I
think
>>> that part of the Constitution has been relegated to the status of more
of
>>> a
>>> general set of suggestions than an principle.
>>
>> Do you consider harassment and disruption to be just "free speech?"
>
> Absolutely.
>
> I think that free speech means that there's going to be a whole lot of
> shouting going on. It would be sloppy and untidy and nasty and necessary
-
> if it didn't exist.
>
> As for "harassment and disruption", that all depends on whose ox is
being
> gored.
If I send a small group of people with bullhorns into a crowd you are
trying to talk to and they scream into the ears of your listeners to the
point that they can't hear you, or are so distracted that they can't focus
on what you're saying, then I and my band of noise makers have effectively
censored you.
>> There is such a concept as appropriate venue.
>
> But WHO determines WHERE an appropriate venue is? That has always been a
> political decision and it is used to SHUT UP political opponents.
It doesn't shut them up, and you know it.
> Back to the "dedicated demonstration zones"... 3 miles away from the
> political party's convention for the party's opponents. Sup****ters can
> demonstrate to their hearts' content right outside.
And sup****ters of the opponents can go to the DDZ to hear the speaker
speaking freely about whatever they like.
> I think that free speech rights or other im****tant rights have rarely
> existed in this country.
I think they exist just fine and are exercised all the time.
> I think the Constitution is a bloody rag that
> we wave at other countries to show how much better we are than them
> while rarely upholding it ourselves.
I think that's crap.
> And, being as cynical as I am, I'm just glad FOR ONCE to see ultra-right
> religious kooktards get theirs. Right, wrong, I don't care.
>
>> If you are trying to speak and I succeed in shouting you down, haven't
>> I impinged YOUR right to free speech?
>
> No. You were just LOUDER. FOX News is a lot LOUDER and covers more area
> than I do.
But they don't drown you out and prevent you from speaking your mind,
or prevent others who WANT to hear you from hearing you. That's because
you and FOX are in your appropriate venues. Or at least separate venues.
>> The Phelps were and are free to protest about anything they like in,
>> for example, a public park, or preferably the middle of a cypress swamp
>> in the Everglades, but when they follow someone to a function in order
>> to be disruptive, then we have a big problem. What the Phelps' do is to
>> twist and abuse the idea of free speech with the intent of doling out
>> punishment to those who they feel have offended their god in some way.
>> They have no right to do that.
>
> Sure they do. Just like antwar demonstrators do.
Is there an ANT WAR going on?? Who's winning, black or red??
> Which is not at all.
> They have free speech at the sufferance of the powers that be.
<rolls eyes>
--
scalpod: How long can one reasonably expect to live without kidneys?
Huey: That depends. How many coffee filters can you hold between your
knees?
|
