What do you consider freedom of speech?

reply to post by Trexter Ziam

Example - Person A has been physically assaulted by her hubby and got a restraining order against him. Now, if Hubby (Person B) comes within so many feet of abused person A - he's in trouble.

I'm not clear what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that a husband with a restraining order hasn't lost his freedom to beat his wife, merely the proximity in which he can do that has been restricted?

Regarding the Westboro, I dont think restricting any speech is needed. People who disrupt the funeral ceremony or peace on the cemetery can be kicked out of there, cannot they? And if they are outside on a public space, then tough luck, grow a thicker skin. Thats what I consider freedom of speech.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


No sir, not at all. I have no idea how you got that. I was giving and example of what a restraining order is, for people, especially those from other countries that have different terminology.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Trexter Ziam

 

Example - Person A has been physically assaulted by her hubby and got a restraining order against him. Now, if Hubby (Person B) comes within so many feet of abused person A - he's in trouble.

I'm not clear what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that a husband with a restraining order hasn't lost his freedom to beat his wife, merely the proximity in which he can do that has been restricted?

Good point (and thanks for visiting the thread).

If I may, using the same analogy, he'd only be allowed to beat his wife at the times specified by the government.

Originally posted by Maslo
Regarding the Westboro, I dont think restricting any speech is needed. People who disrupt the funeral ceremony or peace on the cemetery can be kicked out of there, cannot they? And if they are outside on a public space, then tough luck, grow a thicker skin. Thats what I consider freedom of speech.

If the funeral was on private property then yes, there are laws already in place (tresspassing etc) that can get them removed.

reply to post by beezzer



People use terms like "rights" and "freedom of speech" more as it suits them, without regard to what those terms really mean.

The Chik-Fil-A thing....the company is free to say what it feels, within the guidelines of policy and the sensibilities of the board of directors. Consequently, people are free to not like it, and to then exercise their freedom of speech as well.

What we hope is that companies that would make a publicly political statement, as well as people who believe that they should match the company's statements with their desire to purchase a product there, are a rare breed. At the end of the day, you mostly are only hurting the employees (who likely agree with you to at least an extent) when you boycott.

Freedom of speech, quite simply put, is the freedom to say what you feel so long as it does not cause provable damage to another person (libel, slander, etc). This is what allows people to make judgments about your character, and either think you are an alright person, or that you really suck. Freedom is a two way street.

My son is gay. When I say gay, i mean "very" gay (which, to be honest, is a silly way to put it....i just lack another term). He ate at Chik-Fil-A last night after work.

To each their own. But I can honestly say that if people would spend less time being offended at various crap, and more time just ignoring it, they would find a more peaceful, less stressful life. Then again, I am saying this on a site where people come to argue (they actually will spend hours digging up evidence to support their argument).

reply to post by beezzer

If I may, using the same analogy, he'd only be allowed to beat his wife at the times specified by the government.

Now that's good government! If you'll excuse my usual pedantry in your thread, we can know what a right is - outside of the right to defense, by its lack of harm. This is why slander and inciting riots is not a right. We do not have the right to cause injury to others. Hurt feelings is not lawfully counted as injury.

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

No sir, not at all. I have no idea how you got that. I was giving and example of what a restraining order is, for people, especially those from other countries that have different terminology.

edit on 4/8/2012 by Trexter Ziam because: (no reason given)

Here's how I got that: A man beating his wife is not a right, and can lawfully be restrained. Unalienable rights cannot be lawfully restrained.

Originally posted by Maslo
Regarding the Westboro, I dont think restricting any speech is needed. People who disrupt the funeral ceremony or peace on the cemetery can be kicked out of there, cannot they? And if they are outside on a public space, then tough luck, grow a thicker skin. Thats what I consider freedom of speech.

Yes, they can be kicked... However, we Americans can be a crafty and clever bunch when necessary.....and when not looking to pass new laws to solve everything.

On Saturday USMC Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers, who was killed in action in Afghanistan April 7, was buried in Brandon, Mississippi.

That, by itself, is a sadly unremarkable – though certainly noteworthy and solemn – occasion for us to mark.

Agreed on it being sad that these things are barely noticed now. but that isn't what makes this good.

What is most notable about Sgt. Rogers’ funeral in Brandon, however, is what didn’t happen.
You see, the troglodytes from Westboro Baptist Church had threatened to spew their poison at Sgt. Rogers’ funeral.
But the Westboro mob wasn’t on the scene, and Sgt. Rogers was laid to rest without incident – thank God.

Surely, a law must have been invoked, or threatened or passed. Right? Nothing changes without new laws....or so we seem to be told every day. So.. How did they keep the rats away?

A couple of days before, one of them (Westboro protestors) ran his mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his arse waxed. Police were called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about what had happened.

Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things that were put into place that most will never know about and at great expense to the county.

Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over. Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the Kansas plated cars could get out.

Source

The link also has a Youtube from the dash of a Trooper's unit, showing the very large turn out by everyone except those who came for trouble.

Now...someone is bound to get all up in arms about the FIRST part of how the area handled their little Kansas problem, and okay...I wouldn't advocate performing attitude adjustments on anyone personally. We're civilized, after all. (That is hilarious though.....no one saw a thing..and I'll bet the guy(s) who did it were standing right there too...)

The second part though.. Aww.. Shucks... Tough thing when Kansas plates suddenly seem unable to go anywhere. Parking and all that... It can be a nightmare can't it?

^^^ Thats how citizens solve problems without politicians. It really CAN be done and don't let anyone say we NEED new laws. Good God, we can fill buildings with the books that contain them now and never have the same one printed tiwce in the collection.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


My opening sentence showed that I don't group this legislation in the freedom of speech category.

As I explained, and will explain again ... the next sentence (paragraph) was for communicating what a "restraining order" is to (readers) people from countries with other terminology.

My following paragraph was to illustrate the particular use of this "blanket" restraining order.

Look at the sequence to see the progression.

It's a blanket restraining order and not a loss of freedom of hate speech.

reply to post by beezzer


I consider anything that comes out of a person mouth freedom of speech. If you dont like what you are hearing well then I guess its to for you to walk away or open your mouth.

Originally posted by mattthew
reply to post by beezzer

 

I consider anything that comes out of a person mouth freedom of speech. If you dont like what you are hearing well then I guess its to for you to walk away or open your mouth.

And it doesn't have to be anymore complicated than that.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


There is no such thing as a "blanket" restraining order in The United States. I don't know why you would want to entrench yourself in your bad analogy. Your explanations do nothing to change my position. Unalienable rights cannot be lawfully restrained.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Trexter Ziam

 

There is no such thing as a "blanket" restraining order in The United States. I don't know why you would want to entrench yourself in your bad analogy. Your explanations do nothing to change my position. Unalienable rights cannot be lawfully restrained.

Where did I ever say I was trying to change your position? I stated my position, and that's that. You'll never change my position and I never tried to change yours. ATS members already have their minds made up ... even when proofs are given (reference to other more scientific thread topics).

There's no blanket restraining orders eh? How about the new one where we can't be within so many feet of the President?

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam


There's no blanket restraining orders eh? How about the new one where we can't be within so many feet of the President?

As stated in my OP, that too, is an abridgment to freedom of speech.

reply to post by Logarock


I didn't know guns could spread complex ideas

reply to post by Trexter Ziam

There's no blanket restraining orders eh? How about the new one where we can't be within so many feet of the President?

The new one what? The new restraining order? Sigh.

Agree -- This is about as basic and to the point as you can get.
Any tampering with it, and you infringe on the rights of others.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by mattthew
reply to post by beezzer

 

I consider anything that comes out of a person mouth freedom of speech. If you dont like what you are hearing well then I guess its to for you to walk away or open your mouth.

And it doesn't have to be anymore complicated than that.

Does anyone else know anything about that 'so many feet within the president' order? I see Obama out there, almost in the crowds at times..However he feels he wants that day.

Rushing the President or doing something rash has always been a 100% certain suicide by secret service agent. I can't find anything about a generalized order for distance from Obama or the President in general?

reply to post by beezzer


That's Freedom of Assembly which IS related to the First Amendment

The United States Constitution explicitly provides for 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'" in the First Amendment.

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

So yes, it abridges our Freedom of Speech indirectly and violates our First Amendment explicitly.