What do you consider freedom of speech?

the supreme court ruling in "citizens united" is unconstitutional, but, was ruled the opposite anyway..."money" is not speech, a "corporation" has no constitutional rights, it is a business entity decribed in writing, that is structured to reflect on how it will function...nothing more. a corporation exists with the permission of our elected government, and is subject to laws that our elected government chooses to impose, so long as those laws do not edit, change, or modify our constitution, or the amendments added to it. if a corporation does not want to abide by these laws, then they can change over to become a private company, only the people that own this private company would be monetarily responsible for their failure as they would for its success.

corruption, has always throughout history, be predicated on the amount of riches or wealth individuals hold, and how they use it. corporations were set up to socialize losses and privatize gains

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
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.

Yes, quote from your own source

Stay-away orders
These are orders to keep the restrained person a certain distance away (like 50 or 100 yards) from:
The protected person or persons;

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
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.

Um, yes. Twas my point.

reply to post by jimmyx
The CEO has the right and the freedom to express himself as he sees fit.

His right to voice a personal opinion has not changed.

I consider freedom of speech being able to say what I like, when I like, to whom I like, free from Government restrictions and oversight of any kind.

Right to a peaceful protest or gathering is Constitutionally guaranteed, and this right has created many of the best things about America, as well as many of the worst.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


Confirmation bias is a beautiful thing baby. How could you miss the fact that this source makes the clear point that a restraining order is a very specific court order regarding very specific people and places?

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

 

Confirmation bias is a beautiful thing baby. How could you miss the fact that this source makes the clear point that a restraining order is a very specific court order regarding very specific people and places?

Goose and Gander there. You are twisting a relative simile into something specific. www.abovetopsecret.com...

as closer to a blanket restraining order

Your Straw Man tactic isn't confusing me.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


It is astounding to me that you actually linked an article on what a strawman argument is and then apparently didn't bother to read it. I have not misrepresented anything you've said. You are the one who equated restraining orders with restrictions on freedom of speech. You are the one who gave an example of wife beating for restraining orders. You are the one that then ignorantly made reference to "blanket" restraining orders. There is no such thing.

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

 

It is astounding to me that you actually linked an article on what a strawman argument is and then apparently didn't bother to read it. I have not misrepresented anything you've said. You are the one who equated restraining orders with restrictions on freedom of speech. You are the one who gave an example of wife beating for restraining orders. You are the one that then ignorantly made reference to "blanket" restraining orders. There is no such thing.

Strawman fits exactly. You are attacking a simile (look that up yourself as it seems I've done too much of your homework for you already.) S-I-M-I-L-E

The simile was to show my position that the Westboro legislation is CLOSER to [insert simile here] than to a restriction of speech. The scum of the earth are still allowed to spew their hate. They simply cannot use their megaphones to DEPRIVE grieving families of their own speech.

Restraining orders are also a restriction of PROXIMITY and that is the only use I made of the term ... as a restriction of proximity ... which even your own source proved.

reply to post by beezzer

What do you consider freedom of speech?

The total opposite of ats 1.7 million laws on why freedom of speech is absolutely forbidden on this site.

reply to post by jimmyx

the supreme court ruling in "citizens united" is unconstitutional, but, was ruled the opposite anyway..."money" is not speech, a "corporation" has no constitutional rights, it is a business entity decribed in writing, that is structured to reflect on how it will function...nothing more.

That is a rather stunning thing to hear someone say. The Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional? Okay, exactly who defined it from a level above those who define what is constitutional? It's more than simple choice of wording, it's a fundamental point of how the United States is structured. If the Super Court says this or that is Constitutional, then there is the new Constitutional reality until/unless another case comes along that addressed it down the road.

Almost equally important though. Here is a point I just kept my mouth shut on while with Occupy because we sure didn't agree on everything. If Corporations cannot give money to support the political outcome those who form the corporation believe best benefits them......Okay.. Let's think that through?

Exactly how do you see UNIONS as being different? Free speech for all or free speech for none. There are no gradients. The Corporation issue is often beneficial to the Right side of politics....right now. That can sure change quick though, by simple board room changes in enough of them around the same time. I have to accept it either way the cookie crumbles.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by jimmyx

 

The CEO has the right and the freedom to express himself as he sees fit.

His right to voice a personal opinion has not changed.

of course he does, he has that right... as an individual with his own personal wealth, not as a corporation using stockholders wealth or corporate profits. each of the stockholders can express their own personal opinion, which is fine... so long as they use their own personal wealth, and not the corporations wealth or profits.

if a CEO of a company want to use that companies money, that company MUST be private.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


You clearly have no idea who you're debating if you honestly think you have to lecture me on what a simile is, and worse, thinking you can get away with declaring your bad analogy - (look that up for yourself) A-N-A-L-O-G-Y - is worthy of the literary device of simile.

If you were to have argued that restrictions of speech are like putting leashes on untrained dogs, that I would accept as a simile. Your bad analogy is not a simile and only reveals your very profound ignorance of law.

Originally posted by LastProphet527
reply to post by beezzer

 

What do you consider freedom of speech?

The total opposite of ats 1.7 million laws on why freedom of speech is absolutely forbidden on this site.

edit on 4-8-2012 by LastProphet527 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-8-2012 by LastProphet527 because: (no reason given)

In my house, my children also don't have freedom of speech. It's a benevolent tyrrany here.

This is the House of ATS.

there are no T&C violations if you choose to pontificate outside.

reply to post by jimmyx

the supreme court ruling in "citizens united" is unconstitutional

Sigh. It doesn't even take a careful reading of the First Amendment to understand why the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - at least a portion of it - was struck down as unconstitutional. The First Amendment is not a grant of rights, it is an express prohibition on Congress and begins as such: "Congress shall make no laws..."

The First Amendment is not a vague legislative act that is left open for all sorts of absurd interpretations. Congress shall make no laws means what it means, and no where in that First Amendment is their any implicit language suggesting that Congress can get around this prohibition by legislating restrictions on speech if it is a corporation.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Your homework done for you again:

Simile

A simile is a figure of speech that directly compares two different things, usually by employing the words "like" or "as".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

as closer to a blanket restraining order

"As" as in AS.

I have things to do besides argue semantics with a Straw Man.

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


So let me get this straight. You don't think this is a violation of their (Westboro) 1st Amendment right because they can still exercise that right "sometimes" in pre-determined places.

Right?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Trexter Ziam

 

So let me get this straight. You don't think this is a violation of their (Westboro) 1st Amendment right because they can still exercise that right "sometimes" in pre-determined places.

Right?

Funny... We called that a pretty serious violation of our rights in Occupy. That curfew sign the cops pointed to a few times, got pointed to by us too....we just didn't use all the fingers to do it.

The time restrictions this law brought is what makes all the difference in my mind....

reply to post by Trexter Ziam


Scroll back up and take a look at the example of an actual simile I gave. It was not just the use of the word "like" that made this a simile, it was the, as the link you provided explains, it was the explicit explanation of the intended meaning that made it a simile. Your bad analogy was no where near explicit in its intended meaning which was what has generated this pointless debate between us to begin with.

"Arguing with dogs is like explaining similes to cats" is not really a simile even if the word "like" is used. It is nothing more than nonsensical language posing as simile.

reply to post by beezzer


Correct.

They still can spew their hate speech and can even target funerals.

And they still are not restricted from destoying the funerals of victims of the Batman movie shoot-out in any way whatsoever.