What do you consider freedom of speech?

reply to post by beezzer


ya know, beez... it doesn't make sense to base your consideration of your 'rights' on words that men have put on paper (spelled).

1st amendment... that should tell you right there. You mean to tell me that the 'founding fathers' didn't have the foresight to include this basic freedom in the constitution proper? No... It was foresight that prevented them from including this principle. Their work was to enslave the enslavable. They did a great job, n'est-ce pas?

If you really want freedom, it comes from within. No man can tell you what you are free to do. You just know it, like you know you're in love... balls to bones.

Since taking the view I have on that issue, I have only had a couple of interactions with "law enforcement", and both of them were of the nature of them making sure that I was well taken-care-of.

It's clear to me, through experience as well as logic, that the power the government has over you only amounts to the power that you are right now giving to them. Stop it, and their power stops. But the trick is in knowing how to stop it. We humans have unlimited power to contract. That's part of the rules of this game. Leverage that to your advantage.

ETA: top of page 9. LOL!

reply to post by seamus


the founding fathers did not give us our rights. They reaffirmed our rights that we have as a birth right, and told the federal government to piss off making restrictions on them.

Freedom of speech is it being ok for you to speak your mind, and it also being ok for someone to say you are wrong.
Freedom of speech also implies freedom to walk away and not hear it. If someone interferes with your ability to do so they by default violating the Bill of Rights.
Freedom of speech is not something you get a permit for you already received your permit

Originally posted by seamus
1st amendment... that should tell you right there. You mean to tell me that the 'founding fathers' didn't have the foresight to include this basic freedom in the constitution proper? No... It was foresight that prevented them from including this principle. Their work was to enslave the enslavable. They did a great job, n'est-ce pas?

Spoken like a true Marxist. Since the Constitution was a document that expressed the powers delegated from the People to the Government, many believed (personally I agree) that a "Bill of Rights" was redundant and unnecessary; dangerous even.

The fact that you view it as the "word...to enslave the enslavable [sic]" shows you believe that all power derives from the Government and unless they "grant" us freedom, than we have none. Whereas the Founding Fathers believed that freedom didn't flow from the Government, but from the People; from the Individual who held all inherent political power.

If you really want freedom, it comes from within. No man can tell you what you are free to do. You just know it, like you know you're in love... balls to bones.

It's clear to me, through experience as well as logic, that the power the government has over you only amounts to the power that you are right now giving to them. Stop it, and their power stops.

I am so confused. Your initial comments to this are completely contradictory. I will say though, the above quoted is absolutely correct. The Constitution, sans Bill of Rights, give no power to the Government at all to limit Free Speech, impede on the Rights of Man to defend themselves or even dictate what they think is a "Right" and what isn't.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by beezzer

 

It just disgusts me. The "education" system has let us down bigtime. Most people don't know and understand their rights, or know why they were put there in the first place.

The problem is that government has done such a good job of convincing people that they (government) are the provider of all our rights, so that they can feel justified when they remove them.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by seamus


The fact that you view it as the "word...to enslave the enslavable [sic]" shows you believe that all power derives from the Government and unless they "grant" us freedom, than we have none. Whereas the Founding Fathers believed that freedom didn't flow from the Government, but from the People; from the Individual who held all inherent political power.

Another progressive liberal ideal that we could do without!. Ownbest, You should be on this other thread helping me take down these commie liberals... "It's called being a liberal, is it evil?" Or something along that line.

If I weren't such a moron as to how local government worked. I would like to start having it mandatory that every public school student and every hotel room had a copy of the constitution and bill of rights issued.

Just imagine the mind state of the people If they had picked up one of those two documents to peruse while waiting for the next classs. Or their new date. Maybe even while sitting on the toilet. If everyone had pondered one of those documents, in partial or even in their entirety several times throughout their lifetime, I would bet that America and it's general consensus on things would be entirely different.

9 pages. I don't have time to read them. Several points may have already been made. The 1st doesn't give you the right to say what you want. When it comes to free speech the 1st is a restriction on what the GOVERNMENT can do to limit free speech. This doesn't bind private people and enterprises from setting their own guidelines as to what speech is allowed. Secondly, I firmly believe that your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. You feel you have the right to call my daughter a whore don't be surprised if you need a trip to the dentist, or Emergency.

Originally posted by intrepid
9 pages. I don't have time to read them. Several points may have already been made. The 1st doesn't give you the right to say what you want.

Quite true.

When it comes to free speech the 1st is a restriction on what the GOVERNMENT can do to limit free speech.

Absolutely.

This doesn't bind private people and enterprises from setting their own guidelines as to what speech is allowed. Secondly, I firmly believe that your rights end where mine begin and vice versa. You feel you have the right to call my daughter a whore don't be surprised if you need a trip to the dentist, or Emergency.

Free speech is just that. The ability to express ones self without imposition of the government interference.

If you, as an individual don't like what is being said, then you have the right to express yourself.

The issue is; if you don't like what is being said, then you can't get the government to silence the individual(s).

reply to post by beezzer


Beezer, Do you think telling a group of people to act on something... Like say, stealing gas in order to protest prices Is legal?

Sounds like a dumb question but I'm curious. I think it's not a violation of free speech and I'm intereasted in those that do think it is.

Originally posted by beezzer
The issue is; if you don't like what is being said, then you can't get the government to silence the individual(s).

Hell no. That is why this is unconstitutional:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course we all would like to shut up those asshats but this isn't the way. Once Obama signs that into law this month you can bet that there will be challenges up to the SCOTUS. If they uphold it I'll be shocked.

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by beezzer

 

Beezer, Do you think telling a group of people to act on something... Like say, stealing gas in order to protest prices Is legal?

Sounds like a dumb question but I'm curious. I think it's not a violation of free speech and I'm intereasted in those that do think it is.

It is a violation of free speech because the speech (to steal) is an infringement on the gas owners property and their right to ownership.

Just my humble. . . .

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by beezzer
The issue is; if you don't like what is being said, then you can't get the government to silence the individual(s).

Hell no. That is why this is unconstitutional:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course we all would like to shut up those asshats but this isn't the way. Once Obama signs that into law this month you can bet that there will be challenges up to the SCOTUS. If they uphold it I'll be shocked.

Hence the reason for this thread. I've been stunned, though, with the people that are for it.

I would defend anyone who punched WBC in the throat, but am sicked that the government thinks they have the right to do so.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by foodstamp
reply to post by beezzer

 

Beezer, Do you think telling a group of people to act on something... Like say, stealing gas in order to protest prices Is legal?

Sounds like a dumb question but I'm curious. I think it's not a violation of free speech and I'm intereasted in those that do think it is.

It is a violation of free speech because the speech (to steal) is an infringement on the gas owners property and their right to ownership.

Just my humble. . . .

But how do you figure it's a violation? because You'd be mentioning about commiting a crime?

Do you personally think it's a violation or are you stating that because the supreme court has said that "speech" such as this is a violation of freedom of speech?

reply to post by foodstamp


In my opinion, it is not a violation at all. If people are stupid enough to listen to stupid advice, it is on the dummies that went and did it.

I remember some hubbub a few years back about a radio host suggesting people should go to some church confessional booth and fornicate

It's way different than yelling fire when there isn't a fire, in that case, the words caused immediate consequences, that would never have happened had you not done it.

If you tell someone to do something stupid, and they are stupid enough to listen, chances are they would have done something stupid eventually without being told to do it. Make sense?

Originally posted by foodstamp

If I weren't such a moron as to how local government worked. I would like to start having it mandatory that every public school student and every hotel room had a copy of the constitution and bill of rights issued.

This is a big reason that many who call for limited government oppose the Department of Education and a "top-down" macro approach emanating from Washington D.C. Via the 10th Amendment, it was clear that Congress or the Federal Government wasn't concerned with the "National" education system and that political power was reserved to the States and the People respectively.

As for your idea, it is that very reason why educational policy should remain at the State level. It is far easier to petition your State representatives than to get the Federal Congress to move on anything besides renaming post-offices and making pseudo political campaigning speeches on the floor.

Further not only should the United States Constitution be available (easily accessed in a library at a public school; electronically or hard-copy) but also that State's Constitution. My only objection is forcing private companies to engage in an activity under the force of political strong-arm tactics. But you, as a citizen and free individual have every Right to lobby and possibly supply the copies for their rooms.

If everyone had pondered one of those documents, in partial or even in their entirety several times throughout their lifetime, I would bet that America and it's general consensus on things would be entirely different.

Not many people ponder. Not many people even think beyond their daily conditioned routines that they engage in. Freedom and liberty require an educated and well-informed society. We are hardly educated (on civics, classical liberalism, etc). We are well-*mis*-informed in my opinion and it continues to grow on all sides of the debate. The right tells you this and the left tells you that. The middle just pretends to pay attention but really just hops the fence in the direction it starts to fall in.

Self-governance starts at the smallest level of society; the individual.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by foodstamp

 

In my opinion, it is not a violation at all. If people are stupid enough to listen to stupid advice, it is on the dummies that went and did it.

I remember some hubbub a few years back about a radio host suggesting people should go to some church confessional booth and fornicate

It's way different than yelling fire when there isn't a fire, in that case, the words caused immediate consequences, that would never have happened had you not done it.

If you tell someone to do something stupid, and they are stupid enough to listen, chances are they would have done something stupid eventually without being told to do it. Make sense?

edit on Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:55:30 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

You make complete sense and I agree with you completely. I'm trying to find somebody who does not agree with our opinion. Not that your comment wasn't appreciated because it was.

I guess what I'm getting at is this. And forgive me if it comes across as silly or agressive... Or anything offensive for that matter. Because I have a few drinks in me at the moment.

When people try to put limitations or "exceptions" into the bill of rights, troubles evolve...

I just watched a video on ATS today (wish I could remember what thread) where a guy was open carrying in a state and had been stopped walking down the street for the 6th time (in his words, which I believe to be true).
Now, his argument is that he is obeying the law (disregarding the fact that it's odd he's open carrying) therefore he does not have to provide his ID to the police officers. On paper (Let's say he's right for arguments sake, which, I believe he is) he is correct. However, the police officers argument is that they have been called to the scene by a concerned citizen and therefore have the duty to investigate the alleged crime (in this case, a guy walking down the street with a gun).

Now, the police officers figure they have the right and responsibility to ask for ID in order to check and make sure the man is not a felon with a gun (A felony). The citizen, well, he knows he's not a felon and is in compliance with the law.

Now that right there is where the problem lies. The supreme court has decided that certain law abiding citizen (people who have commited crimes but are no longer a ward of the state) can no longer possess guns and to do so is a felony. So now, it's a police officers DUTY to violate the rights of the said gun carrying person in order to figure if he is in fact breaking a law.

I believe this is a PERFECT example where putting certain restrctions (which were not called for in the bill of rights) as now tarnished a otherwise perfect document (Bill of rights) thus allowing police and government to now infringe on EVERYONES right to keep and bear arms.

And putting exceptions and restrictions on the freedom of speech is what's poisoned the very foundation of all our rights today!

And damnit! I wanna tell someone that!