Is that right? It seems to me that the only people who get any semblence of freedom of speech are right wing nut jobs or religious nut jobs or right wing religious nut jobs.
Is that right? It seems to me that the only people who get any semblence of freedom of speech are right wing nut jobs or religious nut jobs or right wing religious nut jobs.
Then you should listen more closely to the US.
The US Supreme Court isn't a biased body. It's appointed by the Senate based on the Presidents nomination and that ensures both the Dems and Republicans can get equal representation in the court. Neither the right nor left can ever dominate and ensures everyone's rights are protected.
So if a muslim cleric urged his followers to do harm to America and its people he wouldn't be arrested due the constitution as it upholds ALL free speech?
The US Supreme Court isn't a biased body. It's appointed by the Senate based on the Presidents nomination and that ensures both the Dems and Republicans can get equal representation in the court. Neither the right nor left can ever dominate and ensures everyone's rights are protected.
The US Supreme Court isn't a biased body. It's appointed by the Senate based on the Presidents nomination and that ensures both the Dems and Republicans can get equal representation in the court. Neither the right nor left can ever dominate and ensures everyone's rights are protected.
So you would be quite happy for these people to stand outside the funeral of a member of your family and shout their bile and hate at you and other mourners on what will already be an emotionally distressful and upsetting time and the police could do nothing about it?
The fact the US Constitution could allow such a thing is abhorrent!!!
Many states have enacted protest laws regarding funeral protest's and protesters are restrained to 300 feet from the funeral.
So if a muslim cleric urged his followers to do harm to America and its people he wouldn't be arrested due the constitution as it upholds ALL free speech?
I somehow doubt it.
I've already said previously in this thread the Supreme Court will allow restrictions where a greater right is violated (e.g. child porn). Whether the speech you described would be allowed would depend upon its exact content, but if was deemed illegal, it would also be illegal from white supremacists or anyone else.
I've already said previously in this thread the Supreme Court will allow restrictions where a greater right is violated (e.g. child porn). Whether the speech you described would be allowed would depend upon its exact content, but if was deemed illegal, it would also be illegal from white supremacists or anyone else.
There are already all manner of pastor's or cleric's spewing out all kinds of nonsense, some of it anti-American in nature. You've got it right though, only when it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it led directly to criminal activity (there's some legal phrase they use imminent maybe?) that it can be prosecuted. They can dance and sing about 9/11 or anything they want. Is it distasteful, yes definitely, is it illegal, nope.
I've already said previously in this thread the Supreme Court will allow restrictions where a greater right is violated (e.g. child porn). Whether the speech you described would be allowed would depend upon its exact content, but if was deemed illegal, it would also be illegal from white supremacists or anyone else.
So basically the constitution doesn't uphold ALL free speech then. There are restrictions, like the ones you have outlined above.
In reality a load of unelected judges get to decided what constitutes free speech.
Surely that is worse than what we have in Britain?
Here, we have the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, where the democratically elected representatives have ultimate say as to what constitutes free speech, not some unelected judges trying to interpret a 300 year old document in a way that fits their own political beliefs.
Freedom Of Speech shouldn't have limits, because anything that is subject to externally imposed limits is simply not free.
It does have limits because some people are just too precious to get through the day without being offended by something.
Absolutely no limits, not even in schools or at funerals, no need for professionals to tell you the truth. no such thing as a valid contract because freedom of speech must extend to the written word. No freedom to walk the streets without being threatened as threats are merely an expression of an individuals freedom. Is that what you really want? does not seem much like freedom to me
How the Supreme Court could defend the right of these homophobic, religious nut-jobs to harass and verbally abuse people going to a loved one's funeral beats me.
All freedoms are to a certain extent restricted - if only by a sense of responsibility.
However the trouble in the US is that Free Speech is enshrined in it's constitution (which unlike the UK is a written one) and it's laws stem from that - Those things which conflict with the constitution are considered 'un-constitutional'.
Another example is the right to bear arms - clearly it would not be sensible for a child to carry arms into school - however the school cannot search the child for arms because of the right to bear arms.
I do find the duality of allowing Westbro to do clear harm to people, including those who's family have given their lives for their country, whilst on the other hand seeking to block Wikileaks, most interesting.
And was this ruling really about what they can say, or about where they can say it?
I think there are laws that say that they can't physically touch the people at the funeral and they have to stay a certain number of feet away, like across the street or something.
While I think the Westboro Baptist Church are vile, restricting them from protesting would be a dangerous precedent to set. People have a right to say what they want, even horrible things, if it doesn't physically harm others. Of course, I think individual people can sue for verbal assault or can sue if what someone said caused them harm. However, policing speech should be done very carefully. You can't ban all hateful speech, nor can you ban all protesting. So groups like this are allowed to stay.
Another example is the right to bear arms - clearly it would not be sensible for a child to carry arms into school - however the school cannot search the child for arms because of the right to bear arms.
Where the heck do you get that from? Guns are not allowed on campuses and the schools do have a right to search students. Many inner-city schools have metal detectors.
The school officials can't catch every kid, but they catch probably most of them.
Our laws are restricted if allowing the freedom of one is likely to cause harm to another. We have the right to carry guns (which is fine, as far as I'm concerned), but we do have laws as to who can carry them and where they can be.
The governed consent to the infringement of some rights to protect society as a whole. How much the government can infringe is pretty controversial. You need a good balance when it comes to how much input the government has over our lives.
The only freedom of speech that the US upholds is "right wing freedom of speech and might is right"
:rolleyes:
I don't see MSNBC or FOX news guys getting thrown in jail, unless I missed it. Freedom of speech is not based on party.
The Supreme Court probably isn't biased, considering you have nine members from different parties appointed at different times. They also don't always vote the way they are expected to.
So you would be quite happy for these people to stand outside the funeral of a member of your family and shout their bile and hate at you and other mourners on what will already be an emotionally distressful and upsetting time and the police could do nothing about it?
The fact the US Constitution could allow such a thing is abhorrent!!!
Free speech is not allowed on the basis that it is not harmful. We all hear things we don't like, even hurtful things. However, should these late show hosts have been arrested for calling Oprah fat? Or should celebrity gossip columnists be arrested for what they say?
Granted, what the Westboro Baptist Church says is much worse, but free speech is restricted when it causes harm to other people. Hurt feelings don't generally count as harm. If hurting someone's feelings was illegal we all would have been arrested and in jail years ago.
Where the heck do you get that from? Guns are not allowed on campuses and the schools do have a right to search students. Many inner-city schools have metal detectors.
The school officials can't catch every kid, but they catch probably most of them.
My first visit to the US when the Supreme court ruled exactly as I said - thing was on the same day - a teacher was shot in the leg by one of her pupils.
The reason being that all law in the US stems from the written constitution - of course laws are framed in such a way that they contrevene the constitution - The McCarthy hearings being a fairly clear breach of the right to free speech - but then are subject to the same revision later on.
This is another example; the constitution allows something but was not framed for a more grey interpretation - so it is allowed against all common sense.
That is one of the advantages of having an 'unwritten' constitution - in that laws can be framed for the prevailing conditions and not those of 200+ years ago.
That would be their pesky First Amendment which permits Free Speech.
It seemed to work for a couple of centuries - but I guess as common courteousy disappeared along with other good manners, some people have asked for certain limits to be imposed on what people can say.
My first visit to the US when the Supreme court ruled exactly as I said - thing was on the same day - a teacher was shot in the leg by one of her pupils.
The reason being that all law in the US stems from the written constitution - of course laws are framed in such a way that they contrevene the constitution - The McCarthy hearings being a fairly clear breach of the right to free speech - but then are subject to the same revision later on.
This is another example; the constitution allows something but was not framed for a more grey interpretation - so it is allowed against all common sense.
That is one of the advantages of having an 'unwritten' constitution - in that laws can be framed for the prevailing conditions and not those of 200+ years ago.
Thats strange Paul. Looks like we've found something that we can actually agree on:)
My first visit to the US when the Supreme court ruled exactly as I said - thing was on the same day - a teacher was shot in the leg by one of her pupils.
The reason being that all law in the US stems from the written constitution - of course laws are framed in such a way that they contrevene the constitution - The McCarthy hearings being a fairly clear breach of the right to free speech - but then are subject to the same revision later on.
This is another example; the constitution allows something but was not framed for a more grey interpretation - so it is allowed against all common sense.
That is one of the advantages of having an 'unwritten' constitution - in that laws can be framed for the prevailing conditions and not those of 200+ years ago.
I disagree, I don't want a grey interpretation, I want firm staid rights that aren't subject to the whims of the idiots in DC.
And I don't see the correlation between the court ruling and on the same day? someone getting shot. So what you're saying is, this kid was sitting at home watching the news saw the Supreme Court ruling, and was like Ok I'm taking a gun with me!
What breach of free speech? Communism only works by taking over worldwide, which means overthrowing all capitalist governments. In practice the McCarthy hearings were unproductive, but even still being a Communist then or even now, is not something that I think people should be proud of. I however don't think it's too much trouble to ask government employees to be loyal to their country and government, the Soviet's were our enemy, and any effort to help them would have been treason plain and simple.
Before they closed off East Berlin, and the Cold War started, yeah. But during that time period Germany, Italy, and Japan were our enemies also, and now they're some of our best Allies. An ally is only an ally till it's not.
Before they closed off East Berlin, and the Cold War started, yeah. But during that time period Germany, Italy, and Japan were our enemies also, and now they're some of our best Allies. An ally is only an ally till it's not.
Exactly.
That is why it is dangerous to persecute a section of a society because they hold a different political belief than those in power at the time.
Personally, I think such funeral protests are vile and utterly disrespectful. I would understand (but not condone) mourners wanting to express their revulsion through beating the crap out of somebody insulting their loved one, but two wrongs do not make a right. certain protests could be behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace (in English terms) and that is enough to temporarily stop them.
That said, people have a right to protest so the skill is finding a way that the respectful dignity can be ensured and that people can vent about their prejudices. perhaps not allowing the protest for a defined period before and after a service could be a legitimate compromise of rights.
to quote the "Blues Brothers" -
"it's them Nazis - they got a right to march"
"I hate fkg Illinois Nazis"
Comments
No it upholds ALL free speech.
That's the beauty of their constitution.
Is that right? It seems to me that the only people who get any semblence of freedom of speech are right wing nut jobs or religious nut jobs or right wing religious nut jobs.
Then you should listen more closely to the US.
The US Supreme Court isn't a biased body. It's appointed by the Senate based on the Presidents nomination and that ensures both the Dems and Republicans can get equal representation in the court. Neither the right nor left can ever dominate and ensures everyone's rights are protected.
So if a muslim cleric urged his followers to do harm to America and its people he wouldn't be arrested due the constitution as it upholds ALL free speech?
I somehow doubt it.
Oh yeah
http://theglobalrealm.com/2011/01/28/corruption-at-the-supreme-court/
Oh Yeah again
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-09/republican-activists-in-congress-choke-courts-commentary-by-ann-woolner.html
Many states have enacted protest laws regarding funeral protest's and protesters are restrained to 300 feet from the funeral.
I've already said previously in this thread the Supreme Court will allow restrictions where a greater right is violated (e.g. child porn). Whether the speech you described would be allowed would depend upon its exact content, but if was deemed illegal, it would also be illegal from white supremacists or anyone else.
There are already all manner of pastor's or cleric's spewing out all kinds of nonsense, some of it anti-American in nature. You've got it right though, only when it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it led directly to criminal activity (there's some legal phrase they use imminent maybe?) that it can be prosecuted. They can dance and sing about 9/11 or anything they want. Is it distasteful, yes definitely, is it illegal, nope.
So basically the constitution doesn't uphold ALL free speech then. There are restrictions, like the ones you have outlined above.
In reality a load of unelected judges get to decided what constitutes free speech.
Surely that is worse than what we have in Britain?
Here, we have the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, where the democratically elected representatives have ultimate say as to what constitutes free speech, not some unelected judges trying to interpret a 300 year old document in a way that fits their own political beliefs.
It does have limits because some people are just too precious to get through the day without being offended by something.
Absolutely no limits, not even in schools or at funerals, no need for professionals to tell you the truth. no such thing as a valid contract because freedom of speech must extend to the written word. No freedom to walk the streets without being threatened as threats are merely an expression of an individuals freedom. Is that what you really want? does not seem much like freedom to me
All freedoms are to a certain extent restricted - if only by a sense of responsibility.
However the trouble in the US is that Free Speech is enshrined in it's constitution (which unlike the UK is a written one) and it's laws stem from that - Those things which conflict with the constitution are considered 'un-constitutional'.
Another example is the right to bear arms - clearly it would not be sensible for a child to carry arms into school - however the school cannot search the child for arms because of the right to bear arms.
I think there are laws that say that they can't physically touch the people at the funeral and they have to stay a certain number of feet away, like across the street or something.
While I think the Westboro Baptist Church are vile, restricting them from protesting would be a dangerous precedent to set. People have a right to say what they want, even horrible things, if it doesn't physically harm others. Of course, I think individual people can sue for verbal assault or can sue if what someone said caused them harm. However, policing speech should be done very carefully. You can't ban all hateful speech, nor can you ban all protesting. So groups like this are allowed to stay.
Where the heck do you get that from? Guns are not allowed on campuses and the schools do have a right to search students. Many inner-city schools have metal detectors.
The school officials can't catch every kid, but they catch probably most of them.
Our laws are restricted if allowing the freedom of one is likely to cause harm to another. We have the right to carry guns (which is fine, as far as I'm concerned), but we do have laws as to who can carry them and where they can be.
The governed consent to the infringement of some rights to protect society as a whole. How much the government can infringe is pretty controversial. You need a good balance when it comes to how much input the government has over our lives.
:rolleyes:
I don't see MSNBC or FOX news guys getting thrown in jail, unless I missed it. Freedom of speech is not based on party.
The Supreme Court probably isn't biased, considering you have nine members from different parties appointed at different times. They also don't always vote the way they are expected to.
Free speech is not allowed on the basis that it is not harmful. We all hear things we don't like, even hurtful things. However, should these late show hosts have been arrested for calling Oprah fat? Or should celebrity gossip columnists be arrested for what they say?
Granted, what the Westboro Baptist Church says is much worse, but free speech is restricted when it causes harm to other people. Hurt feelings don't generally count as harm. If hurting someone's feelings was illegal we all would have been arrested and in jail years ago.
My first visit to the US when the Supreme court ruled exactly as I said - thing was on the same day - a teacher was shot in the leg by one of her pupils.
The reason being that all law in the US stems from the written constitution - of course laws are framed in such a way that they contrevene the constitution - The McCarthy hearings being a fairly clear breach of the right to free speech - but then are subject to the same revision later on.
This is another example; the constitution allows something but was not framed for a more grey interpretation - so it is allowed against all common sense.
That is one of the advantages of having an 'unwritten' constitution - in that laws can be framed for the prevailing conditions and not those of 200+ years ago.
It seemed to work for a couple of centuries - but I guess as common courteousy disappeared along with other good manners, some people have asked for certain limits to be imposed on what people can say.
Thats strange Paul. Looks like we've found something that we can actually agree on:)
I disagree, I don't want a grey interpretation, I want firm staid rights that aren't subject to the whims of the idiots in DC.
And I don't see the correlation between the court ruling and on the same day? someone getting shot. So what you're saying is, this kid was sitting at home watching the news saw the Supreme Court ruling, and was like Ok I'm taking a gun with me!
What breach of free speech? Communism only works by taking over worldwide, which means overthrowing all capitalist governments. In practice the McCarthy hearings were unproductive, but even still being a Communist then or even now, is not something that I think people should be proud of. I however don't think it's too much trouble to ask government employees to be loyal to their country and government, the Soviet's were our enemy, and any effort to help them would have been treason plain and simple.
They were also your allies at one point.
Before they closed off East Berlin, and the Cold War started, yeah. But during that time period Germany, Italy, and Japan were our enemies also, and now they're some of our best Allies. An ally is only an ally till it's not.
Exactly.
That is why it is dangerous to persecute a section of a society because they hold a different political belief than those in power at the time.
That said, people have a right to protest so the skill is finding a way that the respectful dignity can be ensured and that people can vent about their prejudices. perhaps not allowing the protest for a defined period before and after a service could be a legitimate compromise of rights.
to quote the "Blues Brothers" -
"it's them Nazis - they got a right to march"
"I hate fkg Illinois Nazis"