Put in jail for speech. Yes, in the USA.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

In all the shouting, nobody seams to have noticed: Washington County District Attorney Todd Martens declined to file charges against teacher and blogger James Buss.

Woot .

 

[Dan O.]

In an incident last year, the Oak Creek High School principal Paul Sigler shows how he was dealing with unruly teachers and students "One shot at a time". http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=525263

 

[epeos76]

None.

None, until that speech harms another in a manner in which a violation of their rights happens. It is difficult to get to the point of speech causing harm.

The amendment is not the extent of mans right of speech, rights are inherent.

Thanks. Have you read this book by Ronald Dworkin? It makes the most compelling case for a type of "natural law" that I've encountered.

http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Rights...bs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197494440&sr=8-2

Nonetheless, it looks like we disagree about the basis/function/meaning of rights.

I think free speech is important precisely because I distrust our ability to identify harmful speech. Even if I weren't worried about abuse or error, whether or not particular speech is harmful would still boil down to a debate about group goals. I don't think there is a universal answer.

Similarly, I think rights are primarily the result of negotiating competing goals. Even if there are inherent moral rights, I equally distrust using a legal concept that requires courts, groups, or individuals to identify them. Not only do I doubt there is a closed, identifiable group of rights, I'm worried about error and abuse.

IMSHO the best we can do is to take a functional approach and work from there. So I'd be open to arguments that it is in the best interest of society to allow teachers to hand out any material they want - say NAMBA flyers - but not that it's a crime or a perversion of the natural order to restrain them. You'd have to tell me why.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Thanks. Have you read this book by Ronald Dworkin? It makes the most compelling case for a type of "natural law" that I've encountered.

No, but I will. Thanks for the link.

Nonetheless, it looks like we disagree about the basis/function/meaning of rights.

Life would be boring if all thought alike.

I think free speech is important precisely because I distrust our ability to identify harmful speech. Even if I weren't worried about abuse or error, whether or not particular speech is harmful would still boil down to a debate about group goals. I don't think there is a universal answer.

All groups are made of individuals. Individuals have the natural right to express their views to the group and disassociate with the group if they so desire.

Similarly, I think rights are primarily the result of negotiating competing goals. Even if there are inherent moral rights, I equally distrust using a legal concept that requires courts, groups, or individuals to identify them. Not only do I doubt there is a closed, identifiable group of rights, I'm worried about error and abuse.

Goals need not be competing. The best and proper exchange is made when the goals of both parties are fulfilled. There is no such thing as group rights, there are only individual rights. What you are speaking of are privileges bestowed upon a group by individuals.

IMSHO the best we can do is to take a functional approach and work from there. So I'd be open to arguments that it is in the best interest of society to allow teachers to hand out any material they want - say NAMBA flyers - but not that it's a crime or a perversion of the natural order to restrain them. You'd have to tell me why.

Here we have a circumstance in which a hired employee has an obligation to respect the wishes of the employer. Would Starbucks allow an employee to pass out NAMBLA flyers?