• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Where does free speech end?

AnnieJ said:
How do you see it being "redistributed"?

To say this you must have a theory of how you see this happening.
Click to expand...

I was referring to a phrase used by Kagan. Eventually, activist judges will destroy first amendment rights. It's only a matter of time. As you've suggested, people won't even notice when these rights are being restricted- the media has already convinced them that they are more restricted than they are.
 
Clippy said:
I was referring to a phrase used by Kagan. Eventually, activist judges will destroy first amendment rights. It's only a matter of time. As you've suggested, people won't even notice when these rights are being restricted- the media has already convinced them that they are more restricted than they are.
Click to expand...

The rights of free speech have been expanding steadily for a long time now. Why would you think the trend will reverse anytime soon?

Blasphemy laws? The red scare? Flag desecration? The Sedition Act of 1918? Any of those ring a bell?
 
Clippy said:
I was referring to a phrase used by Kagan. Eventually, activist judges will destroy first amendment rights. It's only a matter of time. As you've suggested, people won't even notice when these rights are being restricted- the media has already convinced them that they are more restricted than they are.
Click to expand...
Despite their clumsy attempts, CNS News seems unable to successfully spin her words into anything approaching the ominous threat they wish to portray, so they throw a phrase taken completely out of context into the headline, assuming the same people currently using "redistribution" in an economic context without any real understanding of what they're talking about will see that word and just as vigorously, and ignorantly, decry the destruction of the country at the hands of the damned liberals.

Not surprisingly, it worked.
 
UncaYimmy said:
I'll let KingMerv correct me if I'm wrong, and even then I might argue because I try to keep on this as a layperson. Truth is supposed to be an absolute defense to defamation, but you can be held liable for making a true statement when that statement defamatory, done with ill will, and not something of public interest. Thus you can't buy an ad in the NY Times talking about how your hot little nanny from Hungary enjoys group sex with teenage boys even if it's true.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert in defamation law but I've never seen any literature that supports you.
 
Clippy said:
I was referring to a phrase used by Kagan. Eventually, activist judges will destroy first amendment rights. It's only a matter of time. As you've suggested, people won't even notice when these rights are being restricted- the media has already convinced them that they are more restricted than they are.
Click to expand...

People won't notice because most people haven't taken the time to understand what rights that first amendment gives us and what it doesn't.

Recently I heard someone say that the majority of people do not even know what five rights are covered under that first amendment. They have no idea how far we can take that "freedom of speech". In all honesty, it basically the only restrictions it has is if one's speech is meant to incite riots and even then it has to be proven that is what the speaker meant for it to do.

I think one of the problems is that we have tried to broaden it such as the link that I posted previously to include more than what our forefathers meant for it to. Is that a bad thing...I don't know but what I do see as the problem is that we have not defined clearly enough how these things fall under the rights of free speech.

Someone asked if a banner stating "No Asians Allowed" falls under "freedom of speech". Just my opinion but I would have to say no. It would however I think fall under some discrimination laws.

Basically what it comes down to is we can fairly well say what we want. I guess the question will always remain is should we simply because we can.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Perhaps I don't. Could you elaborate?
Click to expand...

You wrote:

Undesired Walrus said:
I just don't know. And if I do think it is legal to do so, I don't know how I reconcile that with my belief that racial discrimination should not be allowed to dominate a business, by refusing to admit or serve blacks, for example.
Click to expand...

So you think people should be forced to interact with people whom they would rather avoid.
 
KingMerv00 said:
The rights of free speech have been expanding steadily for a long time now. Why would you think the trend will reverse anytime soon?

Blasphemy laws? The red scare? Flag desecration? The Sedition Act of 1918? Any of those ring a bell?
Click to expand...

'Hate speech' laws will pass, eventually.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Do you think the owners of said business should be forced to fulfill health and safety regulations?
Click to expand...

That's a non sequitur. They should have to interact with official regulators, bank representatives, etc. I'm not talking about anarchy. I'm talking about the right to choose with whom you do business. Like the 'Soup Nazi,' except you know up front whether your business is welcome.
 
AnnieJ said:
Someone asked if a banner stating "No Asians Allowed" falls under "freedom of speech". Just my opinion but I would have to say no. It would however I think fall under some discrimination laws.
Click to expand...

Depends. Hanging "No Asians Allowed" on the door to your home is legal. Hanging it on the door of your restaurant may violate the Civil Rights Act.
 
KingMerv00 said:
I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert in defamation law but I've never seen any literature that supports you.
Click to expand...

Alan S. Noonan vs. Staples Inc.

Massachusetts law, however, recognizes a narrow exception to this defense: the truth or falsity of the statement is immaterial, and the libel action may proceed, if the plaintiff can show that the defendant acted with "actual malice" in publishing the statement.
Click to expand...
 
KingMerv00 said:
Your fear is based on what exactly? The recorded trend is (happily) against your assertion.
Click to expand...

Restrictions on 1st amendment rights will arrive via 'hate crime' legislation. It might take a while, but it will happen. As people become increasingly unhappy with the system, including the demographic transformation of the country, the government will look to restrict criticism. Just my prediction.
 
Clippy said:
That's a non sequitur. They should have to interact with official regulators, bank representatives, etc. I'm not talking about anarchy. I'm talking about the right to choose with whom you do business. Like the 'Soup Nazi,' except you know up front whether your business is welcome.
Click to expand...

Why does the right to whom you associate with trump things like wearing hair nets?
 
Last edited:
Clippy said:
Restrictions on 1st amendment rights will arrive via 'hate crime' legislation. It might take a while, but it will happen. As people become increasingly unhappy with the system, including the demographic transformation of the country, the government will look to restrict criticism. Just my prediction.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you to restate your prediction. I asked you what you prediction was based on.
 
KingMerv00 said:
Depends. Hanging "No Asians Allowed" on the door to your home is legal. Hanging it on the door of your restaurant may violate the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

It would be covered under the Civil Rights Act Title II.

Title II

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

I couldn't find anything in the Civil Rights Act that included a violation of the 1st Amendment concerning "freedom of speech". So it appears that we can say any bigotted remarks that we choose unless those remarks incite a riot. Go figure.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom