PDA

View Full Version : This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie



Osborne Russell
04-19-2017, 07:55 AM
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge W. Keith Watkins in Montgomery, Ala., Tuesday barred Auburn from blocking Spencer, stating there was no evidence that he advocates violence.

“Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment,” he wrote in the ruling.

Auburn released a third statement, urging any protesters to remain peaceful.

Auburn University supports the rights and privileges afforded by the First Amendment. However, when the tenets of free speech are overshadowed by threats to the safety of . . .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/19/federal-judge-stops-auburn-from-canceling-white-nationalists-speech-violence-erupts/?utm_term=.c33de1f86715


The tenets of free speech are not overshadowed by anything. Incitement of violence is not speech for purposes of free speech.

Osborne Russell
04-19-2017, 08:17 AM
It's true he's an idiot.


"We won a major victory for the alt-right," Spencer said of the order during his remarks, which were repeatedly interrupted by shouts from the crowd.

And Spencer did not fail to deliver the kind of inflammatory speech that had raised concerns among many members of the Auburn community and beyond last week.

"The alt-right is about being a white person, being a European in the 21st century," Spencer told the capacity crowd roughly at one point. "There'd be no history without us," he added later.

During a question-and-answer session following his remarks, an audience member countered Spencer's claim that personal identity comes from race, positing that it is actually formed in God's image.

Spencer replied as follows: "Yes, Jesus was not European, but I will say that this belief system that you embrace is truly a product of centuries of European Christianity ... To simply white out that history in the name of something Paul said is to lose sight of the reality."

. . . can you dig it.

BrianY
04-19-2017, 08:43 AM
Yes he's an idiot and contemptible slimeball, but he should be allowed to speak. If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech and expression, then they have no business trying to block people from speaking or expressing themselves, no matter how loathsome that speech or expression may be. The proper response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not censorship.

Norman Bernstein
04-19-2017, 08:53 AM
Yes he's an idiot and contemptible slimeball, but he should be allowed to speak. If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech and expression, then they have no business trying to block people from speaking or expressing themselves, no matter how loathsome that speech or expression may be. The proper response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not censorship.

I tend to agree on the principle of free speech... although the university DOES have a case to be made for subjecting its campus and students to the potential for violence.

I think an appropriate compromise would be to compel the speaker to pay for all the necessary extra security.... that, in my mind, would be fair.

There's a lawsuit against Trump going on right now, accusing him of incitement to violence at one of his campaign rallies, where a black woman was assaulted. The suit claims that Trump was responsible. A legal expert opined that Trump would not be legally responsible, since he didn't specifically tell the perpetrator to commit an assault... his general 'throw her out' comments would not constitute incitement.

BrianY
04-19-2017, 09:04 AM
I tend to agree on the principle of free speech... although the university DOES have a case to be made for subjecting its campus and students to the potential for violence.

I think an appropriate compromise would be to compel the speaker to pay for all the necessary extra security.... that, in my mind, would be fair.

.

It is appropriate for a school or any institution to deny the appearance of a person or group on the basis of security concerns or other factors such as the expected audience turnout exceeding the capacity of the proposed venue or the event being inappropriate for the venue. I've got no problem with that and have personally been involved in making such decisions on behalf of my employer. It is a different matter to deny the appearance because of the views being expressed. But what gets me is when a college decides that it can handle the security and other logistical concerns and chooses to present a speaker and then the student body pressures the administration to cancel the appearance because they don't like the message. Such action is not "liberal" or consistent with the support of freedom of expression.

Osborne Russell
04-20-2017, 09:05 AM
I think an appropriate compromise would be to compel the speaker to pay for all the necessary extra security.... that, in my mind, would be fair.

It's not a matter of fairness or compromise. It's a matter of right.

Why not just say, I don't like the content, and wish to prevent it's being expressed? Rather than put up a bunch of fake hurdles to jump over, and pretend?

oznabrag
04-20-2017, 09:07 AM
It's not a matter of fairness or compromise. It's a matter of right.

Why not just say, I don't like the content, and wish to prevent it's being expressed? Rather than put up a bunch of fake hurdles to jump over, and pretend?

This is how Mordred weasels his way into the driver's seat.

That is not to say you're wrong, but to say this is one of the fundamental flaws in Liberal Democracy.

Norman Bernstein
04-20-2017, 09:13 AM
Why not just say, I don't like the content, and wish to prevent it's being expressed? Rather than put up a bunch of fake hurdles to jump over, and pretend?

Why not? Perhaps because it's inconsistent with the constitutional principle of free speech?

I think BrianY has it right: security, in the case of a speaker who is likely to foment violence, is a legitimate concern, and could be the basis for a denial.

I'd rather see the guy speak, have extensive security available, and expose the man's outrageous racism to public view. As they say, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

Osborne Russell
04-20-2017, 09:13 AM
Mordred . . . rival of King Arthur?

People have to be free to be wrong in order to find their way to being right. Within limits of course. This is the essence of liberal democracy.

John Smith
04-20-2017, 09:18 AM
The tenets of free speech are not overshadowed by anything. Incitement of violence is not speech for purposes of free speech.

Neither is misrepresenting matters of fact for political gain, but we accept it as free speech.

John Smith
04-20-2017, 09:19 AM
Yes he's an idiot and contemptible slimeball, but he should be allowed to speak. If liberals are in favor of freedom of speech and expression, then they have no business trying to block people from speaking or expressing themselves, no matter how loathsome that speech or expression may be. The proper response to speech you disagree with is more speech, not censorship.

Free speech, as I understand it, is limited to the voicing of opinions regardless of how offensive those opinions may be. Speech designed to incite violent action is not covered.

BrianY
04-20-2017, 09:29 AM
Neither is misrepresenting matters of fact for political gain, but we accept it as free speech.

Please provide support for your assertion that "...misrepresenting matters of fact for political gain..." is not free speech. I understand that you don't think it should be allowed (we've had that discussion many times), but as a matter of law and based on what is written in the constitution, I don't think your assertion is correct. To put it crudely, there ain't no law against it as far as I know. But I maybe wrong.

BrianY
04-20-2017, 09:34 AM
Free speech, as I understand it, is limited to the voicing of opinions regardless of how offensive those opinions may be. Speech designed to incite violent action is not covered.

to quote Wikipedia:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) guarantees free speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech), and the degree to which incitement is protected speech is determined by the imminent lawless action (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action) test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio). The court ruled that incitement of events in the indefinite future was protected, but encouragement of "imminent" illegal acts was not protected

Too Little Time
04-20-2017, 09:45 AM
The tenets of free speech are not overshadowed by anything. Incitement of violence is not speech for purposes of free speech.
I thought the purpose of free speech was to advocate change in government. By whatever means. Without a threat of violence a right of free speech becomes hollow.

Not that I advocate violence. But that I recognize our country's history.

oznabrag
04-20-2017, 09:51 AM
Mordred . . . rival of King Arthur?

Mordred, usurper of King Arthur.


People have to be free to be wrong in order to find their way to being right. Within limits of course. This is the essence of liberal democracy.



Yes. As the Sage of Entry Level once remarked, The people must enlighten themselves or eat S and die. (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?222136-The-rise-of-left-wing-anti-Trump-fake-news&p=5210995#post5210995)

:D

oznabrag
04-20-2017, 09:53 AM
I thought the purpose of free speech was to advocate change in government. By whatever means. Without a threat of violence a right of free speech becomes hollow.

Not that I advocate violence. But that I recognize our country's history.

You may 'recognize' our country's history, but you do NOT seem to understand this.

Free speech is not 'whatever means', it's 'speech'.

Too Little Time
04-20-2017, 12:41 PM
You may 'recognize' our country's history, but you do NOT seem to understand this.

Free speech is not 'whatever means', it's 'speech'.
You seem to miss the context. The context was speech that incites violence. The right of free speech includes speech that incites violence against the government. Not that I advocate violence against the government or speech that advocates it.

oznabrag
04-20-2017, 01:00 PM
You seem to miss the context. The context was speech that incites violence. The right of free speech includes speech that incites violence against the government. Not that I advocate violence against the government or speech that advocates it.

Really?

Got a cite, or is this just more of the same?

Osborne Russell
04-20-2017, 01:44 PM
I thought the purpose of free speech was to advocate change in government. By whatever means. Without a threat of violence a right of free speech becomes hollow.

Not that I advocate violence. But that I recognize our country's history.

Mixed up, man. There's a moral right to rebellion, obviously. So there's your threat, and free speech is not hollow.

In any case it doesn't mean you can run red lights at will. When, in the course of human events, etc. is the standard.

Osborne Russell
04-20-2017, 01:46 PM
. . . the Sage of Entry Level . . .

Oy. Tom Mix/Tim Holt/Gene Autry.

switters
04-20-2017, 04:18 PM
Berkeley cancelled Ann Coulter,

Peerie Maa
04-20-2017, 04:48 PM
I thought the purpose of free speech was to advocate change in government. By whatever means. Without a threat of violence a right of free speech becomes hollow.

Not that I advocate violence. But that I recognize our country's history.

There is a total disconnect with reality if a person believes that any statesmen forming a government, thinking about how a government will function, or drafting a constitution are going to draft clauses facilitating the overthrow of said government.
That just is not going to happen.

oznabrag
04-20-2017, 05:06 PM
There is a total disconnect with reality if a person believes that any statesmen forming a government, thinking about how a government will function, or drafting a constitution are going to draft clauses facilitating the overthrow of said government.
That just is not going to happen.

Ayup.

Osborne Russell
04-21-2017, 08:12 AM
Berkeley cancelled Ann Coulter,

Berkeley uncancelled her, moved her speech to a different time and place, but she says she will speak as originally scheduled.

Time, place and manner restrictions are valid in principle. In practice they are used by cowards as a place to hide.


“We are struggling to understand this display of disdain and disregard for the assessments and recommendations of law enforcement professionals, particularly given that their primary concern is the safety and well-being of 36,000 college students,” Dan Mogulof, a spokesman for the university, said in an e-mail.

Waah ! We didn't do it because we want to, we had to do it because the big powiceman made us, for the children! Waah!

A real Berkeley liberal speaks:


“Free speech is what universities are all about,” Robert Reich, a labor secretary in the Clinton administration and now a professor of public policy at Berkeley, wrote on his website. “If universities don’t do everything possible to foster and protect it, they aren’t universities. They’re playpens.”

Mr. Reich also let it be known what he thought of the speaker: “How can students understand the vapidity of Coulter’s arguments without being allowed to hear her make them, and question her about them?”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/20/us/berkeley-reversing-decision-says-ann-coulter-can-speak-after-all.html?_r=0

John Smith
04-21-2017, 11:09 AM
Please provide support for your assertion that "...misrepresenting matters of fact for political gain..." is not free speech. I understand that you don't think it should be allowed (we've had that discussion many times), but as a matter of law and based on what is written in the constitution, I don't think your assertion is correct. To put it crudely, there ain't no law against it as far as I know. But I maybe wrong.

Fraud is not legal. The bottom line of the definition is the intentional misrepresentation of matters of fact to either damage others or gain personally. That gain can be money or political, No? One buys a used car "as is", but the seller cannot misrepresent that car. For example, if he claims it is a 2009, but it is in fact a 2005 model, that would be fraud. I don't know how misrepresenting matters of fact for political gain can not be covered by the definition of fraud.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

BrianY
04-21-2017, 11:48 AM
Fraud is not legal. The bottom line of the definition is the intentional misrepresentation of matters of fact to either damage others or gain personally. That gain can be money or political, No? One buys a used car "as is", but the seller cannot misrepresent that car. For example, if he claims it is a 2009, but it is in fact a 2005 model, that would be fraud. I don't know how misrepresenting matters of fact for political gain can not be covered by the definition of fraud.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud

Maybe so, but the legal system apparently CAN see how "...misrepresenting matters of fact for political gain can not be covered by the definition of fraud." The LEGAL definition of fraud according to http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud is:


A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

In a strictly legal sense (as opposed to a moral/ethical one), political misrepresentation does not meet the definition of "fraud". To wit:



Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, not all false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course of action. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

Second, the defendant must know that the statement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity and materiality are proved, because most material false statements are designed to mislead.

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the victim of some legal right.

Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable. Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not give rise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the defendant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury that leaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud.

What legal right is deprived when a politician lies? The public has no legal right to the truth. We may have a moral and ethical right, but that's a different (non-legal) matter.

Shouldn't the voting public have the responsibility to not rely on "...patently absurd false statement(s)..." or are we so "...especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant..." that we need the legal system to protect us from such stuff? If so, it's a sad commentary on the intellectual capacity of our fellow citizens.

What injury is suffered by the public when a politician lies? How can you prove that such lies left the public "...in a worse position than she or he was in before the fraud." ? I fervently believe that the election of Trump was based in part on a campaign full of lies, "patently absurd false statements" and deliberate misrepresentations that has left the country "...in a worse position than it was before..." the election, but unfortunately that's only my opinion and not a matter of law (not yet at least ! :p ) so there's no way that a charge of fraud in the legal sense applies.

Dave Hadfield
04-21-2017, 11:50 AM
There has never been completely free speech in the English-speaking countries. There have always been laws against slander and libel.

Osborne Russell
04-21-2017, 11:52 AM
Fraud is not legal. The bottom line of the definition is the intentional misrepresentation of matters of fact to either damage others or gain personally. That gain can be money or political, No?

According to your source, no. It has to be property or "a legal right".

Boater14
04-21-2017, 11:57 AM
Since when does a university have an obligation to allow some right wing bigot to spew that guff to sell another book? Do we all not know what Ann Coulter is going to say? Odd she's booked into Berkeley and not ole miss isn't it?

Peerie Maa
04-21-2017, 12:08 PM
What legal right is deprived when a politician lies? The public has no legal right to the truth. We may have a moral and ethical right, but that's a different (non-legal) matter.

Shouldn't the voting public have the responsibility to not rely on "...patently absurd false statement(s)..." or are we so "...especially gullible, superstitious, or ignorant..." that we need the legal system to protect us from such stuff? If so, it's a sad commentary on the intellectual capacity of our fellow citizens.


That depends on who does your legislating.

The former Labour minister Phil Woolas (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/phil-woolas) today appeared to accept that his political career was over after he lost his bid to overturn the court decision removing him from parliament for lying about an opponent at the general election.

oznabrag
04-21-2017, 12:39 PM
According to your source, no. It has to be property or "a legal right".

Do you, as a US citizen, have a legal right to representation?

If a scuzbag Moron builds his case on why you should vote for him on a bed of lies and obtains to office, are you then actually 'represented'?


If the answer to that last question is 'yes', then why effin' bother with the whole 'democracy' end of Liberal Democracy?

I am with Smith on this one.

BrianY
04-21-2017, 01:51 PM
Do you, as a US citizen, have a legal right to representation?

If a scuzbag Moron builds his case on why you should vote for him on a bed of lies and obtains to office, are you then actually 'represented'?


If the answer to that last question is 'yes', then why effin' bother with the whole 'democracy' end of Liberal Democracy?

I am with Smith on this one.

There is a remedy for such a scenario. It's called voting. US citizens have a right to representation. They do not, however, have a right to competent representation. It's up to the voters to decide who is/is not competent.

And yes, in your scenario, if enough people are stupid enough to vote for Mr. Moron and he is elected, then the people are being "represented" - perhaps not well-represented but represented nonetheless.

I am a firm believe in the idea that people get the government they deserve. If people are stupid enough to vote for a lying idiot, then they deserve a lying idiot as their elected representative. The are so many resources that everyone can use to fact check and evaluate candidates and if people are too stupid or lazy to use them and/or to apply common sense, then they really do deserve what they get. Will such a system ever be perfect? Of course not, but neither will any legal system charged with assessing the veracity of politicians and prosecuting them. It is frightening to me that anyone would think that such a system would be good for our society. Can you imagine the possibilities for abuse? Just think what will happen when the "truth squad" becomes partisan? You have elected officials (I.e. district attorneys and prosecutors) working for elected officials to decide who to target and prosecute. Can you honestly believe that such a system won't become a tool for political parties to go after their opponents?

oznabrag
04-21-2017, 02:29 PM
There is a remedy for such a scenario. It's called voting. US citizens have a right to representation. They do not, however, have a right to competent representation. It's up to the voters to decide who is/is not competent.

And yes, in your scenario, if enough people are stupid enough to vote for Mr. Moron and he is elected, then the people are being "represented" - perhaps not well-represented but represented nonetheless.

I am a firm believe in the idea that people get the government they deserve. If people are stupid enough to vote for a lying idiot, then they deserve a lying idiot as their elected representative. The are so many resources that everyone can use to fact check and evaluate candidates and if people are too stupid or lazy to use them and/or to apply common sense, then they really do deserve what they get. Will such a system ever be perfect? Of course not, but neither will any legal system charged with assessing the veracity of politicians and prosecuting them. It is frightening to me that anyone would think that such a system would be good for our society. Can you imagine the possibilities for abuse? Just think what will happen when the "truth squad" becomes partisan? You have elected officials (I.e. district attorneys and prosecutors) working for elected officials to decide who to target and prosecute. Can you honestly believe that such a system won't become a tool for political parties to go after their opponents?

No.

If I hire someone to do something, and he does something else, he has not represented me.

If I elect Ol' Gooberhead because he says he's going to Washington and vote against X, and when he gets there he votes FOR X, the he is not representing me.

He has perpetrated a fraud upon me.

As to all your frothy complaints about 'what if the truth squad does blah, blah', well, we seem to be quite merrily lambasting the Moron Right with 'they do this with health care in other countries quite successfully', but somehow we can not look at what they do about this sort of fraud?

Because fraud it is, sir. Fraud it certainly is.

BrianY
04-21-2017, 02:37 PM
No.

If I hire someone to do something, and he does something else, he has not represented me.

If I elect Ol' Gooberhead because he says he's going to Washington and vote against X, and when he gets there he votes FOR X, the he is not representing me.

That's complete BS. He HAS represented you - just not in the way you want him too. As the person who did the hiring, it's your prerogative to fire him if he does not perform the job to your satisfaction


He has perpetrated a fraud upon me.

not according to the legal definition of "fraud". Ethically, yes. Legally? No.


As to all your frothy complaints about 'what if the truth squad does blah, blah', well, we seem to be quite merrily lambasting the Moron Right with 'they do this with health care in other countries quite successfully', but somehow we can not look at what they do about this sort of fraud?

Because fraud it is, sir. Fraud it certainly is.

Again, not according to the legal definition of what constitutes fraud. You either have to change that definition or as other countries have done, create a new law to make the action of lying for political gain a crime. You're free to try to accomplish either of those things, but until you do, lying for political gain is not illegal in this country.

oznabrag
04-21-2017, 02:51 PM
That's complete BS. He HAS represented you - just not in the way you want him too.

Just a couple of things.

1) If someone says he's going to represent my interests, and then represents someone else' interests, then he is not representing my interests.

I really don't give a rip how you spin it. The unassailable, tautological truth of the matter is that if someone says he's going to represent my interests, and then represents someone else' interests, then he is not representing my interests. He has tricked me into giving him the power to represent interests on the agreement that those interests represented are mine. I have been defrauded of my power.

2)[redacted]

3) Because one seems to believe that someone who one chooses to represent one's choice of Rocky Road and who then comes home with Tutti Frutti has represented one, one wonders how one manages to tie one's freakin' shoelaces.

BrianY
04-21-2017, 02:52 PM
No.

If I hire someone to do something, and he does something else, he has not represented me.

If I elect Ol' Gooberhead because he says he's going to Washington and vote against X, and when he gets there he votes FOR X, the he is not representing me.

That's complete BS. He HAS represented you but not in the way you want him too.


He has perpetrated a fraud upon me.

not according to the legal definition of "fraud". Ethically, yes. Legally? No.


As to all your frothy complaints about 'what if the truth squad does blah, blah', well, we seem to be quite merrily lambasting the Moron Right with 'they do this with health care in other countries quite successfully', but somehow we can not look at what they do about this sort of fraud?

Because fraud it is, sir. Fraud it certainly is.

Again, not according to the legal definition of what constitutes fraud. You either have to change that definition or as other countries have done, create a new law to make the action of lying for political gain a crime. Your free to try to accomplish either of those things, but until you do, lying for political gain is not illegal in this country.

ETA - The countries that do have laws banning lying for political gain don't have the same degree of protection of the freedom of speech as our Second Amendment. You'd have to change that as well. Good luck.

oznabrag
04-21-2017, 02:54 PM
Again, not according to the legal definition of what constitutes fraud. You either have to change that definition or as other countries have done, create a new law to make the action of lying for political gain a crime. You're free to try to accomplish either of those things, but until you do, lying for political gain is not illegal in this country.

4) I never claimed that lying for political gain was illegal in this country.

5) That's because the Constitution was written by people who could not imagine there would evr be a Republican Party, whose primary, overtly-stated goal is the destruction of the government from within.

This is why I believe that every US citizen should be required to read and understand 'The Once and Future King'.

Mordred is in the White House, now.

oznabrag
04-21-2017, 02:58 PM
6) Your persistence in protecting this fraud leaves one no choice but to believe that there really is no such thing as Liberal Democracy.

That all lies are sacred.

That there is no accountability except maybe losing an election, while the fascist machine grinds you into paste.

And you have the temerity to wish ME luck?

Jesus.

BrianY
04-21-2017, 03:29 PM
The guy who wrote the constitution did something extraordinary. The enshrined in our foundational document an enumeration of INDIVDUAL rights that no government may infringe except in very limited and specific circumstances. If you can devise a way to write legislation to penalize political lies without infringing on the First Amendment, I'd be happy to look it over.

Until then, the only legal solutions to the problem are more speech and informed voting.

oznabrag
04-21-2017, 03:34 PM
The guy who wrote the constitution did something extraordinary. The enshrined in our foundational document an enumeration of INDIVDUAL rights that no government may infringe except in very limited and specific circumstances. If you can devise a way to write legislation to penalize political lies without infringing on the First Amendment, I'd be happy to look it over.

Until then, the only legal solutions to the problem are more speech and informed voting.

Sooooo . . . we are delighted to chastise the Morons for being unable to grasp that other countries do health care better than we do for half the price, but we're supposed to proudly crow out our exceptionalism while the fascist machine grinds us into paste?

Really?

BrianY
04-21-2017, 04:27 PM
That makes absolutely no sense.

If as you say the "fascist machine" is grinding us into paste, giving that machine the power to regulate political speech is one of the things we should avoid at all costs.

oznabrag
04-21-2017, 04:29 PM
Suture self.

Daniel Noyes
04-21-2017, 04:35 PM
The tenets of free speech are not overshadowed by anything. Incitement of violence is not speech for purposes of free speech.

what does this mean?... anyone can say anything because of the protections afforded them by their "pocket constitution"... but doing something violent is illegal.

Daniel Noyes
04-21-2017, 04:36 PM
That makes absolutely no sense.

If as you say the "fascist machine" is grinding us into paste, giving that machine the power to regulate political speech is one of the things we should avoid at all costs.

actually it makes alot of sense the Left wants to make speech that they do not agree with ILLEGAL

oznabrag
04-21-2017, 05:31 PM
That makes absolutely no sense.

If as you say the "fascist machine" is grinding us into paste, giving that machine the power to regulate political speech is one of the things we should avoid at all costs.

It would be better if you simply addressed my statement.

As it is, you are abetting the Moron state of mind.

skuthorp
04-21-2017, 05:40 PM
The guy who wrote the constitution did something extraordinary. The enshrined in our foundational document an enumeration of INDIVDUAL rights that no government may infringe except in very limited and specific circumstances. If you can devise a way to write legislation to penalize political lies without infringing on the First Amendment, I'd be happy to look it over.

Until then, the only legal solutions to the problem are more speech and informed voting.

Ha! Good luck with that too.

And re #43. So incitement to violence is free speech and is not a crime? Interesting.

Peerie Maa
04-21-2017, 05:58 PM
Ha! Good luck with that too.

And re #43. So incitement to violence is free speech and is not a crime? Interesting.

Not necessarily so

Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. [Footnote 2 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568/case.html#F2)] There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention
Page 315 U. S. 572
and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. [Footnote 3 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568/case.html#F3)] These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words -- those which, by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. [Footnote 4 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568/case.html#F4)]

from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568/case.html

Osborne Russell
04-21-2017, 07:03 PM
what does this mean?... anyone can say anything because of the protections afforded them by their "pocket constitution"... but doing something violent is illegal.

Not sure what you mean but it looks like you're cobbling together an absolutist straw man.

Osborne Russell
04-21-2017, 07:12 PM
Just a couple of things.

1) If someone says he's going to represent my interests, and then represents someone else' interests, then he is not representing my interests.

I really don't give a rip how you spin it. The unassailable, tautological truth of the matter is that if someone says he's going to represent my interests, and then represents someone else' interests, then he is not representing my interests. He has tricked me into giving him the power to represent interests on the agreement that those interests represented are mine. I have been defrauded of my power.

2)[redacted]

3) Because one seems to believe that someone who one chooses to represent one's choice of Rocky Road and who then comes home with Tutti Frutti has represented one, one wonders how one manages to tie one's freakin' shoelaces.

You have a right as a citizen to representation, not a right to represented as an individual, like with an attorney or a broker. Once your august statesman is elected and sworn, that's it until next election, barring removal for crime or something.

And you only come this close to being represented as an individual -- not that close -- with respect to the legislative branch. The other two still represent you as a citizen, but are even further removed from you as an individual.

BrianY
04-21-2017, 08:15 PM
It would be better if you simply addressed my statement.

As it is, you are abetting the Moron state of mind.

i'd address your statement if I could figure out what health care policy has to do with laws limiting free speech.

In any case, advocating the government control of free speech through truth laws is abetting the fascist takeover. Advocating for citizens to educate themselves and become informed enough to make their own decisions about how truthful politicians are strengthens Democracy.

Do do you really think that allowing a person like Jeff Sessions to choose who to prosecute for lying enhances Democracy?

BrianY
04-21-2017, 08:39 PM
Just a couple of things.

1) If someone says he's going to represent my interests, and then represents someone else' interests, then he is not representing my interests.

yes. That goes without saying. But when you elect a politician, he represents you regardless of whether he represents your interests or not. If not, you need to "fire" him by voting him out of office just as you would fire an employee who misrepresents your company.


I really don't give a rip how your spin it. The unassailable, tautological truth of the matter is that if someone says he's going to represented my interests, and then represents someone else' interests, then he is not representing my interests.

yes. But as an elected official he still represents you whether you like it or not. Example: Trump is the president and as such he represents every citizen of this country even if the majority of them disagree with everything he says and does.


He has tricked me into giving him the power to represent interests on the agreement that those interests represented are mine. I have been defrauded of my power.

Again you're referring to "fraud" and once again, that behavior does't meet the legal definition of fraud. In any case, the remedy for that is to work to get him out of office, not to have the government decide if his lies warrant being prosecuted and thrown in jail.




3) Because one seems to believe that someone who one chooses to represent one's choice of Rocky Road and who then comes home with Tutti Frutti has represented one, one wonders how one manages to tie one's freakin' shoelaces.

I have no trouble tying my shoes, thank you. I wonder how someone whose mind is incapable of grasping the idea that he can be represented poorly or incompetently can function in a Deomcratic society.