Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 35 of 51

Thread: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,825

    Default This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    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/...=.c33de1f86715

    The tenets of free speech are not overshadowed by anything. Incitement of violence is not speech for purposes of free speech.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,825

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    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.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Central MA
    Posts
    6,234

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    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.

    What's so funny about peace love & understanding?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    16,896

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianY View Post
    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.
    "Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it."
    --- Charles Pierce







  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Central MA
    Posts
    6,234

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein View Post
    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.

    What's so funny about peace love & understanding?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,825

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein View Post
    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?
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    21,192

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    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.
    Rattling the teacups.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Sharon, MA
    Posts
    16,896

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    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.
    "Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it."
    --- Charles Pierce







  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,825

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    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.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    27,895

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    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.
    May be some rough water ahead. We're getting new captain.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    27,895

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianY View Post
    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.
    May be some rough water ahead. We're getting new captain.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Central MA
    Posts
    6,234

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    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.

    What's so funny about peace love & understanding?

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Central MA
    Posts
    6,234

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    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 guarantees free speech, and the degree to which incitement is protected speech is determined by the imminent lawless action test introduced by the 1969 Supreme Court decision in the case 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

    What's so funny about peace love & understanding?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    5,679

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    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.
    Life is complex.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    21,192

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    Mordred . . . rival of King Arthur?
    Mordred, usurper of King Arthur.

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    People have to be free to be wrong in order to find their way to being right.
    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    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.

    Rattling the teacups.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    21,192

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    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'.
    Rattling the teacups.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    5,679

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    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.
    Life is complex.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    21,192

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    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?
    Rattling the teacups.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,825

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    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.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,825

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    . . . the Sage of Entry Level . . .
    Oy. Tom Mix/Tim Holt/Gene Autry.
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Fort Collins, Co
    Posts
    7,297

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Berkeley cancelled Ann Coulter,
    Disbelief in magic can force a poor soul into believing in government and business.
    TOM ROBBINS, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues



  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    34,595

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Too Little Time View Post
    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.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    21,192

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Peerie Maa View Post
    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.
    Rattling the teacups.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,825

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by switters View Post
    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/u...-all.html?_r=0
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    27,895

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianY View Post
    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
    May be some rough water ahead. We're getting new captain.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Central MA
    Posts
    6,234

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    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 ! ) so there's no way that a charge of fraud in the legal sense applies.
    Last edited by BrianY; 04-21-2017 at 11:52 AM.

    What's so funny about peace love & understanding?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Barrie, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    3,909

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    There has never been completely free speech in the English-speaking countries. There have always been laws against slander and libel.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Entry Level
    Posts
    14,825

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    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".
    He's a Mexican. -- Donald Trump.
    America cannot survive another four years of Barack Obama. -- Governor Chris Christie (R) New Jersey
    It wasn't racism, it was an attack on Christianity. -- Fox News
    This week, it is Robert E. Lee and this week, Stonewall Jackson. Is it George Washington next? You have to ask yourself, where does it stop?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New jersey
    Posts
    2,435

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    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?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Walney, near Cumbria UK
    Posts
    34,595

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianY View Post

    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 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.
    It really is quite difficult to build an ugly wooden boat.

    The power of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web
    The weakness of the web: Anyone can post anything on the web.

  31. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    21,192

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by Osborne Russell View Post
    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.
    Rattling the teacups.

  32. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Central MA
    Posts
    6,234

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    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?

    What's so funny about peace love & understanding?

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    21,192

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianY View Post
    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.
    Rattling the teacups.

  34. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Central MA
    Posts
    6,234

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    He has perpetrated a fraud upon me.
    not according to the legal definition of "fraud". Ethically, yes. Legally? No.

    Quote Originally Posted by oznabrag View Post
    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.

    What's so funny about peace love & understanding?

  35. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    21,192

    Default Re: This erroneous conception of free speech lives on as a zombie

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianY View Post
    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.
    Rattling the teacups.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •