Slashdot Mirror
Interpreting the Constitution In the Digital Era
oik writes "NPR's Fresh Air this week had an interesting interview with Jeffrey Rosen, one of the authors of Constitution 3.0 , which addresses a number of issues to do with interpreting the US Constitution in the face of new technologies (both present and future). Many of the topics which he touches on come up on Slashdot a lot (including the GPS tracking cases). It's well worth listening to the program (link in the main page), of which the linked article is just a summary."
No tyrant in history was ever able to grab such power and the effect over the 20th century has been absolutely devastating to the United States. Even today, with the increasing disintermediation (and consequent slow recovery of freedom) of information, you still have public opinion being molded by the likes of Jeffrey Rosen and NPR. Indeed, no candidate seeking public office at the Federal level has had a hope of winning that office without the support of the broadcast networks, whose unconstitutionality is so ignored by Jeffrey Rosen and NPR (for obvious reasons).
Seastead this.
When you can simply ignore it.
It's not as if there are any repercussions.
Deleted
While the political themes of Kim Stanley Robinson's trilogy beginning with Red Mars have divided readers, I found the constitutional debates within to be fascinating. The settlers of Mars come together in a constitutional convention that takes new, present-day technology and ecological themes into account, and examine a far larger set of models of political organization than the American Founding Fathers knew about. Junking it all and starting from scratch seems like a wonderful opportunity. Ever since I read those books in the mid-1990s, I've felt sad that not only is American democracy co-opted by special interests and the inevitability of a stagnant two-party system, but even at best it would be limited to a late 18th-century worldview.
If you merely ignore the constitution, your enemies may use that against you; not because they have love of the constitution, but merely because they can. Interpreting it out of existence is both more permanent and less likely to rebound on you. Example: Having the cops beat the shit out of Occupy Wall Street protesters on camera. Sure, you can get away with it, but it could cause political damage. Better: Re-interpret the constitution so "freedom of assembly" means "assembly only in designated protest areas, for short periods of time". Then have the cops beat the shit out of the protesters not for protesting, but for protesting in the wrong place. You're just following the law, then.
One thing I always found interesting about constitutional interpretation is that the same people who argue the 2nd amendment should only apply to muskets (on the basis that the writers of the constitution supposedly could not have imagined anyone ever designing what they all wanted... a gun that shoots faster and further), will turn right around and assert the first amendment has a wide reach with respect to electronic mass media. Electronic mass media... like that was easier for a colonist to see coming than a rifle upgrade.
>***Interpreting*** the Constitution
Thats where you went wrong... there is no such thing. Don't like what it says, then amend it.
A constitution open to interpretation is worthless.
Why should you interpret the constitution? Being that it's a founding document, what should be done is it should be the guiding principal. It should remain as it is. Laws should be tested, and the laws be tested against the constitution. You get into no type of serious fuckups when you interpret a founding document, because you go from "this document says, in the intention of the framers" to "this document says, in the intention of the state."
This is generally how was test law in Canada. It works well, very well. That's not to say there aren't serious fuckups from time to time either, but it can always end back at the supreme court.
Om, nomnomnom...
Indeed they can use it against you, but that is only part of the theater event we call politics, i.e., huge rhetorical differences, zero policy differences. Witness the disparaging remarks democrats made against Bush for his civil liberties violations, such as due process free detention. Those same people, now that Obama is in office, are using Bush/Cheney arguments to justify Obama's policies including due process free execution.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Just because the two sides are the same from our viewpoint doesn't mean that they aren't actually opposed in the one thing that matters to them, which is who is to be the master.
All texts require interpretation. No human utterance is unambiguous. This has been understood for over a century now, since Saussure proposed l'arbitraire du signe. Science, bitches.
This is the real problem - 'interpreting' the Constitution.
There should be no such thing, no 'interpreting', because this is used to justify anything, any power grab, any expansion of gov't power, any kind of thing that gov't wants.
You know it's true, they interpret Bibles the way they want to fit in any new technological advancement and same becomes a problem with the Constitution. It's not supposed to be interpreted, it's supposed to be followed. It's the law.
It's not the Constitution that needs interpretation (and I am not saying the document is perfect, far from it, it is not making it explicit that it shouldn't be interpreted for example).
The law that applies to the private citizens is not interpreted - you kill somebody - there is no 'interpretation' of the law. The question is only of your guilt.
It should be same with the Constitution - gov't takes over some power, the question is only the amount of guilt that should be allocated, not whether it was permitted by the Constitution that this power was supposed to be taken over.
There is a larger question here as well - should gov't even be allowed to pass NEW laws at all? I don't think so.
If the physics laws were changing all the time (F=MA today, some time from today it's F=2MA, some time later it's F=A; E=MC2, E=MC, E=C, E=4C; Today Hydrogen has this mass, tomorrow it's half that.) There would be no stars, no planets, no life in that unstable system.
Same with society and economy and gov't. Gov't sets the basic laws and then society and economy work around those laws. Change the laws and economy/society now must change how it works to accommodate the change of laws. Do too much of this and enough times and you destroy the economy and society.
That's what you have now - destruction of economy and society by gov't.
This was caused by various loose 'interpretations' of the Constitution (at first), and now it's just blatant disregard to the Constitution, which is LAW that gov't is supposed to abide by.
This is your fundamental problem.
You can't handle the truth.
Also what is a real pain (and this has been happening for a long time). It is almost the same problem as 'patents and copyright'. That for some reason now that there are computers that the whole thing doesnt make sense anymore.
The rules are almost dead simple to follow yet people keep trying to reinterpert them to mean something else.
The first 7 articles say how our gov works. Day to day and in exception cases.
The first 10 amendments were to limit the first 7 articles and what they do. They were written in plain language so people could follow it. Trust me they were very deliberate about that. The guys who wrote it could pontificate with the best of em...
The ammendments can be summed up pretty much as follows
1) we can say whatever about the gov, and the gov stays out of religious affairs (not the gov doesnt have it in it, just stays out of it).
2) There needs to be an army. That army shall be of your common folk. They will have guns. They get to keep them.
3) The gov can not just put soldiers where ever. In other words buy your own damn buildings to put your soldiers in. Also feed them yourself. Unless someone lets you do it.
4) If the gov wants to seize something, or riffle thru our shit it needs to get the 3rd branch involved and make a case.
5) This one is 'cant be tried twice'. AND if the gov takes something under (4) unjustly it needs to pony up some cash.
6) You dont deserve to rot in jail for 20 years for jay walking. Also the gov will help you out and make sure your trial is fair. Going as far as to procure counsel for you.
7) Civil cases shall be a jury trial.
8) Dont impose more money there is in the world for bail. Also dont make punishments what most people consider cruel just because you want to get revenge somehow.
9) If it isnt in here people get those rights. Or the 'if it isnt illegal then you can do it' clause. Instead of the other way around.. For example in most states flame throwers are legal because there is no real laws regulating them...
10) If itsnt declared here the states get to decide. This was a big issue during the civil war in addition to slavery (people in the north and south still do not understand each other and why they fought).
The remaining 17 were created due to particular situations arising. Where if congress wanted to make something illegal they needed to make an amendment for it. Or states abusing people in some way or another. Or tweaking the way the gov works in some way (such as when pay raises can be passed).
In many ways Congress has abused the 'interstate commerce' clause to abuse all 10 of these at some point or another. They will continue to do so. This is usually because of greed, money. Sometimes that 'they know better', this is sometimes true. However, sometimes it is just a matter of opinion sure it may be 'bad' for people. But do you really want people legislating morality? What if that morality doesnt agree with yours? This becomes the 'there should be a law for that' rule that is so ingrained in people. In many ways they are going too far with their rules in order to swat a minor annoyance (ie amendments 18 and 21).
And back to my original point. NOTHING in there precludes the rules being equally applied to computers. That we somehow need 'new' rules is just treating computers as something more than they are. They are not magical devices. They are tools that let us effectively communicate with each other. Though what I see on youtube and slashdot sometimes makes me wonder about the effective bit :)
I'll make it easy. Stick with the traditional interpretation and follow it like plain language. If you treat the Constitution as a list of government permissions and not a set of restrictions, and ditch the attempts to interpret the enumerated rights as somehow limiting anything not mentioned...
The Constitution is VERY easy to interpret when you are trying to argue on the behalf of freedom. The only time you need a crack lawyer to argue an interpretation is when you are trying to present an interpretation that seeks to limit freedom.
Some argue that such a simple approach is flawed as it would prevent the government from performing functions that we want them to do such as the EPA, Dept of Ed., etc. That is not true because for anything so important and universal that it requires the federal government, then we need to go through the effort to amend the constitution to grant the government the authority to do that. If it really is that important then passing the amendment will happen. If it doesnt pass that means you either were proposing something that more people than you didn't want, or you need to spend more time convincing people that they want the government to do what you say they should do.
Imagine you hire someone to repair a wall in your house. While he is working he sees you have a broken window and decides that you would be better off and fixes the window of his own volition. What he didn't know is that you were going to build an addition and the window was being removed anyway.
The repairman exceeded his authority and even though he was doing something 'good', but the right way to do it would be to ask you to amend his contract to grant him the authority to fix the window in addition to the wall.
Sure, its harder, but hat process ensures that you have to 'opt in' to increased government rather than the easier method that requires us to actively 'opt out' by continually passing new 'protections' each time the government figures a way around the old protections.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Indeed. Although that doesn't mean an interpretation can't be wrong.
You could interpret "freedom of speech" as meaning "freedom of speech that doesn't criticize the government." In fact, you could 'interpret' it to mean whatever you want. But that doesn't mean your interpretation is correct.
But the people in power get to make the decisions.
You can bet the Second Amendment would be gone. That's the lynchpin keeping all the other ones in place. On another note, the constitution doesn't need to be recreated. The founders created a clear method for amending it, which has happened over two dozen times now.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
What part of "papers and effects" don't they understand?
Your computer (and phone) is as much your "papers" as the media is a "press".
What right did they get to GPS-track you? Isn't your car an "effect"? Even if not, it still is your property. So where did the government get the right to use your property without due process of law (5th amendment)?
Where'd the government get the right to confiscate servers? Domain names? Where's the due process of law?
The constitutional view is that the government only has such powers as have specifically been given to it. The state's view is that they have plenary (unlimited) power until stopped by a greater power.
A Constitution 3.0 would not be needed if there were a proper perspective on the existing constitution.
Read the link for the Federalist Papers, the Antifederalist Papers, and more.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
The fact that it's subject to interpretation is in itself showing how ridiculous the whole argument is. It's a piece of paper...it will mean whatever the government employees, judges and cops want it to mean.
It makes you wonder if NPR could survive without tax dollars.
One of the superb ironies during the "cut NPR funding" kerfuffle of a couple of years ago was hearing the head of Minnesota Public Radio, Bill Kling, on a talk radio station being asked about this.
The caller said "Every time there is a pledge week you tell us government funding is only a fraction of your revenue and you desperately need our donations. Why is it when you are about to lose government support you claim it will drive you into the ground? Which claim is true and which one is at best an exaggeration and at worst an outright fabrication?"
It was hilarious. The guy really had no substantive answer. His nuanced answer was probably right, which was "well, if we lost all government money at once, we'd have to make some not insubstantial cutbacks."
Who knows what the REALLY means -- cashiering half the workforce, ending programming, cutting broadcast hours and shuttering facilities? Or does it mean something more subtle, like no more goodies at staff meetings?
There needs to be a waiting period on Freedom of the Press. A cooling-off time when they can check facts.
+1 funny because it seems like a silly sarcastic jab at OWS or -1 because this guy actually believes what he's spouting?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
My kids were taught in grade school - 7th grade during the required science fair project report - to never cite the news media to support a fact. The lesson was repeated in high school during the dreaded junior year required English Class Report. The documented rules included: the loss of one letter grade for each citation of a news source! Unfortunately, this valuable lesson is not always taught in school. There are actually people who believe what they read in the news! And the selection of politicians is at the forefront of the problem. The media, because the 50% of the population with below average intelligence believes the news, can make (Obama) or break (Cain) a candidate. Obama has proven to be incompetent and lacks any leadership skill. And Cain's behavior is on a par with Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, John Edwards, Jack Kennedy. If the media wants to attack Cain's morals they need to attack the well known Democrats who don't have morals. But the media is biased and untruthful. I think some folks consider the media Truth Terrorists who can do more damage to a country or to an individual than al Qaeda could hope for. And the US Justice system suffers from a similar fault. The only thing not emphasized in a court is the TRUTH! Something is wrong with a model of civilization that not only doesn't seek the truth, but hides the truth. We really need a new amendment to the constitution that states that the TRUTH is ABSOLUTE and overrides all other constitutional guarantees. There are three groups who would object: News journalists because they can't be truthful, Politicians because they can't be truthful, and Lawyers because they can't be truthful. Is there any question about the scum of the earth? The Taliban and al Qaeda are next on the list!
Supporters of the various hate speech laws and are quick to point out the freedom of speech has its limits. I think it is also safe to assume that these very same people are probably in general agreement with OWS.
Yet they don't seem to think that Freedom of Assembly is subject to the same kind of reasonable limits...such a not creating a public nuisance or health hazards.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Best post of the whole discussion languishing at 0.
The worst part is the someone felt it necessary to post AC. No doubt because they figure such a sentiment would not be well received on /.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Supporters of the various hate speech laws and are quick to point out the freedom of speech has its limits.
That never made sense to me. The constitution states no such limitation. If you don't like that, then wouldn't the proper thing to do be to amend the constitution? Same for anything else. Rather than following the proper procedures, they seem to just create invisible exceptions and/or interpret it as they like.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
OK, I'm going with Funny. Genius even.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
So much effort is made trying to see the founders' vision. Got a vision of your own?
Don't think of the constitution as law; think of it as a sales pitch. Do you believe it? If you do, then you can defend -- no wait -- promote the constitution, perpetuate the meme. If you don't believe it, then it's just like any other law: ink on a page.
Look at one piece of it, like the 10th Amendment: seriously, people decided they just don't care. A vast majority of people. There is no conceivable situation (try to think of one and watch yourself fail) where it would ever be cited by SCOTUS in striking down something, or by a legislator to argue for voting against something. It isn't a law, it's a failed sales pitch. Our vision of the nation we want, doesn't include those words. That's how flexible things are. The constitution is a manifesto. It's like the Holy Bible to a Christian. Take what you want from it, and pretend the stuff you don't like isn't in there.
If this situation is somehow unpleasing to you, and you don't like the veil of law's illusion lifted so easily, then the only other thing to do, is keep the law up-to-date with popular political opinions. Pass more amendments. Find out what people really want in their government, and get it engraved on to the stone tablets. You shouldn't ever be consulting two-century-old documents to answer a question of law. At most, you should be consulting them for inspiration.
It is pointless to argue about the what the words say in applying the 1st or 2nd Amendment to a modern situation. Stop interpreting the constitution. Write the constitution.
"The rules are almost dead simple to follow yet people keep trying to reinterpert them to mean something else."
Yes, that's it. The Constitution is mostly written in clear, simple language. It only becomes complex when people want it to mean something other than what it plainly says.
Anyone making the argument that "freedom of speech has limits" in order to justify a particular limit is intending on greasing the rhetorical slope and pushing you down it.
Only in that both groups include a lot of leftists. Personally, I find it hard to agree or disagree with OWS, in that their message is incoherent; some groups have put out messages claiming to speak for the protesters, but aside from the general idea "Rich people suck", I'm not sure the statements really are representative. Personally I prefer to consider myself part of the 52% (that's the 53% who pay taxes, minus the top 1% of rich bastards. OK, may be approximate due to non-taxpaying rich bastards)
Should google monitor every person in the world and let people search those people and know where everyone is at all times? Why are you asking the constitution? Search your own heart. Ask yourself if that's something you think the government should allow. If you don't think so, make a law. That's what lawmakers are for. If the constitution doesn't say "you cannot make a law preventing google from gps monitoring all peoples of the world", then you CAN make a law about that. You don't need an amendment, or need to base the law on an existing amendment. We do not have a constitution that says it is non-expandable, or that it answers every question you may have.
the proper thing would be to rap the hate speech to ground with another speech.
as is with nazis.
it's ridiculous that you can do an illegal thing with a pen and a piece of paper in a shut box.
now if you're actually planning and performing lynching, that's a whole different matter. but making an ass out of yourself shouldn't be illegal.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
http://www.emptywheel.net/2011/11/17/obama-issues-veto-threat-to-revised-detainee-language/
"Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe codification is necessary and poses some risk."
The libertarian always looks at a law from an isolated egotistical position instead of a higher broader definition.
If you take something like hate speech if you only look at it from an extremely egotistical position "I can't say ___ therefore *my* right to free speech is being infringed."
That's a legitimate egotistical position. However that's not how a government can look at any given action. It has to take into account the *net* effect of speech on its citizens.
So while it's true that stopping someone from saying "We need to round up the Mexicans and gas them." would infringe on their speech... hate speech by its legal definition is speech which infringes on others' rights.
If someone's advocating for violence against a group of law abiding citizens and threatening them if they freely assemble then their speech infringes on a large group of people's rights. The net effect of the hate speech is that a large number of people lose their own freedoms and rights. So their speech must be reduced in order to protect the speech of others.
Hate speech suppresses the rights of minorities since it impedes their ability to live free of the threat of constant violence. When they're living under the threat of violence numerous freedoms will be taken from them.
If you take something like hate speech if you only look at it from an extremely egotistical position "I can't say ___ therefore *my* right to free speech is being infringed."
Because it is. One of my rights (to say that) is not present.
But I also care about other people's rights (just as I hope they care about mine). I might not agree with them, but I'm not willing to ban the speech just because some people find it offensive.
So while it's true that stopping someone from saying "We need to round up the Mexicans and gas them." would infringe on their speech... hate speech by its legal definition is speech which infringes on others' rights.
There is no right to not be offended. They should, in my opinion, take action when something has been/is about to be done.
If someone's advocating for violence against a group of law abiding citizens and threatening them if they freely assemble then their speech infringes on a large group of people's rights.
Threatening someone has no such effect. Actually stopping them from assembling would have such an effect.
Too many people with thin skin, in my opinion. They can vanish for all I care.
But my comment wasn't about that at all. It was about invisible exceptions in the constitution. It was about the fact that they just ignore it entirely rather than amend it. If something is important (or deemed so by a majority and by the government), then it should be a much easier task.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I see coming out of people is disturbing. They don't want corporate control but they want state's to decide things where corporate money is easier to influence. In fact they've proven in more rural states buying the legislature or a federal seat is cheap compared to the populous states. The constitution was designed that the state's had rights to decide basic customs and rules that make sense for their populous at their time. The Federal government though was just like the government of England, it was designed to handle interstate commerce, defense of the nation, and foreign affairs. As it turns out though our founding father's didn't have the guts to put an end to slavery so they passed the buck along until it erupted and hence forth after that the Federal government has spent a large portion of it's time working to get basic human rights for all citizens.
In dealing with the media the regulations work perfectly fine if you put competition first. Back in the 1960s they had an equal time clause that forced issues to have equal amounts of time on television. It was a wonderful rule that got destroyed because it allowed for a more equitable distribution of facts. But to resort to wanting state's rights is ludicrous, it's a fool's gambit to want it because the people who do only want it because the larger Federal body isn't doing what they want. When things are going their way they'll want Federal power. Ironically state's rights have been long associated with the worst things in human history, slavery, racism, ethnocentric hatred, and corporate greed. Power has to reside somewhere and in the modern state it resides in the government. Trying to remove corporate power is far better than simply trying to deregulate.
You do not have to worry about that.
The constitution no longer exists, practically.
Most people don't even know what it stands for or even know what it is due to the immigration policies.
People don't come here any more for freedom or liberty, since that too, is almost gone as well.
They come for a job. Those too, are on the way out.
What will be left is a fascist dictatorship. They will come for you in the night.
They will come for your wife, if she misses a payment on her student loan.
They will come for your children, if your neighbour tells lies about you to the TSA that you abuse them.
They will come for the old, to take their property for even so much as missing $10 dollars on their tax bill.
Yes, they will come.
It is only a matter of time now.
By the time people realize the voting box has no affect, it will be too late.
The only option left, will be to pray for a Nuclear first strike by China or Russia to destroy the political power structure so that a representative republic can once again take hold.
What a horrible future the American people have, and what horrific choices are in store for the next generation.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Saying something that someone doesn't like isn't legally "Hate Speech".
It's pretty privileged to say "Grow thicker skin" when you don't have someone actively trying to get people to murder you and living in constant threat.
I think people should have the freedom to live their life without constant harassment and intimidation just as I do. It's the old adage "your rights end where my nose begins". The categories of hate speech which are not protected by the first amendment are all cases where someone else's rights are being infringed by that speech.
Saying something that someone doesn't like isn't legally "Hate Speech".
It seems to me like that's what it essentially comes down to. Or, at least, that's what I think the name implies.
It's pretty privileged to say "Grow thicker skin" when you don't have someone actively trying to get people to murder you and living in constant threat.
The "if you were in situation X, you'd feel differently" argument? That doesn't mean that the way I feel now is 'wrong.' In fact, it's completely irrelevant. That argument could be used against anyone.
I value absolute freedom of speech.
It's the old adage "your rights end where my nose begins".
As long as it remains speech, none of your rights have been infringed upon. None of the rights that I care about, anyway.
which are not protected by the first amendment
No such thing exists. The first amendment lists no exceptions to freedom of speech. As I said, if you do not like that, then amend the constitution. I think that's better than simply pretending that there are things in the constitution that aren't there.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The libertarian always looks at a law from an isolated egotistical position instead of a higher broader definition.
That's just a bunch of tortured rhetoric for criticizing libertarians for believing in individual liberties, when you would prefer that all individuals to be subservient to collectivist ideals. The biggest problem with that viewpoint is that somewhere along the way, you have to resort to shutting up the non-conformists through violent force.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Only in that both groups include a lot of leftists. Personally, I find it hard to agree or disagree with OWS, in that their message is incoherent; some groups have put out messages claiming to speak for the protesters, but aside from the general idea "Rich people suck", I'm not sure the statements really are representative. Personally I prefer to consider myself part of the 52% (that's the 53% who pay taxes, minus the top 1% of rich bastards. OK, may be approximate due to non-taxpaying rich bastards)
Pretty rational position on the whole movement, I think. But my biggest problem with the movement (and the whole "beat up on the 1%" class warfare meme as a whole), is that it doesn't seem to distinguish between those members of the class that are honest and work hard for the money, and those members that have robbed and defrauded and colluded with government bureaucrats and politicians to basically steal to gain and retain their wealth. There are both kinds of wealthy people among the 3.6 million people that currently fall into that group, and it's a mistake to claim that all of them should be derided.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
dont forget that in the 5th amendment you cannot be compelled ....)
to be a witness against yourself (something the IRS routinely
ignores
So, what part of "congress shall make no law" do you not understand?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
That never made sense to me. The constitution states no such limitation.
The problem with this approach is that it would also invalidate all slander and libel laws on the books - the 1st, after all, doesn't make any exception for freedom of speech on the mere ground of it causing some material damages. And those laws date all the way back to when Constitution was actually written, and by the same people. So, either they didn't properly understand either or both, or else their very definition of "freedom of speech" was not so all-inclusive.
All texts require interpretation. No human utterance is unambiguous.
Depends. Is it written in Lojban?
It wasn't me, but I post AC exclusively because I refuse to register (long story, but at this point 70% stubborn, 30% "the less non-trolls posting AC, the more likely it gets shut down"). It's not necessarily that they thought it would be ill-received.
The problem with this approach is that it would also invalidate all slander and libel laws on the books
Excellent. Then it would work as intended. If they want those laws, then they need to amend the constitution to clarify that freedom of speech has limitations. They can't just do whatever they want, and I don't think we should let them.
And those laws date all the way back to when Constitution was actually written
Sounds like they were violating their own rules, then. All I care about is what the constitution says.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
doesn't seem to distinguish between those members of the class that are honest and work hard for the money, and those members that have robbed and defrauded
When I think of the 99% wealthiest, I think about it not by income but by holdings. Among the 1% sitting on the most wealth are lots of heirs who did nothing to earn their wealth. And the rest of them didn't come by their wealth without some dishonesty along the way. You just don't get that rich by behaving like a saint.
my biggest problem with the ... "beat up on the 1%" class warfare meme
You've got the meme backwards - the problem, as OWS sees it, is the 1% fleecing the rest of us. If you think about it, 1% owning 40% is an unlikely outcome of a free and fair marketplace.
Among the 1% sitting on the most wealth are lots of heirs who did nothing to earn their wealth. And the rest of them didn't come by their wealth without some dishonesty along the way. You just don't get that rich by behaving like a saint.
Jealous much? You can make these kinds of claims because it makes it easy to justify your envy. Claiming all the rich are dishonest is no more valid than claiming all the poor are lazy.
fleecing the rest of us
Well, if you're a sheep ...
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
It's an attempt to draw a line between pure speech that must be protected (e.g. every president is a jackass), and acts that involve but are not limited to speech (I state on this signed sheet of paper that I promise to pay you money). (If the wirtten/verbal dichotomy annoys you, a verbal contract is binding, just quite hard to prove.)
All "restricted speech" is supposed to be that which crosses the line.
Obscenity is a weird condition, but it's defined by the lack of like 20 elements in addition to being "shocking", so if you have any political statement, e.g., it's not obscene.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
The problem I have is that the constitution states no such limitations. It doesn't seem to draw any lines (unless the text is invisible). As I said, if they don't like that, then they should amend the constitution. If the issue is really so pressing, it shouldn't be as difficult as that usually is.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Ummm... you think that freedom of speech applies to freedom from restrictions on false advertising, fraud, slander, espionage, perjury, plotting to commit a crime, etc?
I mean there's also copyright infringement, although that is specified in the Constitution.
But I'm curious what you think "speech" means?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
But I'm curious what you think "speech" means?
Speaking? Writing (perhaps expression)?
If you lie in an advertisement, that's still speech. Slander is speech. Plotting to commit a crime is likely some form of speech or expression.
As I said, if the issue is so pressing, then they should amend the constitution instead of outright ignoring it.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
It's not ignoring it. Because (apparently almost) everyone understands that "free speech" refers to the ability to not have censorship apply to the content of speech. That speech can be the signal of criminal activities seems retardly obvious. I mean, define a mugging if anything I can say or write does not constitute mugging. Walking around with a gun is legal. Accepting gifts is legal. According to you saying "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you" is legal.
Bottom line, no one is ignoring some secret real meaning, because there's multiple uses of the word speech. You are using dictionary definition 2: the act of speaking. Most people recognize that freedom of speech depends on dictionary definition 1: ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gestures.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Because (apparently almost) everyone understands that "free speech" refers to the ability to not have censorship apply to the content of speech.
Right. And with false advertising, they're punishing you because they didn't like the contents of your speech. Same with most of the other crimes.
According to you saying "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you" is legal.
It should be, in my opinion. Until you pull out a gun and point it at someone or actually commit the crime, I see no problem.
But, as I said, if people don't like that, then amend the constitution.
Most people recognize that freedom of speech depends on dictionary definition 1: ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gestures.
Then I guess that just means that more actions that are illegal should not be illegal (in my opinion). Until they amend the constitution, that is.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The constitution as written calls some people of less worth literally than other people. The DOI says everyone is created equal. This dichotomy is a problem.
I value absolute freedom of speech.
So if I called your phone every hour every day of the year you would value that?
If I called you and told you that I had kidnapped your loved one and that you should pay me $100k if you ever wanted to see them again you value that freedom of speech?
If I told you that in the next week I was going to sneak into your home and shoot you you would be ok with that.
If I walked up behind you and said I had a gun and you should drop your wallet and run away without looking back you're ok with that?
I call bulslhit.
As long as you didn't really commit any of the crimes, yes. The speech doesn't hurt anyone unless they let themselves be hurt.
Slander, libel, etc. To me, all of these laws are idiotic excuses to censor things that one finds offensive/doesn't like. The real problem, in my opinion, is that people believe everything they hear and many humans seem oversensitive.
I call bulslhit.
Too bad for you, then.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
No, with false advertising they are punishing you for violating an oral contract. Don't you think contracts ought be enforcable?
What makes it a crime? I'm allowed to carry a gun. Or a knife. If I'm not aiming the gun at you I'm not comitting a crime? And why is it a crime to point my gun at everyone I see in case they try to kill me?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
No, with false advertising they are punishing you for violating an oral contract.
...Based on something you said. Your speech is what got you in trouble. You said something, and they deemed it in violation of some sort of 'contract'. If you would have said something else, then that wouldn't have happened. Therefore, the content of your speech is what got you in trouble.
Unless I'm missing something.
Don't you think contracts ought be enforcable?
I don't care for contracts.
If I'm not aiming the gun at you I'm not comitting a crime?
Indeed.
And why is it a crime to point my gun at everyone I see in case they try to kill me?
Is it? I would imagine it's because letting people walk around pointing guns at people would be somewhat dangerous (as guns can cause actual, direct harm to people). Then again, that's not really speech.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!