Words don't kill people. Guns kill people. After all this you never explained how words can cause harm if they are ignored. It is because they cannot. That's like saying thoughts can cause harm. Words are entirely ethereal in nature. Only the decibel level has any real, measurable, physical effect. Sorry, buddy. the crime is the action, not the spirit. Talk to your deity about that.
No, I will say what I just posted to another.. You are perfectly welcome to attempt to regulate speech. There are very specific channels for accomplishing that. You must go through those channels. That's all I've ever said the whole time. In fact, these days you very well might succeed. There are lots of other people who refuse to control themselves in how they react to their surroundings who will stand right there with you to demand that the world fits their mold and not dare to offend the senses. I think the polls said that 60% believes the 1st amendment goes too far in protecting free speech. So there you go. Get it while it's hot.
Even a civil case would imply the government has a right to regulate speech. Judges are quick to allow this end run around the law, but it is wrong. If you wish restrict any speech in the US, the only place you can do it in the constitution. The process is well laid out. It's just too inconvenient for some people apparently.
While the community is "verifying" things, you've lost your house...
Bullshit! If they touched my house they would end up quite dead. Because now I'm defending myself against physical assault. No sir! They would have to serve papers based on real evidence. And they damn well better not harass me in the process. Fuck them sideways if they try anything.
And who are you to demand that they must prove their accusations?
Nice try. I'm talking about the people who act better come up with the proof. The guy talking can say what he wants. You have to physically cause physical harm. Words cannot do that. Somebody has to pull the trigger. He would be the criminal, nobody else.
...and so there must be some limits to what may and may not be said.
False conclusion you're drawing there. If you want legal limits, you must codify them... LEGALLY. It really is that simple and straightforward.
Try to get it in your head that the term "no law" could not be more extremely precise. They could have watered it down, but they didn't, for good reason. It's not necessary. Speech is always and will forever remain harmless. The fact is that you need to learn how to address how one reacts.
I'd say it's safe to conclude that your point has been shown to be foolish...
Knock yourself out... conclude to your hearts content:-)
They have the power to do what they want if let them. I suppose having that power gives them the right in some peoples' books... It probably could be argued that the mere existence of the FBI/IRS/DEA, etc is unconstitutional. Taken to the extreme, we probably could disband the military during peacetime.
No, the physical reactions have consequences. How one or a community reacts to libel/slander is what matters. A person/group can be reasonable and verify what was said. Or they can grab their pitchforks and rile up the the mob. Speech is a verbal "action" and thus will remain forever harmless. It's the physical reaction that must be controlled. The freedom to make that choice is ours. I would say, Choose wisely. The consequences can and should be severe on those who make the wrong choice.
Why, then, he would be free not to press charges...
Well, that's pretty one sided. See, because even if it's not a roast, the "community" is free to ignore them and move on with more important things than petty gossip. Freedom.. ain't it grand?
As a result, the community stops doing business with you and shuns you...
Then condemn the community. It is their obligation to verify.. otherwise they're nothing but a mob on a witch hunt.
You have no legal recourse either...
I most certainly do! I can say whatever I want about the accuser. And that's the ONLY legal, or moral recourse I have. That's the cool thing about speech. "Sticks and stones..." remember?
BTW you got the wrong MASH the quote was from the movie. And telling people "not to believe it then" is the only proper reaction to libel and slander. Tel them they must prove the accusations. Otherwise fuck them.
How 'bout now? Ready to abandon this silly crusade? You have no right to regulate speech. And in the States, there's a law that states exactly that in the clearest of terms.
If somebody is intentionally citing violence, they're as guilty of causing harm as the person holding the weapon. So if this cleric did so (I haven't watched the video because I have better things to do, like eat fatty foods and take dumps), then he's guilty too.
Guess we can forget about the concept of free will then.
Exactly... as written... And there nothing written about obscenity, hate speech, or any of that in the constitution. That should preclude any interpretation that states otherwise.
Hurt feeling? Liberal?? How's that? I don't get it. I have no "feelings" one way or the other on the matter as long just as they keep their hands off my stash..
So tell me, how much do you listen to media matters and their ilk while soros pushes his agenda on you?
Who?... Oh him.. I don't listen to him at all. What does he talk about? What's his agenda? I mean, other than hoarding more money?
Don't blame the Tea Party. Blame the idiots who listen and obey. And they'll (or some other offshoot of the moral majority) be around in 2012 to muck things up then also.
Slashdot Mirror
I will accept your premise on the grounds that I can walk into any courtroom and say, *The devil made me do it.* as my "get out of jail free" card
It'll behoove ya (to take care of your uvula) to learn the concept of the metaphor. Or parable, whatever the hell they call it.
Then I am a Jedi... *cough*
You got it.
?
You win the internet
Peace out!
Words don't kill people. Guns kill people. After all this you never explained how words can cause harm if they are ignored. It is because they cannot. That's like saying thoughts can cause harm. Words are entirely ethereal in nature. Only the decibel level has any real, measurable, physical effect. Sorry, buddy. the crime is the action, not the spirit. Talk to your deity about that.
No, I will say what I just posted to another.. You are perfectly welcome to attempt to regulate speech. There are very specific channels for accomplishing that. You must go through those channels. That's all I've ever said the whole time. In fact, these days you very well might succeed. There are lots of other people who refuse to control themselves in how they react to their surroundings who will stand right there with you to demand that the world fits their mold and not dare to offend the senses. I think the polls said that 60% believes the 1st amendment goes too far in protecting free speech. So there you go. Get it while it's hot.
Even a civil case would imply the government has a right to regulate speech. Judges are quick to allow this end run around the law, but it is wrong. If you wish restrict any speech in the US, the only place you can do it in the constitution. The process is well laid out. It's just too inconvenient for some people apparently.
Eh.. So he's another Rupert Murdoch. Who cares? The Koch brothers own the Tea Party. Money makes the world go round...
While the community is "verifying" things, you've lost your house...
Bullshit! If they touched my house they would end up quite dead. Because now I'm defending myself against physical assault. No sir! They would have to serve papers based on real evidence. And they damn well better not harass me in the process. Fuck them sideways if they try anything.
And who are you to demand that they must prove their accusations?
Nice try. I'm talking about the people who act better come up with the proof. The guy talking can say what he wants. You have to physically cause physical harm. Words cannot do that. Somebody has to pull the trigger. He would be the criminal, nobody else.
...and so there must be some limits to what may and may not be said.
False conclusion you're drawing there. If you want legal limits, you must codify them... LEGALLY. It really is that simple and straightforward.
Try to get it in your head that the term "no law" could not be more extremely precise. They could have watered it down, but they didn't, for good reason. It's not necessary. Speech is always and will forever remain harmless. The fact is that you need to learn how to address how one reacts.
I'd say it's safe to conclude that your point has been shown to be foolish...
Knock yourself out... conclude to your hearts content :-)
They have the power to do what they want if let them. I suppose having that power gives them the right in some peoples' books... It probably could be argued that the mere existence of the FBI/IRS/DEA, etc is unconstitutional. Taken to the extreme, we probably could disband the military during peacetime.
No, the physical reactions have consequences. How one or a community reacts to libel/slander is what matters. A person/group can be reasonable and verify what was said. Or they can grab their pitchforks and rile up the the mob. Speech is a verbal "action" and thus will remain forever harmless. It's the physical reaction that must be controlled. The freedom to make that choice is ours. I would say, Choose wisely. The consequences can and should be severe on those who make the wrong choice.
Why, then, he would be free not to press charges...
Well, that's pretty one sided. See, because even if it's not a roast, the "community" is free to ignore them and move on with more important things than petty gossip. Freedom.. ain't it grand?
As a result, the community stops doing business with you and shuns you...
Then condemn the community. It is their obligation to verify.. otherwise they're nothing but a mob on a witch hunt.
You have no legal recourse either...
I most certainly do! I can say whatever I want about the accuser. And that's the ONLY legal, or moral recourse I have. That's the cool thing about speech. "Sticks and stones..." remember?
BTW you got the wrong MASH the quote was from the movie. And telling people "not to believe it then" is the only proper reaction to libel and slander. Tel them they must prove the accusations. Otherwise fuck them.
How 'bout now? Ready to abandon this silly crusade? You have no right to regulate speech. And in the States, there's a law that states exactly that in the clearest of terms.
I have some reports here from your Major O'Houlihan that I frankly find hard to believe.
Well, don't believe them then, General. Good-bye.
You getting it yet?
Acting on it is the only thing that matters.
*I have some reports here from your Major O'Houlihan that I frankly find hard to believe.*
*Well, don't believe them then, General. Good-bye.*
You getting it yet?
Acting on it is the only thing that matters.
I have some reports here from your Major O'Houlihan that I frankly find hard to believe.
Well, don't believe them then, General. Good-bye.
You getting it yet?
Can't go any farther then...
So libel and defamation are okay?
Sure why not? Nail the listeners or believers. Stating hearsay is one thing. Acting on hearsay is quite different.
You believe in free will?
If somebody is intentionally citing violence, they're as guilty of causing harm as the person holding the weapon. So if this cleric did so (I haven't watched the video because I have better things to do, like eat fatty foods and take dumps), then he's guilty too.
Guess we can forget about the concept of free will then.
The feds don't have the right to imprison anyone. That is the state's job.
...interpreting the laws as written...
Exactly... as written... And there nothing written about obscenity, hate speech, or any of that in the constitution. That should preclude any interpretation that states otherwise.
Hurt feeling? Liberal?? How's that? I don't get it. I have no "feelings" one way or the other on the matter as long just as they keep their hands off my stash..
So tell me, how much do you listen to media matters and their ilk while soros pushes his agenda on you?
Who?... Oh him.. I don't listen to him at all. What does he talk about? What's his agenda? I mean, other than hoarding more money?
Don't blame the Tea Party. Blame the idiots who listen and obey. And they'll (or some other offshoot of the moral majority) be around in 2012 to muck things up then also.
The faster the better. Then we can set about rebuilding..in some far, distant future