Re:Is it cosher? Is it lenten?
on
Lab-Grown Steak
·
· Score: 2
The only question is if it's meat. If it is meat it must conform to the rules of kashrut. Since the animal was not slaughtered in the proper manner by a shochet it's meat is not kosher. The fact that the meat was rasied in a dish probably reinforces this position rather than weakening it.
Target now stores your CC purchase history. You can make returns without the reciept, and they can look it up with the CC you used. I can only assume that they are storing some hash of your CC# and not the number itself, but stupider things have been done.
Everybody seems to be missing the point though. This isn't meant to be MORE secure than credit cards, it is intended to be as secure as credit cards, without the card. The fingerprint is a token just like a card, the problem is that I only have 10 of them (2 if we're talking thumbs) and I can't replace them if compromised. The weakest point of a biometric system is almost always the database, and if we are using our right thumb and a PIN for verification everywhere, a compromise of any one of those databases knocks the whole thing down. You might as well just stick with the PIN.
Forget about stealing fingers, what happens when someone hacks the database and replaces the biometric for your thumb with theirs? Better yet, a script which substitutes the hackers fingerprint for a different real user each time the biometric is accessed. You wind up with a lot of individuals with one fraudulent charge each. Even if they notice it would be very hard to track.
The US Judicial system is an adversarial one. It is the proscecution's job to make their case as best they can. It is the defense's job to pick apart the prosecution's case, and if neccesary to present a defense. Since the burden is always on the prosecution it is not always necessary or beneficial to, "Find out what happened." If the prosecution can't make their case the defense is not obligated to do anything. This is on purpose as it prevents abuse of prosecution and it prevents prejudicial but not relevant evidence from being presented.
I haven't received *any* warning from eBay on being careful with ID or personal info, even as a general warning, particularly via email. I'm sure, as most things I've found, there is a warning buried deep within eBay and only those with the greatest of patience and available time (or just luck) actually can find it. The site is poorly designed for navigation.
You are either blind or you have never used ebay. Every single email I get from them contains the following warning:
Remember: eBay will not ask you for sensitive personal information such as your password, credit card and bank account numbers in an email.
Learn more about how to protect your account at http://pages.ebay.com/help/account_protection.html.
And from the page mentioned above:
If you receive or suspect you have received such an email, do not respond to it or click the links. Immediately send a copy of it to spam@ebay.com.
Um, maybe your wife could just not tell the bank that you're dead until after she cleans out the box? Or were you under the impression that they would "just know?"
The article clearly makes the point that the MIT system (the one that Jin invented, I assume) was technically superior, but Jin and Dolby carved out a deal between themselves that gave both Jin, Dolby and MIT a cut of the winnings, regardless of who won.
Correct, but if anything, this mitigates Lin's conflict. To begin with he only stood to gain financially if the MIT system is approved, so they worked out a deal with Dolby, that they would share royaties if EITHER if their systems were approved. If the MIT system had won they would be paying money to Dolby. That gave LIN 2 horses in the race instead of one. He still could have voted for the MIT proposal, but he didn't because it wasn't going to win.
All of this is moot, however, because everybody on the "alliance" presumably had a bias towards their own proposal, and in the end this is just a proposal to the FCC that made the decision.
Peter Fannon, then the director of the FCC's Advanced Television Test Center, echoed her remarks. "It made no difference to the [FCC television committee] what individual business deals these guys made," he said, because the FCC later evaluated the Grand Alliance's proposal to make sure it was acceptable as the national standard and at least as good as what each individual Alliance member had previously proposed.
That reason is that the stated intent of the drug war is to stop people from using drugs. Clearly it is not accomplishing that stated goal.
Sorry, wrong. From the website of the Office of National Drug Control Policy:
The goals of the program are to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, and trafficking, drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences.
It would seem that the war on drugs has several goals, one of which is to reduce drug use. I think the more important goals are the reduction of, "drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences."
I think that, when possible, it's better to evaluate things in terms of benefit or cost to society rather than moral imperatives, simply because it's difficult to achieve consensus on the lat I think that, when possible, it's better to evaluate things in terms of benefit or cost to society rather than moral imperatives, simply because it's difficult to achieve consensus on the latter.ter.
Are you sure? 1. I murder a homeless man with no family living under an overpass and begging for money from passing motorists. 2. A Columbian cartel brings hundreds of kilo's of crack into CA and addicts a new generation of welfare lifers.
The second scenerio clearly has a higher cost to society, in both a fiscal and human context, yet that is the case that you would make legal.
OK, I've thought about it and I think that things that are bad for society should be illegal whether the deterrent effect is sufficient to stop the behavior or not. Studies have shown that homicide rates remain mostly the same regardless of the punishment in place at the time for murder. Since people are going to "do it anyway" should we legalize murder?
Of course not, because, "people are going to do it anyway" is a stupid, flawed argument. The only question should be whether society has a moral imperatave to regulate the behavior in question. I think we can agree that in the case of homicide the moral imperative is clear. Not so much for drug use. Maybe you could build your argument around that.
If this is so easy to do, why haven't the various consumer electronics manufacturers shipped DVD players with a hard drive on board?
Um, they have. Panasonic and others have made DVD players that can record to either DVD-R or internal hard drives. They also use the hard drives for PVR like functions.
It would certainly be an advantage to be one of the first to market with something like this, not to mention the hordes of geeks (like myself) who would be compelled to go out and get one immediately.
I'm afraid that it is you who is wrong about a great many things.
The US doesn't even come close to being self sufficient in oil, so I doubt we are involved in the Middle East just for our allies.
The US is the second largest producer of oil in the world. Granted it'sa distant second, but only Saudi Arabia produces more oil.
The US has over 22 Billion barrels of oil in proved reserves. That means oil that is known to be there and thought to be recoverable. This number has been growing by an average of 400,000,000 barrels a year for the last 5 years. 4 of the last 5 years the increase in proved reserves exceed domestic production. The DOE estimates that the true amount of reserves is actually closer to 130 billion barrels recoverable.
The US uses about 6 billion barrels of oil a year. If we were to only double the new discoveries by increasing domestic exploration and decrease demand by 10% we can use that oil for the next 5 years. If the DOE is correct about the available reserves waiting to be discovered we could be self sufficient for the next 30 years. More than enough time to switch over to nuclear power and electric cars don't you think?
The fact of the matter is that if the US decided to we could be a very small net importer of oil without much trouble. With a substancial commitment feom the government and oil companies we could possibly be self sufficient.
From what I've read and seen in the world press most of the world wants the US to mind their own business.
From what I've read in the press there are bat people in California, Elvis is alive and living well in Idaho, and the pyramids were built be aliens. What's your point?
And finally the real issue is that the US has made the rest of the world their business. The American economy would collapse if we stopped importing raw materials and exporting trade goods. Isolationism is an anachronism in this era of cheap shipping and cheaper foreign labor.
You are correct that things might be more expensive if we didn't engage in foreign trade, but that doesn't have to be the case. I'm not advocating isolation though. I'm in favor fo the US being involved on the world stage. It seems to be you saying we should butt out.
I'm not really sure what your point is. You say that the rest of the world wants the US to butt out, except that would be bad for the US. We agree on that, I only made the point that it wouldn't be as bad for the US as you ninnies would have us believe, and that it would potentially be far worse for the rest of the world. What do you think the economy would be like in China, Japan, or India if they couldn't trade with the US? Do you think that would have an effect in the EU?
Ha ha. If it weren't for the leftists in our own country the US could be a net exporter of oil. We deal with OPEC and the other crap in the Middle East because most of our alies would be crippled without ME oil. We also happen to be friends with Israel which happens to be the only democracy amid a sea of monarchies and facist dictatorships. Although you could be right. Maybe we're on the wrong side. WWIII starting in the Med would probably take out most of the EU and not have any effect on the US leaving up to pick up the pieces and complete our imperialistic goals of world domination. You might just be on to something!
Did you ever think for a secoind that the US acts like the world's policeman because that's what most of the world wants? What did you pansy asses do about Ethiopia, Aparthied, or ethnic cleansing in Africa. For that matter, what are you doing about the genocide occuring today on your own continent. What was that? Nothing? Your definition of the "rest of the world" likely revoles around the UN. That would be the same UN where Syria is the head of the Security Council and Libya is head of the Humanitarian Council. The same UN that won't allow Israel to have a seat or a vote. Don't make me laugh.
For the US to go completly isolationist would actually benefit us to your detriment, sadly it is our recognition that even though we are geographically isolated and protected from most of the world we must be active participants in the global arena that pisses you whiners off so much.
I took a poll, the rest of us have been wayed by the pleas of your "significant bunch" and I have a message for you: "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
But hybrids still need electricity, and of all the current methods we use for generating electricity nuclear is the most efficient. Combined with the efficiency of modern gasoline engines and the dirty electricity it is quite likely that current electric cars produce more total polutants than gasoline powered. The disposal problem is not as dire as the liberals in DC would have you believe, and AFAIK nuclear power byproducts are not very useful for weapon making.
If the tractors and trucks used in the farm run on alcohol, and the leftover straw and tusks are burned in the refinery, ethanol can be a 100% renewable fuel.
Anything can be a "100% renewable fuel" if you are willing to ignore the laws of thermodynamics to the contrary. In the real world if you attempt to run all of the ethanol producing machinery on ethanol, you will need ever greater amounts of land on which to grow the sugar cane (or corn) to turn into ethanol.
Even if all of the farmland in the US was dedicated to growing corn for ethanol production there still wouldn't be enough ethanol for all of our cars. I guess that's a small price to pay for a solution that doesn't really solve anything. At least the small farmers will be safe.
The best answer is of course nuclear power and electric cars, but heaven forbid the "environmentalists" support that.
Seriously, if CNN.com would have originally linked to DeCSS do you think it would have gotten sued?
Of course not. CNN would have taken down the link when they got the cease and desist letter. Their lawyers would have told them, "Sure you can fight it, but does that link actually have any value?"
In other words, your situation will dictate the pace at which you convert, or if you do at all. It doesn't have to happen all at once because the versions can coexist indefinately. If you are beginning a rolout or expansion you will obviously have to make a choice if you are going to support one technology or both.
Choosing to support one or the other limits your options in the future, but choosing to support both is more expensive. That's how it always is.
The transition is much easier with wireless. You just put in an 802.11a base station next to your.11b base stations. For new clients you buy.11a cards. There is absolutely no need for a single base station to do both. since they are on different freqs you just put them next to each other. Your normal "technology refresh" on the clients and eventually all of your 802.11b is gone. Do it as quickly or as slow as you like.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
All it says is Congress can't pass laws "abridging the freedom of speech." No where in the Constitution is that freedom defined. On the contrary the Constituion establishes the Judiciary who's job that definition would be. Here's where your argument falls apart. You claim the SC has no jurisdiction to define or interpret the Constituion, however, it is that very document which you so exalt that gives them this power. If you don't recognize the Supreme Court's legal authority of interpretation then you must accept that the First Ammendment only applies to Congress, and not other branches of the Federal Government or the States that leaves the Executive, the Judiciary and the individual state governments the ability to regulate speech any way they choose. If you require a literal reading of 1A you render the rest of your own argument moot.
Threats aren't action. Actions aren't threats. Its pretty rudimentary.
I'm sorry I'm having so much trouble understanding something so rudimentary. Please explain to me how you can threaten someone without acting. Not all speech involves speaking. If I cut off the head of your horse and put it in bed with you, can I claim I was simply making a statement and since it's only a threat it should be protected speech?
Saying "I have a bomb" is not the same as really having a bomb.
No it isn't and you won't be charged with the same crime. Making terroristic threats and asault two different things.
Quite frankly, the Supreme Court and all other courts are WRONG when they define some types of "speech" as more than "speech". It is absurd
You seem to be arguing that when the Constitution says "freedom of speech," it means your individual right to say whatever, whenever, wherever you want. This argument is clearly absurd. Does the First Ammendment protect my right to read the Communist Manefesto? In Public? Aloud? At the top of my lungs? In your living room? Surely I must be permitted to shout in your ear while you are sleeping?
The First Ammendment, like the other 9 that make up the Bill of Rights, is designed to protect citizens from abuses by the -- assumed to be corrupt -- government. Your "freedom of speech" clearly does not apply to civil actions, although some of the other exceptions defined by the court are more controversial nevertheless they do exist. To claim that there can be no exceptions is either ignorance or trolling.
Words themselves never hurt, are never dangerous. Associate actions - they are what is dangerous. Instead of restricting patterns of waves moving through the air, we should work on restricting and forming actions.
Your opinion might change if the local paper published an article under the headline "Dan Heskett rapes 11 year old girl" They might even include your address and home phone number just to make sure everyone knew which Dan Heskett they were referring to.
You don't think it'll hurt when I yell "bomb" in the airport and you (and your 3 year old daughter) get trampled by the 5 thousand people who aren't smart enough to "know" it's a hoax? What about the 80 year old guy who drops dead from a heart attack?
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, or slander: Go ahead and speak what you want. When you harm someone through it, and it's not a simple difference of opinion, you've committed a tort and they (not the gov't) can sue you.
Two completly different things. Speech is protected, but you can't joke about bombs in an airport, or you WILL go to jail. You can't threaten the life of the President. You can't sell kiddie porn. The SC has set narrow guidelines for when "speaking" is more than speech. Slander, libel, etc. have nothing to do with 1A since they a) are torts and not criminal actions and b) do not constitute a priori censorship.
IIRC, Slander needs to be both believable to a third party and known to be false by the offensee. If I really think that Geroge W. Bush is a flaming homosexual, I can't commit slander by saying that--just as I can't commit slander by saying it if no one would believe me.
This is mostly only true for public figures. If you don't act negligently with respect to the turth you are not liable for slander. That's how the Enquirer stays in business. The same does not go for normal people. If you look carefully you'll notice that in stories about private citizens the news media will always tread a little more lightly.
Slashdot Mirror
The only question is if it's meat. If it is meat it must conform to the rules of kashrut. Since the animal was not slaughtered in the proper manner by a shochet it's meat is not kosher. The fact that the meat was rasied in a dish probably reinforces this position rather than weakening it.
P.S It's "kashrut" with a "kav"
Target now stores your CC purchase history. You can make returns without the reciept, and they can look it up with the CC you used. I can only assume that they are storing some hash of your CC# and not the number itself, but stupider things have been done.
Everybody seems to be missing the point though. This isn't meant to be MORE secure than credit cards, it is intended to be as secure as credit cards, without the card. The fingerprint is a token just like a card, the problem is that I only have 10 of them (2 if we're talking thumbs) and I can't replace them if compromised. The weakest point of a biometric system is almost always the database, and if we are using our right thumb and a PIN for verification everywhere, a compromise of any one of those databases knocks the whole thing down. You might as well just stick with the PIN.
Forget about stealing fingers, what happens when someone hacks the database and replaces the biometric for your thumb with theirs? Better yet, a script which substitutes the hackers fingerprint for a different real user each time the biometric is accessed. You wind up with a lot of individuals with one fraudulent charge each. Even if they notice it would be very hard to track.
I might agree with you if I knew WTF a noonstitutional right was.
The US Judicial system is an adversarial one. It is the proscecution's job to make their case as best they can. It is the defense's job to pick apart the prosecution's case, and if neccesary to present a defense. Since the burden is always on the prosecution it is not always necessary or beneficial to, "Find out what happened." If the prosecution can't make their case the defense is not obligated to do anything. This is on purpose as it prevents abuse of prosecution and it prevents prejudicial but not relevant evidence from being presented.
And you were caught off guard by the layoffs?
You are either blind or you have never used ebay. Every single email I get from them contains the following warning:And from the page mentioned above:
So, are you a troll or a fool?
Does it have a checkbox that says, "My husband is still alive?"
Um, maybe your wife could just not tell the bank that you're dead until after she cleans out the box? Or were you under the impression that they would "just know?"
Correct, but if anything, this mitigates Lin's conflict. To begin with he only stood to gain financially if the MIT system is approved, so they worked out a deal with Dolby, that they would share royaties if EITHER if their systems were approved. If the MIT system had won they would be paying money to Dolby. That gave LIN 2 horses in the race instead of one. He still could have voted for the MIT proposal, but he didn't because it wasn't going to win.
All of this is moot, however, because everybody on the "alliance" presumably had a bias towards their own proposal, and in the end this is just a proposal to the FCC that made the decision.
Sorry, wrong. From the website of the Office of National Drug Control Policy:
It would seem that the war on drugs has several goals, one of which is to reduce drug use. I think the more important goals are the reduction of, "drug-related crime and violence, and drug-related health consequences."
I think that, when possible, it's better to evaluate things in terms of benefit or cost to society rather than moral imperatives, simply because it's difficult to achieve consensus on the lat I think that, when possible, it's better to evaluate things in terms of benefit or cost to society rather than moral imperatives, simply because it's difficult to achieve consensus on the latter.ter.
Are you sure?
1. I murder a homeless man with no family living under an overpass and begging for money from passing motorists.
2. A Columbian cartel brings hundreds of kilo's of crack into CA and addicts a new generation of welfare lifers.
The second scenerio clearly has a higher cost to society, in both a fiscal and human context, yet that is the case that you would make legal.
OK, I've thought about it and I think that things that are bad for society should be illegal whether the deterrent effect is sufficient to stop the behavior or not. Studies have shown that homicide rates remain mostly the same regardless of the punishment in place at the time for murder. Since people are going to "do it anyway" should we legalize murder?
Of course not, because, "people are going to do it anyway" is a stupid, flawed argument. The only question should be whether society has a moral imperatave to regulate the behavior in question. I think we can agree that in the case of homicide the moral imperative is clear. Not so much for drug use. Maybe you could build your argument around that.
If this is so easy to do, why haven't the various consumer electronics manufacturers shipped DVD players with a hard drive on board?
Um, they have. Panasonic and others have made DVD players that can record to either DVD-R or internal hard drives. They also use the hard drives for PVR like functions.
It would certainly be an advantage to be one of the first to market with something like this, not to mention the hordes of geeks (like myself) who would be compelled to go out and get one immediately.
Go get it then.
I'm afraid that it is you who is wrong about a great many things.
The US doesn't even come close to being self sufficient in oil, so I doubt we are involved in the Middle East just for our allies.
The US is the second largest producer of oil in the world. Granted it'sa distant second, but only Saudi Arabia produces more oil.
The US has over 22 Billion barrels of oil in proved reserves. That means oil that is known to be there and thought to be recoverable. This number has been growing by an average of 400,000,000 barrels a year for the last 5 years. 4 of the last 5 years the increase in proved reserves exceed domestic production. The DOE estimates that the true amount of reserves is actually closer to 130 billion barrels recoverable.
The US uses about 6 billion barrels of oil a year. If we were to only double the new discoveries by increasing domestic exploration and decrease demand by 10% we can use that oil for the next 5 years. If the DOE is correct about the available reserves waiting to be discovered we could be self sufficient for the next 30 years. More than enough time to switch over to nuclear power and electric cars don't you think?
The fact of the matter is that if the US decided to we could be a very small net importer of oil without much trouble. With a substancial commitment feom the government and oil companies we could possibly be self sufficient.
From what I've read and seen in the world press most of the world wants the US to mind their own business.
From what I've read in the press there are bat people in California, Elvis is alive and living well in Idaho, and the pyramids were built be aliens. What's your point?
And finally the real issue is that the US has made the rest of the world their business. The American economy would collapse if we stopped importing raw materials and exporting trade goods. Isolationism is an anachronism in this era of cheap shipping and cheaper foreign labor.
You are correct that things might be more expensive if we didn't engage in foreign trade, but that doesn't have to be the case. I'm not advocating isolation though. I'm in favor fo the US being involved on the world stage. It seems to be you saying we should butt out.
I'm not really sure what your point is. You say that the rest of the world wants the US to butt out, except that would be bad for the US. We agree on that, I only made the point that it wouldn't be as bad for the US as you ninnies would have us believe, and that it would potentially be far worse for the rest of the world. What do you think the economy would be like in China, Japan, or India if they couldn't trade with the US? Do you think that would have an effect in the EU?
Ha ha. If it weren't for the leftists in our own country the US could be a net exporter of oil. We deal with OPEC and the other crap in the Middle East because most of our alies would be crippled without ME oil. We also happen to be friends with Israel which happens to be the only democracy amid a sea of monarchies and facist dictatorships. Although you could be right. Maybe we're on the wrong side. WWIII starting in the Med would probably take out most of the EU and not have any effect on the US leaving up to pick up the pieces and complete our imperialistic goals of world domination. You might just be on to something!
Did you ever think for a secoind that the US acts like the world's policeman because that's what most of the world wants? What did you pansy asses do about Ethiopia, Aparthied, or ethnic cleansing in Africa. For that matter, what are you doing about the genocide occuring today on your own continent. What was that? Nothing?
Your definition of the "rest of the world" likely revoles around the UN. That would be the same UN where Syria is the head of the Security Council and Libya is head of the Humanitarian Council. The same UN that won't allow Israel to have a seat or a vote. Don't make me laugh.
For the US to go completly isolationist would actually benefit us to your detriment, sadly it is our recognition that even though we are geographically isolated and protected from most of the world we must be active participants in the global arena that pisses you whiners off so much.
I took a poll, the rest of us have been wayed by the pleas of your "significant bunch" and I have a message for you: "Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
But hybrids still need electricity, and of all the current methods we use for generating electricity nuclear is the most efficient. Combined with the efficiency of modern gasoline engines and the dirty electricity it is quite likely that current electric cars produce more total polutants than gasoline powered. The disposal problem is not as dire as the liberals in DC would have you believe, and AFAIK nuclear power byproducts are not very useful for weapon making.
If the tractors and trucks used in the farm run on alcohol, and the leftover straw and tusks are burned in the refinery, ethanol can be a 100% renewable fuel.
Anything can be a "100% renewable fuel" if you are willing to ignore the laws of thermodynamics to the contrary. In the real world if you attempt to run all of the ethanol producing machinery on ethanol, you will need ever greater amounts of land on which to grow the sugar cane (or corn) to turn into ethanol.
Even if all of the farmland in the US was dedicated to growing corn for ethanol production there still wouldn't be enough ethanol for all of our cars. I guess that's a small price to pay for a solution that doesn't really solve anything. At least the small farmers will be safe.
The best answer is of course nuclear power and electric cars, but heaven forbid the "environmentalists" support that.
You mean:
Light a man a fire and keep him warm for an hour.
Light a man afire, and keep him warm for the rest of his life.
Seriously, if CNN.com would have originally linked to DeCSS do you think it would have gotten sued?
Of course not. CNN would have taken down the link when they got the cease and desist letter. Their lawyers would have told them, "Sure you can fight it, but does that link actually have any value?"
Did you read my comment before replying? I said:
Do it as quickly or as slow as you like.
In other words, your situation will dictate the pace at which you convert, or if you do at all. It doesn't have to happen all at once because the versions can coexist indefinately. If you are beginning a rolout or expansion you will obviously have to make a choice if you are going to support one technology or both.
Choosing to support one or the other limits your options in the future, but choosing to support both is more expensive. That's how it always is.
The transition is much easier with wireless. You just put in an 802.11a base station next to your .11b base stations. For new clients you buy .11a cards. There is absolutely no need for a single base station to do both. since they are on different freqs you just put them next to each other. Your normal "technology refresh" on the clients and eventually all of your 802.11b is gone. Do it as quickly or as slow as you like.
All it says is Congress can't pass laws "abridging the freedom of speech." No where in the Constitution is that freedom defined. On the contrary the Constituion establishes the Judiciary who's job that definition would be. Here's where your argument falls apart. You claim the SC has no jurisdiction to define or interpret the Constituion, however, it is that very document which you so exalt that gives them this power. If you don't recognize the Supreme Court's legal authority of interpretation then you must accept that the First Ammendment only applies to Congress, and not other branches of the Federal Government or the States that leaves the Executive, the Judiciary and the individual state governments the ability to regulate speech any way they choose. If you require a literal reading of 1A you render the rest of your own argument moot.
Threats aren't action. Actions aren't threats. Its pretty rudimentary.
I'm sorry I'm having so much trouble understanding something so rudimentary. Please explain to me how you can threaten someone without acting. Not all speech involves speaking. If I cut off the head of your horse and put it in bed with you, can I claim I was simply making a statement and since it's only a threat it should be protected speech?
Saying "I have a bomb" is not the same as really having a bomb.
No it isn't and you won't be charged with the same crime. Making terroristic threats and asault two different things.
Quite frankly, the Supreme Court and all other courts are WRONG when they define some types of "speech" as more than "speech". It is absurd
You seem to be arguing that when the Constitution says "freedom of speech," it means your individual right to say whatever, whenever, wherever you want. This argument is clearly absurd. Does the First Ammendment protect my right to read the Communist Manefesto? In Public? Aloud? At the top of my lungs? In your living room? Surely I must be permitted to shout in your ear while you are sleeping?
The First Ammendment, like the other 9 that make up the Bill of Rights, is designed to protect citizens from abuses by the -- assumed to be corrupt -- government. Your "freedom of speech" clearly does not apply to civil actions, although some of the other exceptions defined by the court are more controversial nevertheless they do exist. To claim that there can be no exceptions is either ignorance or trolling.
Words themselves never hurt, are never dangerous. Associate actions - they are what is dangerous. Instead of restricting patterns of waves moving through the air, we should work on restricting and forming actions.
Your opinion might change if the local paper published an article under the headline "Dan Heskett rapes 11 year old girl" They might even include your address and home phone number just to make sure everyone knew which Dan Heskett they were referring to.
You don't think it'll hurt when I yell "bomb" in the airport and you (and your 3 year old daughter) get trampled by the 5 thousand people who aren't smart enough to "know" it's a hoax? What about the 80 year old guy who drops dead from a heart attack?
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, or slander: Go ahead and speak what you want. When you harm someone through it, and it's not a simple difference of opinion, you've committed a tort and they (not the gov't) can sue you.
Two completly different things. Speech is protected, but you can't joke about bombs in an airport, or you WILL go to jail. You can't threaten the life of the President. You can't sell kiddie porn. The SC has set narrow guidelines for when "speaking" is more than speech. Slander, libel, etc. have nothing to do with 1A since they a) are torts and not criminal actions and b) do not constitute a priori censorship.
IIRC, Slander needs to be both believable to a third party and known to be false by the offensee. If I really think that Geroge W. Bush is a flaming homosexual, I can't commit slander by saying that--just as I can't commit slander by saying it if no one would believe me.
This is mostly only true for public figures. If you don't act negligently with respect to the turth you are not liable for slander. That's how the Enquirer stays in business. The same does not go for normal people. If you look carefully you'll notice that in stories about private citizens the news media will always tread a little more lightly.