If they didn't want it to mean what it does, then they shouldn't have wrote it that way. As I said many times, I'm not willing to play guessing games about "original intent." I believe that leads to things judges trying to come up with what a "reasonable" person's intent would be, and ultimately, much more corruption than otherwise.
Everyone who reads the Constitution interprets it, even those who claim that they are not interpreting it because they take "exactly what it says".
I never said otherwise. It simply isn't (as far as I know) possible to interpret things in the constitution that aren't there (like "protected speech").
If we insist on perverse literalism, then the statement "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" means that anyone can say anything at any time.
Indeed! And I support absolute freedom of speech. Don't like that? Amend the constitution. Don't just ignore it and play guessing games about its original intent (no one can know, with 100% accuracy, exactly what they were thinking at the time, and even if they could, only what was written is relevant).
That would make it ok to shout Fire! in a crowded theater, file false reports with the police, grosely misrepresent one's wares, and slander everyone in sight.
Right. I believe the problem with all of these is that people react to speech in idiotic ways. "A fire!? Even though I notice absolutely nothing, I'm going to trample all over everyone else to get out! What a nice and intelligent person I am!" That and they seem to believe everything they hear/read.
I don't see what that has to do with interpreting things that aren't there. I only (or at least try to) interpret things that are actually present in the constitution.
Interpreting the constitution doesn't imply changing its original meaning.
I'd say there are incorrect interpretations. Would you say that "freedom of political speech" could mean "the government is allowed to censor political speech"? I'd say not. If the supreme court says otherwise, then I'd say they're wrong. That was just an example, though.
Which means, surely, that by definition their interpretations arethe only valid ones?
No. It means that their interpretation is the only one that really counts. That doesn't mean that it's valid. It just means that they're the ones making the decisions.
I don't believe that "speech" refers only to talking, but also to multiple forms of expression (such as writing). But perhaps I'm wrong.
But even if you're right, and that interpretation is wrong, how do you think I'll respond? I'll just say that I think a constitutional amendment is necessary, then.
I believe a lack of caring regarding the consequences of one's actions is implicitly arrogant behavior.
I guess just about everyone is arrogant, then. Or, rather, just about anyone could be considered arrogant by someone, somewhere. It just depends on where your priorities lie (and what your opinions are).
It matters to the degree any issue of social discourse matters.
I guess I should have just said, "'Arrogant' is subjective."
That was exactly what I was describing as reasonable behavior.
And "reasonable behavior" is subjective. They use those ads (which seem to be deemed as flashy and annoying by a lot of people) to try to generate revenue just like they do with other ads. I don't see any difference. Either way, you're blocking the ads that you don't like (for whatever reason). The reasons might be slightly different, but whether those reasons are 'right' or 'wrong' is subjective.
From your post it sounds like we first discovered this "unconstitutionality" now or that it's been retcon'd in by judges later. Reality is that these exceptions have been implicitly understood to be there since the beginning and have mostly gone unchallenged for centuries.
I don't care how long it has been happening. The practice makes no sense to me.
since only speech is protected
And expression (which applies to text).
That text or other forms of expression are protected is just something judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, and we can have none of that.
I never said that I was against interpretation of all forms (How would you even read it, then?). Just that only things that are actually there can really be interpreted. As an example, I don't believe you can just read the first amendment and say, "Freedom of speech? That must mean that all speech is protected except speech that I personally find offensive! It's in there because I said so!"
Care to explain why? In regards to the constitution (Perhaps that's what you meant?), I try to interpret everything exactly as it says. I prefer not to play guessing games by trying to guess what the people were thinking while making it (and I feel that doing so would open it up to even more corruption).
But then people would have to toughen up and actually investigate things that they hear/read! It's so much easier to ban 'offensive' things under the guise of intent and "harassment," and believe everything that people tell you!
How is it not trampling on free speech? Was what he said speech? Well, yes.
Now, it might not have trampled on protected speech (not mentioned in the constitution, but ignore that). But if you just say "free speech," then that, to me, refers to all speech.
You could always just play guessing games about his intentions and tell everyone that people have the right to not be offended. That method seems to be quite popular.
That depends on if his posts on Facebook are entirely "lies and fabrications." If they are, it does sound kind of pointless. If they aren't, and he does post actual things (such as things about his day that no one but his friends would be able to discern his identity with), then I'd say it's less pointless.
It's not your fault that Sony did this, but you buying their products is not hurting them and only serves to allow them to continue such practices. The problem is, the average person hasn't had anything happen to them yet, so they probably won't care until something does.
Slashdot Mirror
If they didn't want it to mean what it does, then they shouldn't have wrote it that way. As I said many times, I'm not willing to play guessing games about "original intent." I believe that leads to things judges trying to come up with what a "reasonable" person's intent would be, and ultimately, much more corruption than otherwise.
Everyone who reads the Constitution interprets it, even those who claim that they are not interpreting it because they take "exactly what it says".
I never said otherwise. It simply isn't (as far as I know) possible to interpret things in the constitution that aren't there (like "protected speech").
If we insist on perverse literalism, then the statement "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech" means that anyone can say anything at any time.
Indeed! And I support absolute freedom of speech. Don't like that? Amend the constitution. Don't just ignore it and play guessing games about its original intent (no one can know, with 100% accuracy, exactly what they were thinking at the time, and even if they could, only what was written is relevant).
That would make it ok to shout Fire! in a crowded theater, file false reports with the police, grosely misrepresent one's wares, and slander everyone in sight.
Right. I believe the problem with all of these is that people react to speech in idiotic ways. "A fire!? Even though I notice absolutely nothing, I'm going to trample all over everyone else to get out! What a nice and intelligent person I am!" That and they seem to believe everything they hear/read.
English isn't a precise language.
Irrelevant. I'll interpret it exactly as it is written.
In any case doesn't the Constitution give the SCoTUS the authority to interpret it (and not just any random internet wonk)?
As I said in another post, their interpretations can be wrong. They have the authority to do it, and I never once claimed that I did.
I don't see what that has to do with interpreting things that aren't there. I only (or at least try to) interpret things that are actually present in the constitution.
Interpreting the constitution doesn't imply changing its original meaning.
I'd say there are incorrect interpretations. Would you say that "freedom of political speech" could mean "the government is allowed to censor political speech"? I'd say not. If the supreme court says otherwise, then I'd say they're wrong. That was just an example, though.
Which means, surely, that by definition their interpretations arethe only valid ones?
No. It means that their interpretation is the only one that really counts. That doesn't mean that it's valid. It just means that they're the ones making the decisions.
I don't believe that "speech" refers only to talking, but also to multiple forms of expression (such as writing). But perhaps I'm wrong.
But even if you're right, and that interpretation is wrong, how do you think I'll respond? I'll just say that I think a constitutional amendment is necessary, then.
I believe a lack of caring regarding the consequences of one's actions is implicitly arrogant behavior.
I guess just about everyone is arrogant, then. Or, rather, just about anyone could be considered arrogant by someone, somewhere. It just depends on where your priorities lie (and what your opinions are).
It matters to the degree any issue of social discourse matters.
I guess I should have just said, "'Arrogant' is subjective."
That was exactly what I was describing as reasonable behavior.
And "reasonable behavior" is subjective. They use those ads (which seem to be deemed as flashy and annoying by a lot of people) to try to generate revenue just like they do with other ads. I don't see any difference. Either way, you're blocking the ads that you don't like (for whatever reason). The reasons might be slightly different, but whether those reasons are 'right' or 'wrong' is subjective.
From your post it sounds like we first discovered this "unconstitutionality" now or that it's been retcon'd in by judges later. Reality is that these exceptions have been implicitly understood to be there since the beginning and have mostly gone unchallenged for centuries.
I don't care how long it has been happening. The practice makes no sense to me.
since only speech is protected
And expression (which applies to text).
That text or other forms of expression are protected is just something judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, and we can have none of that.
I never said that I was against interpretation of all forms (How would you even read it, then?). Just that only things that are actually there can really be interpreted. As an example, I don't believe you can just read the first amendment and say, "Freedom of speech? That must mean that all speech is protected except speech that I personally find offensive! It's in there because I said so!"
Care to explain why? In regards to the constitution (Perhaps that's what you meant?), I try to interpret everything exactly as it says. I prefer not to play guessing games by trying to guess what the people were thinking while making it (and I feel that doing so would open it up to even more corruption).
But you didn't say
Actually, I'm not the one you first replied to.
And I only really care about what is actually in the constitution. I try to interpret everything exactly as it says.
And yours is to me, as well.
"Free speech." What free speech? What speech are you talking about? Oh, you actually meant protected speech?
But then people would have to toughen up and actually investigate things that they hear/read! It's so much easier to ban 'offensive' things under the guise of intent and "harassment," and believe everything that people tell you!
the Supreme Court has held that political speech is that speech which is most protected by the First Amendment.
I guess my question for the supreme court is: where does the first amendment mention anything like that?
The supreme court likely has interpreted it as you say, but I don't think their interpretations are valid (but they do have more power than me).
This guy isn't saying anything of value.
Subjective.
I've long been on the "free speech, period!" bandwagon
Are you certain? That implies to me that you're in favor of absolute freedom of speech.
Well, you need to look into constitutional law a little more. First amendment rights vary according to the type of speech and the subject.
Well, if you want me to read the first amendment, then I'm not finding anything about that.
If you want me to look at the invisible exceptions that judges have 'interpreted' into the constitution, then I guess you're right.
Sure is (in my opinion).
How is it not trampling on free speech? Was what he said speech? Well, yes.
Now, it might not have trampled on protected speech (not mentioned in the constitution, but ignore that). But if you just say "free speech," then that, to me, refers to all speech.
do you really think ignoring it until it stopped was really the best solution?
Yeah. Unless he was holding them hostage and forcing them to view the content, yeah. Sending links? Really? Just don't click on them.
You could always just play guessing games about his intentions and tell everyone that people have the right to not be offended. That method seems to be quite popular.
That depends on if his posts on Facebook are entirely "lies and fabrications." If they are, it does sound kind of pointless. If they aren't, and he does post actual things (such as things about his day that no one but his friends would be able to discern his identity with), then I'd say it's less pointless.
Uh... maybe not to people who don't know him. But that says nothing about him in real life or about people who do know him.
What if you told your friends about the Facebook account?
I'd rather struggle philosophically while playing games than struggling with BSODs, RRODs, driver problems, etc and not playing games.
Never had those problems (and/or they were easily fixed). But it's your choice. Just know that it isn't motivating Sony to stop.
But when you bought your PS3, there was no guarantee that newer games would ever exist.
But if they were made, then you could run them.
It's not your fault that Sony did this, but you buying their products is not hurting them and only serves to allow them to continue such practices. The problem is, the average person hasn't had anything happen to them yet, so they probably won't care until something does.