That's what the word means in the context/domain of the constitution or law in general.
And what did the word mean at the time? What of freedom of expression? I'm pretty sure it's intended to cover more than just political speech. Its usefulness would degrade greatly if that were not true. Imagine them trying to ban certain speech that offends certain people because of certain beliefs.
The US has interpreted the intent of the constitution for the last 200 years.
Interpreting is not the same thing as changing completely or adding new additions. The constitution is pretty clear in regards to the first amendment. It does not need 'interpretation'.
If you don't believe what some guy on Slashdot is telling you, why not go back to the people who wrote the text in the first place.
All that matters to me is what is present in the constitution. That is what is final.
If you're harassing someone verbally, it's (usually) not political and therefore not protected.
Where does it say anything about only protecting political speech?
You must divorce yourself from the literal text of the constitution and think about what the intent of the text is.
The intent doesn't matter. What matters is what is actually wrote down. Trying to guess the intent would be disastrous because people usually have different interpretations of it.
What do you deem the appropriate action in this case?
Let them eat what they like.
What if he wants something nutritious, just not what you've already cooked?
Tell them to make it (if possible). Or, alternatively, ask them beforehand. If they change their mind for some reason and refuse to eat the food, I certainly wouldn't force them to eat it. Meaning, they probably wouldn't eat anything at all (and that's really their own fault).
there is no lesson to be learned or discipline to be had.
That's not necessarily true. What if they told them the lesson they were supposed to learn like a (supposedly good) parent would do after they hit them? They could even inform them beforehand to make it absolutely clear. In the situation you describe, you don't know who it is or what their intentions are (not to mention that it's a random attack for seemingly no reason).
Does that make sense to you, even if you disagree with the method?
I could see where it would be less shocking and feel more 'friendly'.
Even if a party means well, without the subject realizing he means well no good will likely come of it, and the best and maybe only way to ensure that when considering corporal punishment (as well as other kinds) is to have an existing good relationship.
If what you say is true (that a relationship with someone is needed before you can hit them and have them learn from it), then what about hitting your spouse as a form of discipline? For instance, it used to be acceptable for husbands to hit their wives if they thought that they did something 'bad' (and, like with children, harming them greatly wasn't permissible in most cases). What about doing this to your friends or people who were previously your friends? Why should this not be permissible? It's not really legal to do so, as far as I know (if they wanted to take action, that is). Should it be?
do you view all corporal punishment as abuse?
I don't think people should use physical violence (minor or otherwise) to try to get others to listen to them (unless the other person attacked first). So, in my opinion, yes. It typically isn't the 'horrible' kind of abuse, but I still think it is something that shouldn't be done.
Too literally? I just read the contents of it. It says "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression." What exactly am I supposed to get out of that but what it says?
emphasizing that the intent of the speech is important.
Where did you get this from? But, even if that was true, it mentions no exceptions itself.
No. That is why I stated it in the form of a question.
if it's really just because you don't like the idea of it, just say as much and I'll leave you alone.
Yes. It is not my preferred method. It's not that I think that it will corrupt every single kid and turn them into a monster. I, personally, just think that it's barbaric and idiotic. Personally, I'd physically retaliate against someone if they tried to employ such methods against me. People are within their right to remove property from my possession if it belongs to them, however.
I have not met any people whose parents used physical discipline that later adopted violent behavior towards their parents or anyone else.
Really? Well, since we aren't linking to studies, anecdotal evidence is all we can offer. I've seen the opposite happen in many cases.
Taking away a child's toys for no good reason is just as abusive psychologically
Except that not letting them use things that you bought sends a different message. In other words, you can take away privileges provided that you are responsible for them. Violence becomes less appealing if it is not used as a method of control by trusted adults, I would think.
means a prior relationship
Why?
the action is not disciplinary but vindictive.
What if, like a parent, they "meant well"? Why is it automatically vindictive?
No, the Constitution does not forbid restrictions of free speech.
If that were true, then what would be the point of it? They could just restrict any speech they pleased, could they not?
The Constitution itself provides for promoting the arts and sciences by certain activities which would be restrictions on the freedom of speech if that freedom were absolute, even without the current ridiculously draconian (mis-?)interpretations of copyright and patent law.
I'm already aware that the constitution has what appears to be contradictions.
justice
There are many forms of "justice," and not all of them are the same. It's subjective, really. The fact that the constitution says this does not mean that they can change it however they please.
Therefore, the Constitution provides for some things that take precedence over freedom of speech claims.
Even if I were to accept that copyright takes precedence over free speech in some circumstances, where are the rest of the supposed restrictions? Libel? Slander? I don't see those listed.
There is no way, in the real world, that the freedom of speech can be untangled from the other rights and responsibilities of citizens.
It can if you have absolute freedom of speech. Speech itself harms no one (they are the cause of their own misery). How humans themselves act based on it is another matter, and that is their fault.
Sexual and racial slurs are often used as tools of physical and sexual abuse.
And? Some words can be used to insult people. If someone gets offended, that is their own fault (sexual abuse or not). You can't physically abuse someone with words.
The man explained why you're wrong and you cite ideas and "should be's" to counter him.
I guess you're correct. A majority of my argument is merely an opinion. An opinion that likely will not change. As such, it is rather pointless, isn't it?
You are a coward hiding behind "morality" and "enlightenment".
"Morality"? My morals are fairly different from normal people's. I don't even believe in absolute morals. What a seemingly strange conclusion to come to.
And, in your above example, when they personally do not like the speech, it should be silenced. Why should this not be applied to any speech if it offends someone enough or makes them uncomfortable?
This is different from any other punishment/reward system...how?
No logical argument is necessary. This is more true here than with other punishments.
Corporal punishment is to be used sparingly and as a deterrent.
And I disagree that it should be used at all.
That tends to happen on its own.
But wouldn't it likely be more frequently if their parent uses and teaches them that it is acceptable (even if that wasn't that intention)?
Can you give an example or two, then?
They could kick them out of the building (if the kid is in a school). The school doesn't need to punish them at all.
1) Take away things the kid enjoys, provided you own them in the first place. 2) Don't do anything good for them in the future that you normally would.
Explain these to them, of course.
You are working from the premise that spanking is wrong, evil, barbaric.
Because I think that it is, not that it is a universal fact (as in, that is my opinion).
You have yet to give me any good reason to believe that my method, which works in a hundredth of the time, is less effective or more harmful than the lengthy alternative.
And what of children that adopt this sort of violent behavior because their parents utilize it? What of the ones that even go so far as to use it against their parents or others?
The unwarranted personal attack also does not help your case.
"Unwarranted"? Well, I disagree. But, anyway, it was not a personal attack so much as it was my belief that most people simply should not have children and then complain about them because they do things that they don't like. Yes, I really don't understand how that particular quote was a personal attack at all.
You shouldn't be hitting random adults or random children.
Why not? Whether they're random or not, if you hit them in the right circumstances and explain it to them, they will understand, correct?
It happens all the time. Even slashdot is moderated to remove trolls.
What does that have to do with the government or its workers restricting speech (which is what the constitution forbids)?
Free speech only has value if what is said is actually worth something.
I see. Only speech that you think has value is worth something? I could say that about anything. Such as people talking about brand-named clothing. Ban that immediately because I, using my subjective viewpoint, have decided that it is not worth anything for everyone! Or, alternatively, we can always go with the tyranny of the majority.
And in general this has nothing to do with free speech, but just being a miserable excuse of a human being.
Well, that's merely your opinion. And of course it has to do with free speech, since this story is entirely about speech and nothing more.
when used appropriately and early enough creates very useful psychological conditioning.
And an excellent method to brainwash people. Another problem is that parents have no real restrictions on what they can do (aside from not punishing them too harshly). Don't believe in god? Time for a spanking! You did something that I don't like? Time for violence! Sure, other punishments could be used in their place, but, as you said, physical violence is an effective method at conditioning, even if you don't have an actual logical argument. Kids will likely realize this and begin employing violence themselves. And, really, why shouldn't they?
you end up with a bunch of brats who know that the adults around them are relatively powerless to stop them from doing anything but criminal acts.
Powerless? Not at all. However, even if that were true, that is simply too bad. There are lots of people who do things that are legal that I am against, but I would never use violence to try to stop them from doing those things. I think that's merely arrogant and barbaric.
patience
If you don't have time and/or patience, you should not have children. If this were a rule, it would likely bring about one seemingly positive outcome: an end to overpopulation.
And corporal punishment does work on adults--you've never had or heard of a confrontation with a friend over something that's basically resolved after a brief scuffle? The trick, just like with children, is that there has to be a more-than-superficial relationship, otherwise it is indeed senseless violence and counterproductive.
But it is by no means legal, as far as I know (even if nothing is done about it in most cases). Try hitting a random adult because they do something that you disagree with like you would a child. After all, why not? Apparently it would create a "better" society.
Your state, though, has the power to limit your speech.
The constitution, as far as I know, cannot be overridden by state laws. That would be absolutely insane, don't you think?
In addition, the Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy.
And? That merely leaves it up to the government and the people to decide on that issue. What the constitution does mention, however, is that people have the right to free speech. What the supreme court says is irrelevant, as they can be wrong. If an amendment mentions nothing about it, then I don't see how that could be, unless it is utterly and intentionally vague to fit future issues.
Also, you spoke as though the fact that the issue of privacy isn't mentioned in the constitution means that the constitution can be altered in other ways. Why is that? Or am I incorrect? Anyway, just because someone does one thing "wrong," that does not mean that it is "okay" to do something else that is "wrong."
What's with the straw man arguments? You've repeatedly said things such as this, and I've never even said anything about it. All I'm saying is that the constitution protects free speech and lists no exceptions. It doesn't say "freedom is absolute," but if it did, then that would be a poor constitution, and a majority of citizens would need to throw it out.
When your freedom of speech impinges on the liberties of others, that is crossing beyond your own freedom to express yourself without harassment (which I condone) and to your freedom to harass others (which I do not condone).
That's not what the constitution says. Probably because they knew that anyone could claim that any speech hurts them.
Capital punishment in schools was abused, but was 95% effective.
Don't you mean "corporal punishment"? Anyway, effective or no, I think that employing physical force against someone who poses no physical threat to you is idiotic and barbaric. I wouldn't want people to be able to go around and hit others merely because they don't like what they did (when they posed no physical threat to them). Why should such a rule only apply to children? If it's so "effective," it can certainly be applied to adults, and it may even work in some cases. That way no "criminals" will ever be produced, because hitting others instantly solves everything!
It's their education, and if they mess it up, then they can "ruin" their chance (even though it won't necessarily ruin their life at all). Too bad for them.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what the word means in the context/domain of the constitution or law in general.
And what did the word mean at the time? What of freedom of expression? I'm pretty sure it's intended to cover more than just political speech. Its usefulness would degrade greatly if that were not true. Imagine them trying to ban certain speech that offends certain people because of certain beliefs.
The US has interpreted the intent of the constitution for the last 200 years.
Interpreting is not the same thing as changing completely or adding new additions. The constitution is pretty clear in regards to the first amendment. It does not need 'interpretation'.
If you don't believe what some guy on Slashdot is telling you, why not go back to the people who wrote the text in the first place.
All that matters to me is what is present in the constitution. That is what is final.
If you're harassing someone verbally, it's (usually) not political and therefore not protected.
Where does it say anything about only protecting political speech?
You must divorce yourself from the literal text of the constitution and think about what the intent of the text is.
The intent doesn't matter. What matters is what is actually wrote down. Trying to guess the intent would be disastrous because people usually have different interpretations of it.
What do you deem the appropriate action in this case?
Let them eat what they like.
What if he wants something nutritious, just not what you've already cooked?
Tell them to make it (if possible). Or, alternatively, ask them beforehand. If they change their mind for some reason and refuse to eat the food, I certainly wouldn't force them to eat it. Meaning, they probably wouldn't eat anything at all (and that's really their own fault).
there is no lesson to be learned or discipline to be had.
That's not necessarily true. What if they told them the lesson they were supposed to learn like a (supposedly good) parent would do after they hit them? They could even inform them beforehand to make it absolutely clear. In the situation you describe, you don't know who it is or what their intentions are (not to mention that it's a random attack for seemingly no reason).
Does that make sense to you, even if you disagree with the method?
I could see where it would be less shocking and feel more 'friendly'.
Even if a party means well, without the subject realizing he means well no good will likely come of it, and the best and maybe only way to ensure that when considering corporal punishment (as well as other kinds) is to have an existing good relationship.
If what you say is true (that a relationship with someone is needed before you can hit them and have them learn from it), then what about hitting your spouse as a form of discipline? For instance, it used to be acceptable for husbands to hit their wives if they thought that they did something 'bad' (and, like with children, harming them greatly wasn't permissible in most cases). What about doing this to your friends or people who were previously your friends? Why should this not be permissible? It's not really legal to do so, as far as I know (if they wanted to take action, that is). Should it be?
do you view all corporal punishment as abuse?
I don't think people should use physical violence (minor or otherwise) to try to get others to listen to them (unless the other person attacked first). So, in my opinion, yes. It typically isn't the 'horrible' kind of abuse, but I still think it is something that shouldn't be done.
Too literally? I just read the contents of it. It says "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression." What exactly am I supposed to get out of that but what it says?
emphasizing that the intent of the speech is important.
Where did you get this from? But, even if that was true, it mentions no exceptions itself.
What complete and utter nonsense. Those who drafted were concerned with freedom and liberty.
Yes. But it doesn't matter what limitation they thought free speech should have. What matters is what is inside the constitution.
You aren't free if you've got someone constantly yelling abuse at you day and night.
I disagree. Whether that is bad or not is subjective. You could just as easily say "you aren't free if someone says something that you don't like!"
People like you think you're upholding or defending the constitution but don't have a fucking clue what the document was about.
I just read what it says and judge based on that. That's it. "Freedom of speech."
I've never seen that reported. Have you?
No. That is why I stated it in the form of a question.
if it's really just because you don't like the idea of it, just say as much and I'll leave you alone.
Yes. It is not my preferred method. It's not that I think that it will corrupt every single kid and turn them into a monster. I, personally, just think that it's barbaric and idiotic. Personally, I'd physically retaliate against someone if they tried to employ such methods against me. People are within their right to remove property from my possession if it belongs to them, however.
I have not met any people whose parents used physical discipline that later adopted violent behavior towards their parents or anyone else.
Really? Well, since we aren't linking to studies, anecdotal evidence is all we can offer. I've seen the opposite happen in many cases.
Taking away a child's toys for no good reason is just as abusive psychologically
Except that not letting them use things that you bought sends a different message. In other words, you can take away privileges provided that you are responsible for them. Violence becomes less appealing if it is not used as a method of control by trusted adults, I would think.
means a prior relationship
Why?
the action is not disciplinary but vindictive.
What if, like a parent, they "meant well"? Why is it automatically vindictive?
As you can surely read, it just says CONGRESS can't hinder your speech.
As has been explained before, you're right, but the 14th amendment rectifies this in some cases.
basic human rights
What does this have to do with saying whatever you please?
No, the Constitution does not forbid restrictions of free speech.
If that were true, then what would be the point of it? They could just restrict any speech they pleased, could they not?
The Constitution itself provides for promoting the arts and sciences by certain activities which would be restrictions on the freedom of speech if that freedom were absolute, even without the current ridiculously draconian (mis-?)interpretations of copyright and patent law.
I'm already aware that the constitution has what appears to be contradictions.
justice
There are many forms of "justice," and not all of them are the same. It's subjective, really. The fact that the constitution says this does not mean that they can change it however they please.
Therefore, the Constitution provides for some things that take precedence over freedom of speech claims.
Even if I were to accept that copyright takes precedence over free speech in some circumstances, where are the rest of the supposed restrictions? Libel? Slander? I don't see those listed.
There is no way, in the real world, that the freedom of speech can be untangled from the other rights and responsibilities of citizens.
It can if you have absolute freedom of speech. Speech itself harms no one (they are the cause of their own misery). How humans themselves act based on it is another matter, and that is their fault.
Sexual and racial slurs are often used as tools of physical and sexual abuse.
And? Some words can be used to insult people. If someone gets offended, that is their own fault (sexual abuse or not). You can't physically abuse someone with words.
It is absolutely appropriate
You state this as a fact, but I disagree.
Okay, but it is still speech. You can't just say "it's harassment, so the first amendment no longer applies."
The man explained why you're wrong and you cite ideas and "should be's" to counter him.
I guess you're correct. A majority of my argument is merely an opinion. An opinion that likely will not change. As such, it is rather pointless, isn't it?
You are a coward hiding behind "morality" and "enlightenment".
"Morality"? My morals are fairly different from normal people's. I don't even believe in absolute morals. What a seemingly strange conclusion to come to.
Girls have a right to tell guys no.
And, in your above example, when they personally do not like the speech, it should be silenced. Why should this not be applied to any speech if it offends someone enough or makes them uncomfortable?
This is different from any other punishment/reward system...how?
No logical argument is necessary. This is more true here than with other punishments.
Corporal punishment is to be used sparingly and as a deterrent.
And I disagree that it should be used at all.
That tends to happen on its own.
But wouldn't it likely be more frequently if their parent uses and teaches them that it is acceptable (even if that wasn't that intention)?
Can you give an example or two, then?
They could kick them out of the building (if the kid is in a school). The school doesn't need to punish them at all.
1) Take away things the kid enjoys, provided you own them in the first place.
2) Don't do anything good for them in the future that you normally would.
Explain these to them, of course.
You are working from the premise that spanking is wrong, evil, barbaric.
Because I think that it is, not that it is a universal fact (as in, that is my opinion).
You have yet to give me any good reason to believe that my method, which works in a hundredth of the time, is less effective or more harmful than the lengthy alternative.
And what of children that adopt this sort of violent behavior because their parents utilize it? What of the ones that even go so far as to use it against their parents or others?
The unwarranted personal attack also does not help your case.
"Unwarranted"? Well, I disagree. But, anyway, it was not a personal attack so much as it was my belief that most people simply should not have children and then complain about them because they do things that they don't like. Yes, I really don't understand how that particular quote was a personal attack at all.
You shouldn't be hitting random adults or random children.
Why not? Whether they're random or not, if you hit them in the right circumstances and explain it to them, they will understand, correct?
Someone else also pointed this out. But the 14th amendment has been used to apply the bill of rights to the states themselves, has it not?
The constitution doesn't define free speech
And? Can it not be assumed that it meant all speech? All it says is "freedom of speech" while listing no exceptions. Because of this, there are none.
It doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without consequences, it just means that the congress can't make laws that prevent free speech.
I don't know why, but I never really noticed that. You appear to be correct. However, the 14th amendment has been used to rectify this, has it not?
It happens all the time. Even slashdot is moderated to remove trolls.
What does that have to do with the government or its workers restricting speech (which is what the constitution forbids)?
Free speech only has value if what is said is actually worth something.
I see. Only speech that you think has value is worth something? I could say that about anything. Such as people talking about brand-named clothing. Ban that immediately because I, using my subjective viewpoint, have decided that it is not worth anything for everyone! Or, alternatively, we can always go with the tyranny of the majority.
And in general this has nothing to do with free speech, but just being a miserable excuse of a human being.
Well, that's merely your opinion. And of course it has to do with free speech, since this story is entirely about speech and nothing more.
when used appropriately and early enough creates very useful psychological conditioning.
And an excellent method to brainwash people. Another problem is that parents have no real restrictions on what they can do (aside from not punishing them too harshly). Don't believe in god? Time for a spanking! You did something that I don't like? Time for violence! Sure, other punishments could be used in their place, but, as you said, physical violence is an effective method at conditioning, even if you don't have an actual logical argument. Kids will likely realize this and begin employing violence themselves. And, really, why shouldn't they?
you end up with a bunch of brats who know that the adults around them are relatively powerless to stop them from doing anything but criminal acts.
Powerless? Not at all. However, even if that were true, that is simply too bad. There are lots of people who do things that are legal that I am against, but I would never use violence to try to stop them from doing those things. I think that's merely arrogant and barbaric.
patience
If you don't have time and/or patience, you should not have children. If this were a rule, it would likely bring about one seemingly positive outcome: an end to overpopulation.
And corporal punishment does work on adults--you've never had or heard of a confrontation with a friend over something that's basically resolved after a brief scuffle? The trick, just like with children, is that there has to be a more-than-superficial relationship, otherwise it is indeed senseless violence and counterproductive.
But it is by no means legal, as far as I know (even if nothing is done about it in most cases). Try hitting a random adult because they do something that you disagree with like you would a child. After all, why not? Apparently it would create a "better" society.
Your state, though, has the power to limit your speech.
The constitution, as far as I know, cannot be overridden by state laws. That would be absolutely insane, don't you think?
In addition, the Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy.
And? That merely leaves it up to the government and the people to decide on that issue. What the constitution does mention, however, is that people have the right to free speech. What the supreme court says is irrelevant, as they can be wrong. If an amendment mentions nothing about it, then I don't see how that could be, unless it is utterly and intentionally vague to fit future issues.
Also, you spoke as though the fact that the issue of privacy isn't mentioned in the constitution means that the constitution can be altered in other ways. Why is that? Or am I incorrect? Anyway, just because someone does one thing "wrong," that does not mean that it is "okay" to do something else that is "wrong."
Yes. He would generally be referred to as a "bad" father, but yes. That is speech, after all.
The constitution merely says "speech." That's it. When faced with that, the amount of people listening truly is irrelevant, is it not?
I'm sure it's pretty "bad" in some places. But, what does that have to do with the US, a place whose constitution supposedly protects free speech?
Freedom is not an absolute
What's with the straw man arguments? You've repeatedly said things such as this, and I've never even said anything about it. All I'm saying is that the constitution protects free speech and lists no exceptions. It doesn't say "freedom is absolute," but if it did, then that would be a poor constitution, and a majority of citizens would need to throw it out.
When your freedom of speech impinges on the liberties of others, that is crossing beyond your own freedom to express yourself without harassment (which I condone) and to your freedom to harass others (which I do not condone).
That's not what the constitution says. Probably because they knew that anyone could claim that any speech hurts them.
Also, where did you get the "95%" from? Can you prove that at all?
Capital punishment in schools was abused, but was 95% effective.
Don't you mean "corporal punishment"? Anyway, effective or no, I think that employing physical force against someone who poses no physical threat to you is idiotic and barbaric. I wouldn't want people to be able to go around and hit others merely because they don't like what they did (when they posed no physical threat to them). Why should such a rule only apply to children? If it's so "effective," it can certainly be applied to adults, and it may even work in some cases. That way no "criminals" will ever be produced, because hitting others instantly solves everything!
It's their education, and if they mess it up, then they can "ruin" their chance (even though it won't necessarily ruin their life at all). Too bad for them.
Yes, if "Kelly" doesn't want to be rated
So, if someone doesn't like a certain type of speech, it should be restricted?
that is a slur and a racial slur. Sexual slur, too.
And?