The first amendment is to the US constitution, it is not universal.
Universal in the US, though.
It certainly won't work as a defence for someone who's stalking, abusing, misusing their authority in the work place, discriminating on race, colour, creed etc.
If that's what the constitution claims it protects, it certainly should.
You seem to forget that the whole purpose of the American constitution was to protect the citizens from harassment and provide them with a framework of freedom to do well and prosper.
And, following that goal, it gives us free speech (with no listed exceptions). Unless the people overthrow their government and create a new constitution, the one we have now still applies. For what it's worth, I think that free speech is a good thing.
There is a distinct difference between holding a belief and stating it in a public forum, and going to someone's house and yelling your belief at them or abusing them for their beliefs.
Both are speech. The locations and situations may be different, but they are speech nonetheless.
The second would not.
Is that what the constitution states?
If you go out of your way to insult them and that is your only goal it is your fault if they are offended.
Yet, when people insult me, I feel absolutely nothing. I've conquered this belief. Words cannot hurt you unless you let them. But this really is irrelevant in regards to free speech.
You are deeply misguided about what freedom of speech means if you think you can say "what you want without consequence".
I am? The constitution merely mentions free speech, and nothing more. What am I supposed to assume it protects? Speech that some people like (with many differing views), or all speech?
Such a society would be absolutely unlivable. You and the people you care about would be harassed and hounded mercilessly without any recourse.
By words? I'm fine with that, if it would really happen.
Freedom without consequences is an unworkable idea.
No, no. This is about speech with no consequences. Which the constitution claims it protects. If you don't like that, get a majority of the population on your side, overthrow the government, and craft a new constitution. As you can see, all I care about is what the constitution says, because I believe it should be followed.
Verbal assault is recognised as a criminal act in most countries that protect free speech.
And? If they claim to have free speech in something as "final" as a constitution, then they are the ones who are wrong, are they not? The number of countries that do this is irrelevant.
Oh, I see. So if someone is offended by something, it should not be protected, even though the first amendment explicitly states that it protects all speech? What if someone is offended by the fact that I said that I don't like their god? They are as offended as if I insulted them personally, so they interpret this as a verbal assault.
They, in reality, are the cause of their own misery. They need not be offended by such things, as far as I know, and it is not my fault if they are. The constitution doesn't say you can do whatever you please without consequence, but it does give you some freedoms, and one of those happens to be saying what you want without consequence, despite what our government says.
how do we make sure that we deal with this in a rational way
By not caring about it and realizing that it, like all other kinds of speech, is merely speech. That's what I would call "rational." The amount of people listening is irrelevant. It is still speech.
having consequences attached to attacking and demeaning others is not a violation of free speech.
What? Of course it is. Since the constitution mentions nothing about exactly what is free speech and what isn't, it is assumed that all speech is free. By free, it means you can say it without consequences. Otherwise, what would be the point of free speech at all? You could say anything you wanted even without the first amendment. Its job is to guarantee that you can say these things without consequences.
Some truth or not, I don't think you should be saying it in a way that sounds like a universal truth. Doing that, I could claim that every single human is an imbecile. It really depends on the individual, and you likely have to assess the individual for you to know if your generalization is true.
What exactly is "morally wrong"? Your opinion on the matter is not an absolute fact, and people do have different interpretations of the words "right" and "wrong." It's entirely subjective, as far as we know.
I disagree with that if you're talking about forced religious education. If it's just there for anyone who wants to take it, then I don't see why not. But if you meant forced, I have to ask: why?
Knowing what other people believe is of vital importance if you're going to share a planet with them.
When it comes to things such as religion, not really.
This is a prime example of why people without legal training should not attempt to critique court decisions.
Not really. Anyone can call them out, and anyone can be right, depending on the validity of their arguments. This, I think, is an example of someone being wrong. But, it doesn't mean that everyone without legal training is wrong.
The words are, though. If they're intentionally trying to confuse their customers or lie to them, then I will say that I think that the company likely isn't a very good one. Since you're talking about that, I can agree.
Your comment contained many insults, but no explanation (that I see) as to why that is. I really don't see how it's a company's fault if someone doesn't have the time to read something or ask a question, provided the company was not lying to them or attempting to stop them from doing so in the first place.
Please tell us which company you work for so we can start boycotting your products - if that's how you feel about your paying customers.
Well, if the company clearly writes it down somewhere and doesn't lie, then I see no problem. It certainly isn't their fault that the customer is either stupid or doesn't have time to read it (or some other reason). It's unfortunate, yes, but it isn't their fault.
If I were to write this reply in Arabic, would you read it?
Taking the time to learn a completely different language is quite different than taking the time to read something in your own language.
Most people hardly have the time to ask questions or learn legalese or pay lawyers to read all the paperwork they somehow get involved in.
Too bad for them, then. I believe that stupidity (or claiming you don't have enough time) is a terrible defense. That isn't the companies' fault, after all.
It's great to be cautious in engineering our buildings
Who is giving up freedom in those circumstances? All that's doing is prolonging the existence of the building, not affecting the population at large.
rather than burdens/little people/useful objects.
Now they're just people who never have any responsibility and apparently can't make any decisions on their own. The arrogance of the past is still present now.
I would say, due to the amount at stake and the current status quo, that evidence to the contrary would be necessary before we could justify legalizing the consumption of child pornography.
The person who states something as a fact is the one who needs to prove it. And since society is the one who banned it based on claims that they apparently never proved, the burden of proof is on them.
Slashdot Mirror
The first amendment is to the US constitution, it is not universal.
Universal in the US, though.
It certainly won't work as a defence for someone who's stalking, abusing, misusing their authority in the work place, discriminating on race, colour, creed etc.
If that's what the constitution claims it protects, it certainly should.
You seem to forget that the whole purpose of the American constitution was to protect the citizens from harassment and provide them with a framework of freedom to do well and prosper.
And, following that goal, it gives us free speech (with no listed exceptions). Unless the people overthrow their government and create a new constitution, the one we have now still applies. For what it's worth, I think that free speech is a good thing.
There is a distinct difference between holding a belief and stating it in a public forum, and going to someone's house and yelling your belief at them or abusing them for their beliefs.
Both are speech. The locations and situations may be different, but they are speech nonetheless.
The second would not.
Is that what the constitution states?
If you go out of your way to insult them and that is your only goal it is your fault if they are offended.
Yet, when people insult me, I feel absolutely nothing. I've conquered this belief. Words cannot hurt you unless you let them. But this really is irrelevant in regards to free speech.
You are deeply misguided about what freedom of speech means if you think you can say "what you want without consequence".
I am? The constitution merely mentions free speech, and nothing more. What am I supposed to assume it protects? Speech that some people like (with many differing views), or all speech?
Such a society would be absolutely unlivable. You and the people you care about would be harassed and hounded mercilessly without any recourse.
By words? I'm fine with that, if it would really happen.
Freedom without consequences is an unworkable idea.
No, no. This is about speech with no consequences. Which the constitution claims it protects. If you don't like that, get a majority of the population on your side, overthrow the government, and craft a new constitution. As you can see, all I care about is what the constitution says, because I believe it should be followed.
Verbal assault is recognised as a criminal act in most countries that protect free speech.
And? If they claim to have free speech in something as "final" as a constitution, then they are the ones who are wrong, are they not? The number of countries that do this is irrelevant.
No one decent human being would find the above examples acceptable or defensible.
Decent? Well, that's subjective, but I certainly would. They are indeed examples of free speech.
or as simple as a limited verbal assault
Oh, I see. So if someone is offended by something, it should not be protected, even though the first amendment explicitly states that it protects all speech? What if someone is offended by the fact that I said that I don't like their god? They are as offended as if I insulted them personally, so they interpret this as a verbal assault.
They, in reality, are the cause of their own misery. They need not be offended by such things, as far as I know, and it is not my fault if they are. The constitution doesn't say you can do whatever you please without consequence, but it does give you some freedoms, and one of those happens to be saying what you want without consequence, despite what our government says.
how do we make sure that we deal with this in a rational way
By not caring about it and realizing that it, like all other kinds of speech, is merely speech. That's what I would call "rational." The amount of people listening is irrelevant. It is still speech.
having consequences attached to attacking and demeaning others is not a violation of free speech.
What? Of course it is. Since the constitution mentions nothing about exactly what is free speech and what isn't, it is assumed that all speech is free. By free, it means you can say it without consequences. Otherwise, what would be the point of free speech at all? You could say anything you wanted even without the first amendment. Its job is to guarantee that you can say these things without consequences.
Some truth or not, I don't think you should be saying it in a way that sounds like a universal truth. Doing that, I could claim that every single human is an imbecile. It really depends on the individual, and you likely have to assess the individual for you to know if your generalization is true.
What exactly is "morally wrong"? Your opinion on the matter is not an absolute fact, and people do have different interpretations of the words "right" and "wrong." It's entirely subjective, as far as we know.
Everyone is the same!
It's not a strawman, either, as I've had two friends make that exact claim to me
How does that mean it's not a straw man?
Religious education in schools is a good thing
I disagree with that if you're talking about forced religious education. If it's just there for anyone who wants to take it, then I don't see why not. But if you meant forced, I have to ask: why?
Knowing what other people believe is of vital importance if you're going to share a planet with them.
When it comes to things such as religion, not really.
and become whatever "art" is.
"Art" is whatever you say it is. Not everything that is "art" to other people will be even remotely interesting to you.
If you want to win an argument in court, you have to argue based on law, not based on common sense.
And, sometimes, seemingly not based on logic, either. Though, I don't see any good reasons for that.
This is a prime example of why people without legal training should not attempt to critique court decisions.
Not really. Anyone can call them out, and anyone can be right, depending on the validity of their arguments. This, I think, is an example of someone being wrong. But, it doesn't mean that everyone without legal training is wrong.
No, the people did that. By acting on the information. That's not Wikileaks' fault.
I'd much rather have things that "should be kept secret" leaked than trust the government.
"Wrong" is subjective in the first place.
horribly wrong
Whether something is "horribly wrong" or not depends on your perspective.
Legalese isn't English
The words are, though. If they're intentionally trying to confuse their customers or lie to them, then I will say that I think that the company likely isn't a very good one. Since you're talking about that, I can agree.
Your comment contained many insults, but no explanation (that I see) as to why that is. I really don't see how it's a company's fault if someone doesn't have the time to read something or ask a question, provided the company was not lying to them or attempting to stop them from doing so in the first place.
Please tell us which company you work for so we can start boycotting your products - if that's how you feel about your paying customers.
Well, if the company clearly writes it down somewhere and doesn't lie, then I see no problem. It certainly isn't their fault that the customer is either stupid or doesn't have time to read it (or some other reason). It's unfortunate, yes, but it isn't their fault.
If I were to write this reply in Arabic, would you read it?
Taking the time to learn a completely different language is quite different than taking the time to read something in your own language.
Most people hardly have the time to ask questions or learn legalese or pay lawyers to read all the paperwork they somehow get involved in.
Too bad for them, then. I believe that stupidity (or claiming you don't have enough time) is a terrible defense. That isn't the companies' fault, after all.
It's great to be cautious in engineering our buildings
Who is giving up freedom in those circumstances? All that's doing is prolonging the existence of the building, not affecting the population at large.
rather than burdens/little people/useful objects.
Now they're just people who never have any responsibility and apparently can't make any decisions on their own. The arrogance of the past is still present now.
I would say, due to the amount at stake and the current status quo, that evidence to the contrary would be necessary before we could justify legalizing the consumption of child pornography.
The person who states something as a fact is the one who needs to prove it. And since society is the one who banned it based on claims that they apparently never proved, the burden of proof is on them.
No, not faulty.
So you say.
but the photos weren't made to put in a family album.
And?
Statutory rape and child molestation are a crime; viewing it makes you part of the production process as an end (ab)user.
How so? What if you don't pay for it and they don't even know you exist? Apparently, most of them share it on completely irrelevant websites.
Pictures after-the-fact
That's what child pornography is.
That's why the laws are written the way they are.
Or it could be that they're faulty.