Good that those reasonable limits are in place, huh?
And that's the point of my rants. If the restrictions aren't written down, then they don't apply. The simplicity of such ideas appears to go right over most peoples heads. Exceptions to the rules MUST be spelled out. And nobody here is even making the feeblest attempt to understand it, as indicated by the moderation applied to the thread, in addition to the responses to my posts. It should be crystal clear what I'm arguing about. Evidently, people are interpreting my posts as loosely as they do the 1st amendment, and of course are completely missing the point. It explains many of the things I see around me.
The second part(very vague indeed, left wide open to any interpretation of "crime" "disorder", etc) completely nullifies the first part, and provides the "out" to protect entrented interests that is thankfully not included in the 1st amendment of the American constitution. Article 10 cannot adequately protect free speech, and it appears that's not the real intent. In fact it looks like a lot of double speak straight out of one of Orwell's books to provide the illusion. Furthermore, the closer I look, it appears to be a total waste of ink. It's an insult to anybody who truly believes in freedom. The second part looks like something out of the Chinese constitution. "You have such and such freedom, but you really don't". I was hoping the Europeans were getting their act together on individual freedoms, but this shows it's nothing but a sham.
Nice try, but that would be considered creating a disturbance. That goes beyond speech into action that disrupts normal operations. You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to force people to listen. And you certainly don't have the right to damage someone's hearing with your amplifier. you have the right to be heard by those who want to hear you. You don't have the right to walk over somebody's television signal to inject your own.
One or the other. It's time to quit piddling around. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. It's pretty damn simple. Let's try to leave the doublespeak for the science fiction novels. However I do prefer true freedom of speech, and as opposed to government approved speech.
...the old snake oil sellers, they sold tonics and elixirs said to cure every from the common cold to sore backs to malaria; they didn't test their products, and there were no false advertising laws at the time, so they could say whatever they wanted.
That's why we created the FDA, to verify the claims. If the FDA is working for the snake oil salesman, that's not the fault of free speech. We have many options before us. Enough to make restrictions on speech unnecessary. Let's use them.
These kind of rumours have been known to destroy peoples lifes in the past.
That's precisely the kind of arguement thet gun control people use. To paraphrase the appropriate reply, Rumors don't destry lives, people who act on them do. The rumor is merely the gun on the table, and it's one that's just as likely to blow up in the user's face. But the guy who pulls the trigger is the assassin. If I live in a society that so easily acts on rumor and innuendo, then society has a much bigger problem than free speech.
Belief does not make something true. No matter how many times it's said. No matter how many decide to believe. Those who ACT on false information are the ones to blame. That's what the law should serve to protect you from. If it doesn't, then the law is to blame, not the speaker.
Does your absolute, unconditional version of "free speech" exist _anywhere_ in the known universe?
Yep. It's right there, in black and white. Notice the part that says, "no law..."? That's as absolute as it gets. None of the annotations are in the amendment. What has been written is very specific and not open to interpretation. But arguing with a gun is senseless. Wikipedia is not the constitution. If you want restrictions, then WRITE them in. Don't just change the scope of the meaning to suit your desires.
Well that is why we can use things like "Consumer Reports" or if need be(in fact we already have with FDA, USDA, FAA, etc.) we can have the government test and verify their claims and advise accordingly. That would be the ideal use of the government. It will be up to us to make sure they don't become puppets of the affected corps. In that department we have already failed miserably.
Yes, enforce it, or change it, or repeal it. I don't believe it's unenforcable since the only thing required is to not make any laws that contradict the amendment. If we pick and choose which parts to enforce, and continue to make such loose interpretations, then the whole thing is worthless. The proper procedures are in place. And I don't consider it to be vague as you do. It is very precise. "Congress shall make no law..." I don't see any vagueness whatsoever. It couldn't be more clear. If you want exceptions then spell it out.
It's unfortunate that most judges would agree, as indicated by their rulings on the matter. But it's still there in black and white(okay, a litlle yellow), and we should be hammering hard on that fact until it has been appropriately amended.
We would have written it off as a crock of shit long ago.
"We would have"? "We already have" would be more correct.
If it is not absolutely, positively, unconditional, then it is not free speech. Free speech includes the freedom to offend(the most important part of the concept)...the government, the company, your boss, your neighbor, your mother, everybody. Call it something else. Furry Kitten speech, Puppy Dog speech, Pink Pony speech, No Offense Speech. It is not FREE speech.
The first amendment effectiviely overrules copyright. It should have included an exception for that and "commercial" and "obscene" speech if they didn't want it to mean what it actually does. But no judge will accept that. It doesn't mean they're right. It just means that nobody wants to go through proper procedure to change the law. So now we have these interpretations of convenience to avoid that little mess.
Those types of speech could very well ruin a person's life and they sure as hell shouldn't be protected.
The speech won't do a thing. Only the people who react innappropriately can do anything to my life.
And I'm damn sure you'd do just about anything possible to stop me from doing so.
You'd be damn wrong. I would have no trouble convincing my family that you're a loon(not that you are really, unless you tried it), and to pay no attention. If you go beyond speech, then I will take the matter up with you.
Because such a blanket statement as "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" is so blanket and vague as to be entirely useless.
Regardless...it IS the law no matter how useless you think it is. It is a written, codified law that our politicians have sworn to uphold. It is our responsibility to make sure they do their job. The Canadian constitution is not the American constitution. It doesn't matter if it is more "reasonable". The original post said you have free speech or you don't. And the simple fact is that, if there are conditions, then it ain't free. Call it anything you like, but it isn't free.
No it doesn't matter. While England doesn't spell out its free speech rights as absolutely as the US, they still claim to have free speech. There's a lot of relativism going on there. If they want to be truthful about it, they will say they have limited freedom of speech. With real freedom of speech comes the freedom to offend.
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech
on
EU Bans Sock-Puppet Blogs
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
...but don't you dare restrict my right to say it!
You're right. I won't. I don't have any right to do so. Say it as loud and as often as you want. I don't care. If anybody believes you, that's their problem. If they try to make it my problem, I will go after them, not you. They are the offenders for what ever actions they take against me, not you. I don't care what motivates them. So feel free and put into a journal on the front page if you like, and I'll deal with anybody who tries anything stupid. Your free speech rights are secure with me.
Re:Before anyone says anything about free speech
on
EU Bans Sock-Puppet Blogs
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Commercial speech is already censored.
Hmmm, I thought that's what this statement, First, commercial speech is censored., meant.
I don't care where it is. The original post still stands. Free speech is unconditional, or it isn't free. Claiming to have free speech when you don't is fraudulent. There is no "a little pregnant".
Slashdot Mirror
Good that those reasonable limits are in place, huh?
And that's the point of my rants. If the restrictions aren't written down, then they don't apply. The simplicity of such ideas appears to go right over most peoples heads. Exceptions to the rules MUST be spelled out. And nobody here is even making the feeblest attempt to understand it, as indicated by the moderation applied to the thread, in addition to the responses to my posts. It should be crystal clear what I'm arguing about. Evidently, people are interpreting my posts as loosely as they do the 1st amendment, and of course are completely missing the point. It explains many of the things I see around me.
There are other amendments to apply the same rules to the states.
So a country that shot you...
Huh?
Oh, and welcome to my list. Looking forward to many productive conversations, now that you will be so easy to track.
The second part(very vague indeed, left wide open to any interpretation of "crime" "disorder", etc) completely nullifies the first part, and provides the "out" to protect entrented interests that is thankfully not included in the 1st amendment of the American constitution. Article 10 cannot adequately protect free speech, and it appears that's not the real intent. In fact it looks like a lot of double speak straight out of one of Orwell's books to provide the illusion. Furthermore, the closer I look, it appears to be a total waste of ink. It's an insult to anybody who truly believes in freedom. The second part looks like something out of the Chinese constitution. "You have such and such freedom, but you really don't". I was hoping the Europeans were getting their act together on individual freedoms, but this shows it's nothing but a sham.
Nice try, but that would be considered creating a disturbance. That goes beyond speech into action that disrupts normal operations. You have a right to speak. You don't have a right to force people to listen. And you certainly don't have the right to damage someone's hearing with your amplifier. you have the right to be heard by those who want to hear you. You don't have the right to walk over somebody's television signal to inject your own.
So...How many pages should it take to define "no law?
One or the other. It's time to quit piddling around. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. It's pretty damn simple. Let's try to leave the doublespeak for the science fiction novels. However I do prefer true freedom of speech, and as opposed to government approved speech.
...the old snake oil sellers, they sold tonics and elixirs said to cure every from the common cold to sore backs to malaria; they didn't test their products, and there were no false advertising laws at the time, so they could say whatever they wanted.
That's why we created the FDA, to verify the claims. If the FDA is working for the snake oil salesman, that's not the fault of free speech. We have many options before us. Enough to make restrictions on speech unnecessary. Let's use them.
We are reaching that point fast enough. Speech restrictions only accelerate the poccess.
These kind of rumours have been known to destroy peoples lifes in the past.
That's precisely the kind of arguement thet gun control people use. To paraphrase the appropriate reply, Rumors don't destry lives, people who act on them do. The rumor is merely the gun on the table, and it's one that's just as likely to blow up in the user's face. But the guy who pulls the trigger is the assassin. If I live in a society that so easily acts on rumor and innuendo, then society has a much bigger problem than free speech.
Belief does not make something true. No matter how many times it's said. No matter how many decide to believe. Those who ACT on false information are the ones to blame. That's what the law should serve to protect you from. If it doesn't, then the law is to blame, not the speaker.
Does your absolute, unconditional version of "free speech" exist _anywhere_ in the known universe?
Yep. It's right there, in black and white. Notice the part that says, "no law..."? That's as absolute as it gets. None of the annotations are in the amendment. What has been written is very specific and not open to interpretation. But arguing with a gun is senseless. Wikipedia is not the constitution. If you want restrictions, then WRITE them in. Don't just change the scope of the meaning to suit your desires.
I tell him to fire it up to verify his claim. I hope you can up with something better than that.
Well that is why we can use things like "Consumer Reports" or if need be(in fact we already have with FDA, USDA, FAA, etc.) we can have the government test and verify their claims and advise accordingly. That would be the ideal use of the government. It will be up to us to make sure they don't become puppets of the affected corps. In that department we have already failed miserably.
Yes, enforce it, or change it, or repeal it. I don't believe it's unenforcable since the only thing required is to not make any laws that contradict the amendment. If we pick and choose which parts to enforce, and continue to make such loose interpretations, then the whole thing is worthless. The proper procedures are in place. And I don't consider it to be vague as you do. It is very precise. "Congress shall make no law..." I don't see any vagueness whatsoever. It couldn't be more clear. If you want exceptions then spell it out.
...It's not the law of the land...
It's unfortunate that most judges would agree, as indicated by their rulings on the matter. But it's still there in black and white(okay, a litlle yellow), and we should be hammering hard on that fact until it has been appropriately amended.
We would have written it off as a crock of shit long ago.
"We would have"? "We already have" would be more correct.
If it is not absolutely, positively, unconditional, then it is not free speech. Free speech includes the freedom to offend(the most important part of the concept)...the government, the company, your boss, your neighbor, your mother, everybody. Call it something else. Furry Kitten speech, Puppy Dog speech, Pink Pony speech, No Offense Speech. It is not FREE speech.
The first amendment effectiviely overrules copyright. It should have included an exception for that and "commercial" and "obscene" speech if they didn't want it to mean what it actually does. But no judge will accept that. It doesn't mean they're right. It just means that nobody wants to go through proper procedure to change the law. So now we have these interpretations of convenience to avoid that little mess.
Those types of speech could very well ruin a person's life and they sure as hell shouldn't be protected.
The speech won't do a thing. Only the people who react innappropriately can do anything to my life.
And I'm damn sure you'd do just about anything possible to stop me from doing so.
You'd be damn wrong. I would have no trouble convincing my family that you're a loon(not that you are really, unless you tried it), and to pay no attention. If you go beyond speech, then I will take the matter up with you.
No, free speech should not be redefined. What we have should be redefined, as something other than free speech. I'll be perfectly happy with that.
Because such a blanket statement as "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" is so blanket and vague as to be entirely useless.
Regardless...it IS the law no matter how useless you think it is. It is a written, codified law that our politicians have sworn to uphold. It is our responsibility to make sure they do their job. The Canadian constitution is not the American constitution. It doesn't matter if it is more "reasonable". The original post said you have free speech or you don't. And the simple fact is that, if there are conditions, then it ain't free. Call it anything you like, but it isn't free.
No it doesn't matter. While England doesn't spell out its free speech rights as absolutely as the US, they still claim to have free speech. There's a lot of relativism going on there. If they want to be truthful about it, they will say they have limited freedom of speech. With real freedom of speech comes the freedom to offend.
...not part of of the US...
You're right. It's the other way around.
Most judges will tell you to check your freedoms at the door. You can pick them up when you leave. That is, if you still want them.
Damn! I thought those documents were sealed :-)
...but don't you dare restrict my right to say it!
You're right. I won't. I don't have any right to do so. Say it as loud and as often as you want. I don't care. If anybody believes you, that's their problem. If they try to make it my problem, I will go after them, not you. They are the offenders for what ever actions they take against me, not you. I don't care what motivates them. So feel free and put into a journal on the front page if you like, and I'll deal with anybody who tries anything stupid. Your free speech rights are secure with me.
Commercial speech is already censored.
Hmmm, I thought that's what this statement, First, commercial speech is censored., meant.
I don't care where it is. The original post still stands. Free speech is unconditional, or it isn't free. Claiming to have free speech when you don't is fraudulent. There is no "a little pregnant".