Author Topic: Free Speech .... Burn it! (Read 1561 times)

Nifty · « **Reply #45 on:** June 28, 2006, 10:25:51 AM »

couple of thoughts on the whole thread...

First, Congress is working within the framework of the Founding Fathers. Congress can amend the Constitution as part of the checks and balances against the Supreme Court. I applaud the fact that the system is sort of working, even if the only reason it was voted on is because the Republican party is doing every thing they can to "mobilize" and "energize" Republican voters for the fall elections.

Second, there is no such thing as universal free speech, meaning you can say ANYTHING you want without any legal consequences. We've all heard of slander, haven't we?

Next, please explain to me the connection between "FIRE!" in a theater or child porn and burning the flag. Also, lukster, can you please provide a reference where the ACLU wants to protect child porn under the First Amendment? As whacko as the ACLU can be, i doubt they'd try to protect that under the First Amendment.

Finally, someone wants to burn the flag, go ahead. All it does to me is show me you can't articulate your dissatisfaction with the government in a non-confrontational way.

Nash · « **Reply #46 on:** June 28, 2006, 10:30:46 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
geez you sure seem to be slow on the uptake. when it comes to expanding governmental power, it is clearly a bipartisan effort.

Then how's about you point out the bipartisan expansion of governmental power when you find an example of it. There are plenty to choose from.

This aint one.

But y'all said the same thing when they wasted all that time trying to ammend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. That, like this, is Republican - not bi-partisan.

None of this is very difficult to understand, is it?

Nifty · « **Reply #47 on:** June 28, 2006, 10:37:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
That, like this, is Republican - not bi-partisan.

None of this is very difficult to understand, is it?

Considering the No vote was 31 Dems, 2 Reps, and 1 Ind (I think), I'm inclinded to agree with Nash on the quoted snip.

As I said, nothing but the Republicans trying to mobilize their voters for the fall.

it's gonna backfire with this registered Republican though.

storch · « **Reply #48 on:** June 28, 2006, 10:39:03 AM »

first of all they are yelling boo and should do so louder. secondly every time a new governmental agency is created or a new law is enacted it is defacto bipartisan expansion of governmental power. that shouldn't be too difficult to comprehend should it? lastly what ever happened to your avatar with the well endowed girl excercising?

storch · « **Reply #49 on:** June 28, 2006, 10:42:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nifty
Considering the No vote was 31 Dems, 2 Reps, and 1 Ind (I think), I'm inclinded to agree with Nash on the quoted snip.

As I said, nothing but the Republicans trying to mobilize their voters for the fall.

it's gonna backfire with this registered Republican though.

with two republicans dissenting it becomes a bipartisan effort irrespective of the number. I agree with you regarding the upcoming elections, the major parties are out of control. the question is where to place the vote to do the most good or perhaps the least damage?

Yeager · « **Reply #50 on:** June 28, 2006, 10:46:40 AM »

burning a flag can be equally construed as a statement showing support for the pro pollution platform as opposed to the freedom of speech platform, although some would argue that political speech is a form of pollution.

There are more useful ways to demonstrate political contempt for america. flag burning seems so moslemesque to me

lukster · « **Reply #51 on:** June 28, 2006, 10:47:06 AM »

This whole argument is only symbolic. How many here or elsewhere in this country do you suppose want to burn a flag? What effect towards change do you suppose doing so will have? It's ridiculous to worry about your right to burn a flag while your real liberties, like the girl who couldn't speak her mind at the commencement ceremony, are stolen.

Thud · « **Reply #52 on:** June 28, 2006, 10:55:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
It's ridiculous to worry about your right to burn a flag while your real liberties, like the girl who couldn't speak her mind at the commencement ceremony, are stolen.

You keep bringing this one up in virtually every thread here, as far as I know the details of what she said (or tried to) are still unknown. Simple thanks or full-fledged preaching, distinction between these seems essential here.

Do you have any info on this? So we can actually draw some conclusions on the incident that are based on something besides speculation...

lukster · « **Reply #53 on:** June 28, 2006, 11:00:28 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thud
You keep bringing this one up in virtually every thread here, as far as I know the details of what she said (or tried to) are still unknown. Simple thanks or full-fledged preaching, distinction between these seems essential here.

Do you have any info on this? So we can actually draw some conclusions on the incident that are based on something besides speculation...

Only the recent threads about freedom of speech. I belive the ACLU is stealing this from under our noses. I want people to see what's happening.

Here are the facts. The girl was the school's valedictoian. She was asked to speak. She started speaking about God in her life and her mic was cut. What other facts do you need?

You have a comment every time I bring this up. Why do you even care about our first amendment?

Thud · « **Reply #54 on:** June 28, 2006, 11:21:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Only the recent threads about freedom of speech. I belive the ACLU is stealing this from under our noses. I want people to see what's happening.

I know that you feel that way but it does not answer my question.

Quote

Here are the facts. The girl was the school's valedictoian. She was asked to speak. She started speaking about God in her life and her mic was cut. What other facts do you need?

I think you know very well that it is quite necessary to have at least some factual information on what she said before we can judge.

Quote

You have a comment every time I bring this up. Why do you even care about our first amendment?

Hardly, I just noticed your persistence in the matter, apparently without backing it with any background info. Don't you believe that it is important to know what she said in order to judge whether she was interrupted for a reason or not?

And on your last statement, I'm interested in foreign politics in general and follow it up to a certain extent. Besides, the US, including its domestic affairs, have quite a pronounced effect on the rest of the world, so I observe it all with a healthy curiosity.

lukster · « **Reply #55 on:** June 28, 2006, 11:29:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Thud
I think you know very well that it is quite necessary to have at least some factual information on what she said before we can judge.

In fact I don't think it matters what she was saying so long as she wasn't yelling fire or attempting to incite a riot. I think it safe to assume she was doing neither. That's why we call it "freedom of speech".

Point taken on your interst in this.

midnight Target · « **Reply #56 on:** June 28, 2006, 11:45:11 AM »

Not looking this up, but IIRC the SC has ruled that free speech is infringable in schools where students are limited in what they can say or report (school papers).

Sandman · « **Reply #57 on:** June 28, 2006, 11:52:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster

You have a comment every time I bring this up. Why do you even care about our first amendment?

Argumentum Ad Hominem

lukster · « **Reply #58 on:** June 28, 2006, 12:02:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Not looking this up, but IIRC the SC has ruled that free speech is infringable in schools where students are limited in what they can say or report (school papers).

I looked it up for ya. Some info here:http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm

"In Tinker, perhaps the best known of the Court's student speech cases, the Court found that the First Amendment protected the right of high school students to wear black armbands in a public high school, as a form of protest against the Viet Nam War. The Court ruled that this symbolic speech--"closely akin to pure speech"--could only be prohibited by school administrators if they could show that it would cause a substantial disruption of the school's educational mission."

I think it safe to say that the school's educational mission was in no danger by allowing this speaker her first amendment rights.

Thud · « **Reply #59 on:** June 28, 2006, 12:08:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
In fact I don't think it matters what she was saying so long as she wasn't yelling fire or attempting to incite a riot. I think it safe to assume she was doing neither. That's why we call it "freedom of speech".

That would be in public right, but a school can decide to keep out grievous or controversial issues at a private gathering, am I correct?

I'll explain why I think the contents were relevant: there have been a number of cases in the US in which employees were fired and their dismissal was upheld in court because they were preaching to their co-workers.
There their right to practice their religion and to freely express themselves were deemed subordinate to the other employees not being confronted with the expression of religion by the fired employees in question.
There the decisive factor consisted of the 'degree of active expression of religion, i.e. preaching or not', ergo, it seems to matter what is said in such a case.