Crimes of color

[hermit22]

Originally posted by Xugumad


I honestly can't say what should be 'allowed', and what shouldn't. But since I don't think that any of us are wise and able enough to derive some sort of common law of freedom regarding speech, I believe we ought to stick with the default: unrestricted free speech. Isn't there an amendment somewhere dealing with that?

X.

Yes, but even under that law, you can't incite a riot to go up and kill the rich guy who lives up on the hill. You have the right to freedom of speech as long as that right doesn't infringe on the rights of someone else. There's a long history of court rulings that agree with this view.

On the other hand, on a board such as this, I doubt there's going to much conspiring to harm another person, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal. But, as the moderator of the forum, the guy has the right to control what is said, and remove what he wishes. It's not good moderating to do so discriminately, but...that's a topic for another thread that's already thriving well elsewhere.

Also, as to what you said about the potus, there's an old State sketch about that....one of the funniest sketches they did.

[jaguar]

There is a legal definition of free speech, I was trying to remember it. That is not my personal view. My personal view is that the limit should be when it infringes on the freedom of others. Defining that point if of course, hazy at best. Please don't tell me you believe in absolute rights, that truly is farcical. You do not have absolute free speech, for a start slander/libel laws come into play, trade secret laws, protection of government secrets, thousands of other technicalities etc come into play.

This page covers all this damn well.
To quote:

First of all, no one takes the literal command "no" to mean no. Justice Hugo Black (1937-1971) was the last one to believe that "Congress shall make no law" means Congress shall make no law. Such an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment leaves no restrictions on obscenity, libel, or slander. More predominant interpretations look at speech as distinct from speech plus (speech plus other conduct, commonly called demonstrations or protests), conduct, or the effects of speech. Congress has every right in the world to control these things.

So stop claiming you have an absolute right to say whatever you want, no one does. Ever. Realpolitik people.

Indeed, no wonder we can't get along, you live in the land of abstract rights, I’m dealing with reality.

[elSicomoro]

As the Ice-T album title goes "Freedom of speech...just watch what you say."

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar

This page covers all this damn well.

That's the personal website of a criminal justice instructor at a small religious college in North Carolina. Not exactly a font of authoritative commentary on constitutional law.

Indeed, no wonder we can't get along, you live in the land of abstract rights, I’m dealing with reality.

If you simply have contempt for abstractions, arising from the depths of your profound personal knowlege of "reality", you'd probably better stay away from the law. It's all abstractions, you know.

Let us know when you remeber your "legal definition 'of free speech"....or perhaps when you realize that you're actually misquoting the Supreme Court definition of "pornography", the "redeeming social importance" standard, under which even indecent speech can be protected speech.

[jaguar]

Its also worth noting the definition of freedom of speach varies from place to place, and the fact its entirrly irrelavent.

Your government and many others systematically ignore, undermine and blatnatly disregard their own laws. Your amendment rights are not exactly intact. Thus I pay more attention to the practical implimentation of laws, rather than their what they were meant for.

Feel free to bag the source for that neat little page as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that a myriad of laws impinge on your abstract right of 'free speach'. Not to mention that absolute freedom of speach, like absolute freedom of action are fundamentally impossible because one person would impinge on that of another. Abstractions are irrelavent.

It also doesn't affect the fact this is a dead thread.