first Amendment - free speech - homeland terrorist - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-14-2005, 09:13 AM   #16
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer

I think that anybody who would try to assassinate the President is probably not going to be swayed one way or the other by the message of t-shirts or protests.
That may be true but what does it say about the public if such a personal slander is gone unchecked and if everybody shrugs it off......?

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of violence or freedom of instigation.

btw - I'm deeply saddened about what is happening in Sydney right now and in the context of this post I'd like to ask you if the rioters are justified for exercising their freedom of speech by attacking people of middle-Eastern appearance.
__________________

__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 09:19 AM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Violence is not free speech, it is an infringement of rights and a violation of the no-harm principle. Now there is no right to not be offended and nor should there be. I will give two distinguishing examples of speech one that should be protected as free speech the other an incitement to violence that should not be protected. Free speech does not cover inciting violence but it does cover offensive speech.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 10:10 AM   #18
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Tel-Aviv, Israel
Posts: 1,300
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Violence is not free speech, it is an infringement of rights and a violation of the no-harm principle. Now there is no right to not be offended and nor should there be. I will give two distinguishing examples of speech one that should be protected as free speech the other an incitement to violence that should not be protected. Free speech does not cover inciting violence but it does cover offensive speech.
Wanderer, I don't understand that at all and believe me I'm not trying to be difficult. I really need to understand this "free speech" issue.....its driving me mad.

I don't know you personally so what on earth would give me the right to call you a son of a bitch and post a "Wanted" picture of you in your neighbourhood with the word "Killer" on it?

What right does someone (who doesn't know the president personally) have to label the president a terrorist? What has Bush done to possibly justify that horrible description?? Was HE the one who ordered the attacks on Sept.11th? Was HE the one behind the Bali bombings? Did he EVER say that he condones the killing of innocent people?

Bush has the near-impossible job of defending over 300 million people - why would any sane person begrudge him for that? Personally, I'd be grateful that someone is looking out for me and my family and doing all they could to protect me.

People like Prof. Ward Churcill, who said that the people who were killed on 9/11 had it coming and then compared the victims to Nazis, strengthens my belief that Americans have WAY too much freedom of speech.

Am I wrong?
__________________
AchtungBono is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 10:26 AM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,699
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono

I don't know you personally so what on earth would give me the right to call you a son of a bitch and post a "Wanted" picture of you in your neighbourhood with the word "Killer" on it?
This wouldn't be legal. One can sue for slander, unless the party making the statements can prove otherwise.
Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono

What right does someone (who doesn't know the president personally) have to label the president a terrorist? What has Bush done to possibly justify that horrible description?? Was HE the one who ordered the attacks on Sept.11th? Was HE the one behind the Bali bombings? Did he EVER say that he condones the killing of innocent people?
Public figures have less protection. This shirt is not inciting violence.

Many disagree with Bush's policy and believe his actions to be horrific acts against innocent people. They are allowed those beliefs, but they wouldn't be allowed to actually use language to incite violence.

Quote:
Originally posted by AchtungBono

Americans have WAY too much freedom of speech.

You can't have too much freedom of speech.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-14-2005, 10:26 AM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:39 AM
I feel that your wrong because although the speech itself may be absurd today that freedom guarantees that totalitarianism can never prosper. Part of free speech is having to have wankers like Churchill going off calling victims of terror "Little Eichmans" or seeing some tosser punk carp on about "Zionazis", but it also gives people the freedom to call them out and highlight their bullshit. The other part of free speech is being able to bring government abuses to light and protect the public from their governments.

Free speech is the cornerstone of a free society. If it is compromised then other liberties can be quickly eroded. This logic applies towards so-called "hate speech laws" as well as broad sedition laws - the threats to free speech come from both the left and the right.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 11:45 AM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Public figures have less protection. This shirt is not inciting violence.
That is the correct analysis for public speech. But in the confines of a school, the right of expression is far more limited.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 12:13 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,699
Local Time: 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

That is the correct analysis for public speech. But in the confines of a school, the right of expression is far more limited.
Doesn't that vary from school to school?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-14-2005, 12:27 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Doesn't that vary from school to school?
Likely, as some schools may not articulate a dress code policy that is as strict as it could be. For instance, there are plenty of public schools that require a uniform and prohibit t-shirts with any message or commercial logo.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 12-14-2005, 02:22 PM   #24
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
That is the correct analysis for public speech. But in the confines of a school, the right of expression is far more limited.
And frankly, that's not always a good thing [but sometimes]. The Supreme Court agrees with you based on a case involving a school confiscating student papers because of "controversial" material. When a student walks in the doors of a school, they automatically have their right to free speech limited by the constitution and SC precedent. That being said, if the school had no prior rule about it, he should wear it.

AchtungBono -- Bush is a public figure and we have every right to call him whatever we want. If someone wants to say his policies suck, they can. Hell, if they want to burn the American flag in protest to Bush's policies, they can.

I highly doubt I would ever burn an American flag, but I can if it comes to that. The First Amendment is the greatest amendment our Founding Fathers gave us. It gives us the right to speak out when the government is doing something wrong. It gives us the right to go to whatever church, synagogue, or temple we want to go to. It gives the press the right to report on whatever stories it deems are important. Could you imagine if Woodward and Bernstein had not been able to write about Watergate because the government controlled their paper? Could you imagine not being able to celebrate Christmas because Christianity was not allowed? Could you imagine what would happen if your own family had the ability to turn you into the government if you spoke out against Our Dear Leader?

The freedom to wear a shirt that calls your leader an international terrorist is a freedom few people in this country have. As Thomas Jefferson said "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
__________________

__________________
sharky is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com