Should there be any limits on Freedom of Speech? [W:57]

Again you are confusing rights with freedoms.
As I have said, and apparently will have to say again...
I have the freedom to punch you.
I DO NOT have the right to punch you.
I have the freedom to rob a bank.
I DO NOT have the right to.
I have the freedom to yell bomb on a plane.
I DO NOT have the right to.

Since your so smart and all Dr. Genius. Why don't you march your super intelligent self down to your local law enforcement or courthouse and tell them you have a right to punch someone, rob a bank, yell bomb on a plane.
Just do me a favor and video record it. I want to see them laughing at you.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

CHARMtheMEDIA said:

Again you are confusing rights with freedoms.
As I have said, and apparently will have to say again...
I have the freedom to punch you.
I DO NOT have the right to punch you.
I have the freedom to rob a bank.
I DO NOT have the right to.
I have the freedom to yell bomb on a plane.
I DO NOT have the right to.

Since your so smart and all Dr. Genius. Why don't you march your super intelligent self down to your local law enforcement or courthouse and tell them you have a right to punch someone, rob a bank, yell bomb on a plane.
Just do me a favor and video record it. I want to see them laughing at you.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Of course you have the freedom to punch me, at no point did I say you didn't. You do not have the right to punch me, I have said that too. You can do it because you are not barred from doing so before hand. There is no restriction on you swinging your arms around. Government doesn't tie your arms down or make you wear gloves. You at any point can make the choice to take a swing at someone. If safety were the true priority, we would be using preemptive government force to stop you BEFORE you swing your fist. But in our Republic where people are free, reaction occurs only AFTER you make the choice to swing your fists.

If someone is confusing freedom with rights, it is you. Your last sentence makes no sense because at no point did I advocate any of that. It's just BS hyperbole and intellectually dishonest statement based on your own inability to read what was written.

Ikari said:

Of course you have the freedom to punch me, at no point did I say you didn't. You do not have the right to punch me, I have said that too. You can do it because you are not barred from doing so before hand. There is no restriction on you swinging your arms around. Government doesn't tie your arms down or make you wear gloves. You at any point can make the choice to take a swing at someone. If safety were the true priority, we would be using preemptive government force to stop you BEFORE you swing your fist. But in our Republic where people are free, reaction occurs only AFTER you make the choice to swing your fists.

If someone is confusing freedom with rights, it is you. Your last sentence makes no sense because at no point did I advocate any of that. It's just BS hyperbole and intellectually dishonest statement based on your own inability to read what was written.

Click to expand...

Really?????

Ikari said:

You do not have the right to punch me in the face because that act inherently violates my own rights. Yet government isn't running around ensuring everyone has boxing gloves either. Someone could very well punch me in the face and it takes that act before government can intervene.

Click to expand...

For a smart guy, you sure do contradict yourself.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

CHARMtheMEDIA said:

Really?????



For a smart guy, you sure do contradict yourself.



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Where's the contradiction? I said you don't have the right to punch me and that government intervenes AFTER the fact. Which is all well and consistent with what I've been saying.

Do you have a real point or are you just going to continue to flounder and make incorrect statements?

Ikari said:

Where's the contradiction? I said you don't have the right to punch me and that government intervenes AFTER the fact. Which is all well and consistent with what I've been saying.

Do you have a real point or are you just going to continue to flounder and make incorrect statements?

Click to expand...

First, and this does not come easilly said, but I was incorrect. In my attempt to scroll through your statements on my 2" by 2" screen on my android, I failed to read one very important word in your second statement that I quoted. That word was "not". So I concede to being wrong on that account.
However, I would like you to enlighten me on something.
This whole debate between you and I started after I said that a protestor did not have a right to stand in the middle of the street without a permit.
You contested me on that.
My question to you is this.
How is it that I do not have the right to punch you because that act infringes on your rights AFTER the action takes place and the government intervenes. Even if I do not actually hit you, the act itself endangers you and thereby violates your rights.
Yet, a protestor standing in the street without permit has a right? When conceivably the protestor can cause way more harm to both the protestor and any potential drivers than any punch could do.
Even if an accident does not occur, the protestor is endangering himself and drivers, much like the scenario of the missed punch.
Can you please explain?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

My first comment was merely

Ikari said:

So long as the rights of others are not infringed upon (and convenience does not equal rights, BTW); then one should be free to do as they like.

Click to expand...

Which is a general statement, I wasn't directing it particularly at any specific situation. There are times when perhaps people are protesting on a sidewalk and you have to go around. You don't have a right to go about your day without encountering inconveniences. In general, I'm not a fan of "permits" for rights because I do not see the need to ask permission from the government to exercise a right. There are, however, on some occasion true safety concerns. Sometimes the ability to exercise our rights is going to come above that, and I think in general so long as one isn't infringing upon the rights of others, that should be the course taken. Standing in middle of the street could be regulated to some degree because of the threat one would pose to other people's well being and property. But we should also be careful on what we're going to call for in restrictions, else we may find ourselves functionally unable to exercise our rights. Which will leave us with neither safety nor freedom.

I agree 100% with everything you have just said.
My main contention with a previous statement you made, that safety is not a right.
I contend that essentially it is.
No, there is no law which guarantees our safety. However, guarantee is the operative word.
There are laws in place to protect our safety. Hence, I used the scenario of the punch.
If your right to not be harmed without recourse is not the factoring right which is violated, what is?
It is my contention that saying the right to safety is one in the same as the right to not be harmed without recourse.
I also contend that physical damage does not have to even occur to be protected from it.
Thus, even if I threw a punch and missed, you would be protected if law enforcement was around to intervene in time.
Therefore, if we have a right to be protected from harm, is it not simpler to say we have a right to safety, even if it is not guaranteed?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I would say that if safety were thought of as a "right", then the application of law would be radically different than what it is now. There would be a much higher degree of preemptive policing in order to prevent someone from acting in a particular way. But our system is reacting, not proactive. So saying that safety is a right and using the punch analogy; if we're really focusing on safety as a right then the government intervenes in some way BEFORE the punch can occur. We are somehow hamstrung into a particular behavior which will not allow us to swing our fist. Wherein you would say that you are free to punch me, but do not have the right; if we focus on safety as a right it wold be You are NOT free to punch me, nor do you have the right.

We can look at this as viewed through gun control. Allowing guns in a society means that if you have enough people you will realize a certain amount of gun crime. If we focus on safety, then we move to remove ALL guns. No one is allowed to have them because we know we have the aggregate number of people necessary to realize abuse. If you can reduce the number of guns to zero (it's not possible, but let's take the case) then you will have zero gun crime and thus have expanded the safety of everyone.

If instead the focus is on freedom over safety, then you allow guns. Noting that it allows for sport, self defense, and the ability to revolt should such need arise. In doing so, you acknowledge that there will be a certain amount of gun crime and resolve yourself to handle that on a case by case basis AFTER the crime has occurred. That is the basis of our system, a system which emphasizes freedom over safety. Free is not safe, it has never been safe, and never will be safe because you are allowing people to make their own choices and actions. Response is not made until after an event has occurred, you accept the aggregated dangers in favor for the exercise of the right.

Again you are correct, and despite our contentions with each other previously in this thread, I am beginning to think disagreement between us is not the case.
I believe it is a case of "a half dozen in one hand and six in the other"

I think if I threw a punch and MISSED, it would still be proactive for law enforcement to stop me and not preemptive.
Just as...
If a protestor were standing in the middle of a road in which cars were driving, even if he were MISSED by cars it would be proactive for him to be removed by law enforcement and not preemptive.

Preemptive would be the government detaining any individual they suspected as violent that might throw a punch at someone, or detaining anyone they suspected as discontent with certain acts or laws they might protest.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

CHARMtheMEDIA said:

Again you are correct, and despite our contentions with each other previously in this thread, I am beginning to think disagreement between us is not the case.
I believe it is a case of "a half dozen in one hand and six in the other"

I think if I threw a punch and MISSED, it would still be proactive for law enforcement to stop me and not preemptive.
Just as...
If a protestor were standing in the middle of a road in which cars were driving, even if he were MISSED by cars it would be proactive for him to be removed by law enforcement and not preemptive.

Preemptive would be the government detaining any individual they suspected as violent that might throw a punch at someone, or detaining anyone they suspected as discontent with certain acts or laws they might protest.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

Perchance. I don't know if I would call it "proactive" since you would have already taken a swing thus establishing intent. Now if you don't connect, you may just be guilty of attempted battery wherein if you connected it would be battery. Just the same as the guy in the street. He may be missed by a car, but him being there already marks a danger and impact. Now I'm sure there's lots of subtleties and certainly areas of abuse and what have you.

Preemptive or proactive policing would be more like the RNC convention in Minnesota wherein they used to police to go in and arrest people BEFORE the convention in order to prevent protest. Something that I am not sure how it would be legal nor do I understand the overall silence over it afterwards. Or at the RNC and DNC conventions where they have "free speech" zones which are fenced off areas miles from the actual convention. Those are forms of preemptive policing and should highlight the dangers of doing so.

I can say there is a difference in the punch scenario and the protestor.
That is, one shows intent to do harm, and the other is merely capable of it.
I actually struggled in finding a comparison.
Probably a better comparison, which I just thought of, would be driving at night with broken headlights.
The intent to harm is not there, but the capability certainly is.

To be honest, the original poster of this thread might have been better to title this something which referenced the right to peaceably assemble. After all, that is what he spoke of in his original post and mostly what we have been debating.

Speaking of peaceably assembling and the RNC and DNC protestors. I believe the argument that could be made is, was it peaceable?
1
a : disposed to peace : not contentious or
quarrelsome
b : quietly behaved
2
: free from strife or disorder

I personally cannot say that it is, or is not a valid argument.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Henrin said:

Why? Oh right because someone could be killed and threats are not cool. Meh..bad reasons.

Click to expand...

Methinks you might think differently if you were on the receiving end of a credible death threat. I mean, it depends how you see it. I'm a free speech fanatic, but I would, personally, argue that specifically, explicitly threatening someone with death, or serious bodily harm actually violates their right to not be killed, or greviously injured, or to not have to live in imminent fear of being murdered, or grievously injured. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Thunder said:

A lot of protesters these days argue that the 1st Amendment is the only protest permit they need, to gather 50,000 people in the middle of Times Square, stopping traffic for miles and causing mass-chaos for the police dept.

Others argue that its only common-sense for big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Philly, etc...so require protest permits so that things can be done in an orderly, controlled, and less-disruptive fashion.

so.....does the government have the right & obligation to enact regulations upon freedom of speech in public space?

Click to expand...

I don't believe so. The problems caused for police are not my concern.

There were protest zones that the media went on and on and on about surrounding GOP convention. They were right. If protesters are kept miles away that effectively silences speech.

I think that the idea of a permit is ludicrous. But I have never seen anyone on a soapbox.

TacticalEvilDan said:

It's always entertaining when people remember which Amendments or rulings affirm the rights which are important to them personally -- but forget all about the 9th Amendment, or common sense in general.

Click to expand...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]

When people say "the others rights not infringed" couldn't that be defined as anything? Couldn't that principle be interpretted so widely as to maker speech illegal?

why would anyone NECRO a THUNDER thread?:doh

BrianBoroihme said:

I don't believe so. The problems caused for police are not my concern.

There were protest zones that the media went on and on and on about surrounding GOP convention. They were right. If protesters are kept miles away that effectively silences speech.

I think that the idea of a permit is ludicrous. But I have never seen anyone on a soapbox.

Click to expand...

The guy you are replying to is long gone