Actually you have a point. It isn't for us to say, and it is a bit presumptuous for anyone to do so.
Generally the most I will ever say about someone who professes Jesus but doesn't seem to live it, is something like: "If he has the grace of God in him... he ought to let it out for a walk once in a while!"
Fiddling While Rome Burns
Carthago Delenda Est
"I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."
Conversely, a person who makes $65K a year and has three kids that loses 10K is probably going to suffer more harm than a bachelor with no kids who makes $60K a year and loses that very same 10K. teh difference in harm would be documentable, but not measurable.
Physical injuries simply cannot be measured. Only described and documented. Measurements can only relate to values. To show that there can not be a value placed on physical "harm", I offer the following:
What's the difference in value between the loss of the left foot and the loss of a left hand?
Now, after you've thought about that in a general sense, what's the difference in value between teh loss of the left foot and the loss of left hand for a professional musician, say a concert pianist at the start of their career?
Clearly, for said musician, the harm done by the loss of a left hand is going to be greater than that of the loss of the left foot. Whereas a professional soccer player would be harmed more from the loss of the left foot, as losing his hand would have little to no effect on his livelihood.
Do we consider the harm received from losing one's left hand equal to that of losing the right? If so, does that mean a right-handed person has been harmed just as much as he would have been if he lost his left hand? Or do we measure harm in this situation by handed-ness?
Is so, what about losing a finger on the left hand versus losing a finger on the right one? Would that still be based on handedness, or would it be equal? Is a pinky worth the same value as an index finger? Would a right-handed guitar player get more "harm points" if he lost a finger on his left hand as opposed to his right?
What I'm trying to show is that harm, the actual damage one receives overall, is simply not a legitimately measurable construct.
Harm is a relative factor, though, it is just not a subjective one. You can document and describe the damage that comes from something harmful, and this degree of harm inflicted will be clear to an objective observer.
i.e. For a professional musician, going deaf is more harmful than going blind would be. We can't place a value on one over the other without knowing more details about the person being harmed.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
I'm not sure how Brandenburg v. Ohio relates to my argument in the least. That ruling was about the advocacy of violence, and how that is different from incitement.
My argument is actually about the words which, "by their very utterance" in certain circumstances "inflict injury." and how they should be prevented from being uttered in said circumstances.
an important ruling would be cohen v California which states that fighting words are those "which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction."
Standing outside of a funeral with a sign telling people that their son is going to hell is indeed inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction.
Last edited by Tucker Case; 04-14-10 at 07:01 PM.
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
Fair enough. But is "by there very utterance inflict injury" a little vague? Depending on the sensitivity of the "victim", almost anything could apply. That is why the Court has systematically been narrowing the definition since the Chaplinsky decision. The religious guy was not standing the funeral telling them that their son was going to hell. He was away. The dad did not even know about it until after the funeral when he saw it on the news.
In Lewis v. New Orleans (1974)—the Court invalidated convictions of individuals who cursed police officers, finding that the ordinances in question were unconstitutionally overbroad.
Held: The ordinance, as thus construed, is susceptible of application to protected speech, and therefore is overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and facially invalid.
"Inflict injury" was the first step. Many have been taken since that narrow these broad terms into more reasonable and specific ones. And thank god for that.
Last edited by Flea; 04-14-10 at 07:14 PM.