• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

8-0 SCOTUS Free Speech Win

calamity said:
Well, since the case brought before the court was an Asian person wanting to use the term "Slant" in his copyrighted band name, I believe the Court completely agrees.
Click to expand...

Which was the reason I used the parallel of the black person using "nigger" in their copyrighted material or trademarked name. I was making the same point you were, but I had responded prior to seeing your post.
 
calamity said:
Redskins? OK. Slants? No problem. Trademarks of disparaging names will remain protected.

In Major Free Speech Victory, SCOTUS Rules for 'The Slants' and Strikes Down Federal Trademark Restriction - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Sounds fair to me. So, I am very happy to see all SCOUTUS judges, Left and Right, agree.

Come to my new restaurant: The Fur Burger.
Click to expand...

Oh man, I had a Reply ready to go but I'm not-gonna-do-it ... not ... gah ... dah.
The lesson is that if everyone was blessed with such restraint there wouldn't have been this Court case to begin with.
 
Grand Mal said:
I agree. Right to free speech can only be violated by the government. Not private citizens. If I yell at someone expressing a boneheaded opinion, tell them to sit down and shut up, I'm not violating their right, I'm using my own.
Only the government can violate the right to free speech.
Click to expand...

Actually the 1st Amendment says it can't.
 
d0gbreath said:
The slopeheadz will be next, to the top with a bullet!
Click to expand...
How about knuckledraggers? I don't think we can speak out against them. :lol:
 
American said:
How about knuckledraggers? I don't think we can speak out against them. :lol:
Click to expand...

5 finger death punch is a great name for a band ol wait.
 
Grand Mal said:
I agree. Right to free speech can only be violated by the government. Not private citizens. If I yell at someone expressing a boneheaded opinion, tell them to sit down and shut up, I'm not violating their right, I'm using my own.
Only the government can violate the right to free speech.
Click to expand...

This thought process is incorrect based off of the political philosophy from which the 1st amendment, and our constitution in general, was born.

The Right of Freedom of Speech absolutely can be violated by private citizens, just as it can be violated by the government.

The difference is that you only have a constitutionally protected right to Free Speech as it relates to the government.

The framers of our constitution, by and large, were of the belief that rights are inalienable; that they are natural and ingrained. What you are suggesting here is that the constitution CREATED rights; it did not. It simply indicated which rights the government cannot infringe upon. It offers no protection against individuals infringing upon those rights, but that does not mean it's still not an infringement.

If I own a business and I disallow the carrying of guns on the premise, I'm violating right to bear arms. However, I am entirely within my own rights as a property owner to do so. In such a case, our rights and our potential violations of each other's come into conflict, and the law (i.e. our social contract) lays out some ways of dealing with that, as my property rights are more protected from infringements by other private citizens than your right to bear arms is.

Rights can be violated by individuals; there's just no constitutional protection against. That protection is only against infringements undertaken by the government.
 
Zyphlin said:
This thought process is incorrect based off of the political philosophy from which the 1st amendment, and our constitution in general, was born.

The Right of Freedom of Speech absolutely can be violated by private citizens, just as it can be violated by the government.

The difference is that you only have a constitutionally protected right to Free Speech as it relates to the government.

The framers of our constitution, by and large, were of the belief that rights are inalienable; that they are natural and ingrained. What you are suggesting here is that the constitution CREATED rights; it did not. It simply indicated which rights the government cannot infringe upon. It offers no protection against individuals infringing upon those rights, but that does not mean it's still not an infringement.

If I own a business and I disallow the carrying of guns on the premise, I'm violating right to bear arms. However, I am entirely within my own rights as a property owner to do so. In such a case, our rights and our potential violations of each other's come into conflict, and the law (i.e. our social contract) lays out some ways of dealing with that, as my property rights are more protected from infringements by other private citizens than your right to bear arms is.

Rights can be violated by individuals; there's just no constitutional protection against. That protection is only against infringements undertaken by the government.
Click to expand...

We are coming at this from different viewpoints. To me, it sounds like you started out telling me that rights are inalienable and then showed examples of how they can be alienated, how there's a hierarchy as if rights are inalienable but some more than others.
Your government alienates your rights all the time. If you get dishonourably discharged from the military your right to bear arms is removed. Preambles are always full of heroic words but nitty-gritties have to be a bit more practical.
 
American said:
Actually the 1st Amendment says it can't.
Click to expand...

You pretty sure the government can't limit your speech? They can limit your right to bear arms.
 
Grand Mal said:
We are coming at this from different viewpoints. To me, it sounds like you started out telling me that rights are inalienable and then showed examples of how they can be alienated
Click to expand...

Something that can't be taken away doesn't mean it can't be suppressed/infringed upon/violated.

Your right to keep and bear arms is inalienable.

If I disallow you from carrying into my place of business, I am suppressing your use of that right; but I am not stripping you of that right. You can leave my place of business and continue to carry a weapon. You can even IGNORE my request, and still carry a weapon INTO my business. I have in no way "taken away" your right, though I have attempted to infringe upon it.

Similarly, the government is unable to completely take away ones right to free speech, to freedom of religion, to the right to bear arms....but they ARE able to suppress it, to infringe upon it, and they are able to do so with the entire weight of the social contract with it is built upon behind them. Thus the reason why the constitution provides a degree of protection to the citizenry from the government engaging in such a thing.

As with all matters of social contracts, there is give and take regarding how much we the individual are willing to voluntarily allow our inalienable rights to be surpressed via a system of laws in exchange for the benefits and protections that a system of government provides to us. But it is impossible, short of death or something akin to it, for the government, or anyone, to permanently REMOVE your natural rights. IF such a thing is possible, it is a good indication that said "right" is not actually a natural, and thus inalienable, right but rather simply a privilege constructed within the social contract.
 
maquiscat said:
I love how people are so up in arms about the Redskins, yet the supposedly offended race has more supporters for the name than detractors. If this kind of word usage should be banned then black people should no longer be allowed to used the word "nigger", particularly, and in keeping with the thread topic, in copyrighted material.
Click to expand...

Based on what?

Phone polls that are unlikely to reach actual Native Americans and, instead, generally reach white people who say yes to the question because they have rumors of fractional native ancestry?

The poll you're probably relying on was deeply flawed. It was almost like it was intended to overlook actual Native Americans.

It's not about what words people can use, but institutions like the NFL. Now maybe you think the government shouldn't protect minorities in this case. Okay. Let me ask you this, would you think it would be cool to keep using a word when 1/10 of that minority still find it deeply offensive?
 
Zyphlin said:
Something that can't be taken away doesn't mean it can't be suppressed/infringed upon/violated.

Your right to keep and bear arms is inalienable.

If I disallow you from carrying into my place of business, I am suppressing your use of that right; but I am not stripping you of that right. You can leave my place of business and continue to carry a weapon. You can even IGNORE my request, and still carry a weapon INTO my business. I have in no way "taken away" your right, though I have attempted to infringe upon it.

Similarly, the government is unable to completely take away ones right to free speech, to freedom of religion, to the right to bear arms....but they ARE able to suppress it, to infringe upon it, and they are able to do so with the entire weight of the social contract with it is built upon behind them. Thus the reason why the constitution provides a degree of protection to the citizenry from the government engaging in such a thing.

As with all matters of social contracts, there is give and take regarding how much we the individual are willing to voluntarily allow our inalienable rights to be surpressed via a system of laws in exchange for the benefits and protections that a system of government provides to us. But it is impossible, short of death or something akin to it, for the government, or anyone, to permanently REMOVE your natural rights. IF such a thing is possible, it is a good indication that said "right" is not actually a natural, and thus inalienable, right but rather simply a privilege constructed within the social contract.
Click to expand...

A good example would be how the FCC, a government agency, enforces conduct with respect to speech over broadcast media.

I wonder how many people would fall silent on first amendment platitudes once someone wants to broadcast child porn.
 
Grand Mal said:
If you get dishonourably discharged from the military your right to bear arms is removed.
Click to expand...

A dishonorable discharge comes after a court-martial conviction, which is a felony. It's not the discharge which does it, it's the felony.
 
Harshaw said:
A dishonorable discharge comes after a court-martial conviction, which is a felony. It's not the discharge which does it, it's the felony.
Click to expand...

Felony. That's another one on the list. So much for 'inalienable'. There's several others, too.
Actually, those things don't remove your right to bear arms, they limit the types of arms you can bear, which the government does anyway. You have to arm yourself with something other than a gun. Cavalry sabre, anyone?
 
Cigar said:
I'm sure Kathy Griffin is happy he can now express he freedom and the Right is ok with it. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I bet that stupid bitch costs the D today's election. I saw that the R was running ads showing that grin on her stupid face as she was holding Trump's bloody head for about a week now.
 
calamity said:
I bet that stupid bitch costs the D today's election. I saw that the R was running ads showing that grin on her stupid face as she was holding Trump's bloody head for about a week now.
Click to expand...

Yea the Right usually gets a dry organism over things like that.
 
Grand Mal said:
Felony. That's another one on the list. So much for 'inalienable'. There's several others, too.
Click to expand...

And prison deprives you of ALL your freedoms and rights, which is what happens after you commit felonies. What else do you expect?

You're basically saying that the entire idea of punishment for crime betrays the idea that rights are inalienable. You're arguing that in order to be consistent with the idea of inalienable rights, there must be anarchy.

Do you really want to go down this road?
 
Harshaw said:
And prison deprives you of ALL your freedoms and rights, which is what happens after you commit felonies. What else do you expect?

You're basically saying that the entire idea of punishment for crime betrays the idea that rights are inalienable. You're arguing that in order to be consistent with the idea of inalienable rights, there must be anarchy.

Do you really want to go down this road?
Click to expand...

You don't have to be a criminal. If there's a warrant out on you, that's enough. 'Known to abuse alcohol'? That's enough. Been indicted? Use illegal drugs? There's also a catch-all category, Federally Denied Person.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/gun-background-checks-nics-failure/

And I'm not arguing anything like what you said, 'anarchy' or anything like it. It'd be nice and easy if I were, though, wouldn't it.
 
Angel said:
WONDERFUL RULING! There's hope for SCOTUS yet! ;)

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg tried something different this time around: THINKING. This is a form of behavior Progressives have eschewed for a half century by now. Which is why what they "suspect" and even moreso what they "strongly suspect" doesn't amount to a hill of beans. :)
is

What is this, Liberal-speak? Or Very-Liberal-speak? It reads like nonsense, but seems to carry a threat of some kind.
Click to expand...

The Slants are a musical group. A song that is climbing the charts rapidly approaching #1 is said to be climbing the charts with a bullet.
You're welcome. Sometimes I forget that there are non-musicians in this world.
 
American said:
How about knuckledraggers? I don't think we can speak out against them. :lol:
Click to expand...

If a band wants to call themselves the Knuckledraggers, who are we to tell them no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom