Should there be a limit to free speech?

[XDConvert9mm]

Originally Posted by jmichna

I don't see anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or any of the subsequent Amendments, a guaranteed "Right Not To be Offended." People ought to get a thicker skin, just grow into adulthood and get over it.

I think I could go with that.

[switchfoot]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

I don't think there's anything to flame you about in this post. The point I was trying to make in the above quote does tie into your post, minus the religious portion. It used to be pretty easy to determine what was out of bounds and what wasn't by the measures you mentioned. I just think today we've allowed the bar to be moved in order to try to accomodate everybody. Thyat's IMO the moving target part. When you try to make everyone happy the usual result is that no one ends up happy.

There are plenty of quotes available by the Founders that illustrate their belief that Christianity was the perfect religion for our foundation, because it was the most TOLERANT of other religions. Many people don't realize that even during the constitutioinal debates all major religions were present and practiced in the US. As a practicing Christian, I will be the first to admit that we don't present that image very well today.

Enough talk of religion, though.

My point here is that, the "moving of the bar" you mention was acceptable within the parameters of the dominant ideology of the day. It seems that if the founders were right, we had a system that accounted for most major ideologies (and therefore accomodated them), and are replacing it for a ideology (or lack of one?) that in truth is less accomodating.

Interesting...I guess that is what happens when an agenda becomes more important than the problem it is supposed to fix.

[switchfoot]

Originally Posted by Judge

Free speech should be limited the way the founding fathers intended - that reasoned political discourse should be open and free, but that gives no man the right to advocate the overthrow of the gov't, to shout down another, to support of this nation's enemies nor spread of falsehoods about any man/politician.

I'm glad you made that point. That speech, as mentioned in the first amendment, was a reference to political speech specifically. I spent a half hour looking for the reference, and when I didn't find it quickly I decided to wait to make the point myself.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by XDConvert9mm

When you try to make everyone happy the usual result is that no one ends up happy.

Nicely worded!!! And obviously quite true. (especially with the qualifier "usual").

Originally Posted by Judge

Free speech should be limited the way the founding fathers intended - that reasoned political discourse should be open and free, but that gives no man the right to advocate the overthrow of the gov't, to shout down another, to support of this nation's enemies nor spread of falsehoods about any man/politician.

Seems you have mixed what is and is not the apparent intent of the founding fathers. Although in general principal, I think you have it right.

"To support this nation's enemies".....sort of a broad concept, but if we take it specifically to the instance of supporting (giving aid and comfort) to a declared enemy in a declared state of war, then according to the constitution, this is treason. (I'm not sure what the legal definition of "comfort" is, but I'd guess the words were intentionally meant to be subjective enough to give the powers that be enough flexibility to work the law to their own "comfort" in prosecution or enforcement? Or perhaps it's a case of outdated language. Or the "comfort" of "quartering" troops, etc. - We really could use one good seance with one of those guys..LOL).

But the constitution does not prohibit "the right to advocate the overthrow of the gov't" does it? Certainly the Declaration of Independence proclaims it is the not just the right, but the duty of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government (win, you are a revolutionary, lose you are a traitor). The Second Amendment is commonly interpreted to be the means of the individual States to be prepared to stand ready (well organized and armed) to assure that they are not trampled (in the sense of law) by the federal government. The Civil War is still referred to as the War of Nothern Aggression by many to this day for just that reason. (As I understand that argument - I could be wrong, the argument could be wrong, any combination of the above....all of it seems, again, like the ambiguous term "comfort" [to the enemy] - intentionally left to interpretation?).

Which is all kind of strange from my perspective since I always believed that the founders of our government wanted to avoid such ambiguity....to avoid the type of "living" (malleable) set of common laws as is and was practiced in the UK. The Magna Carter and other ancient documents still stand as the somewhat loose basis of 'right and wrong"....maybe even going as far back as the Code of Hammurabi....whatever....the bottom line is that it seems the American Constitution was meant to specifically spell out what is and is not "lawful" and when questions arise, we have a specific solution to find answers (the Supreme Court), while the British have powdered wigs along with a ceremonial system of royalty to give an illusion of continuity, but we all know about their gun control laws as an example of how "tradition" can fly out the window in their system quite rapidly......in practical terms it seems it is they, not us, that are ruled by a "living" document.....in fact it's so "lively" I'm not even sure they have it written down - Moves too fast. LOL. Although some common law obviously is based on sound logic and practicality (for example, our "Castle Doctrine" laws....while they may differ somewhat state to state, at the end of the day I don't imagine anyone would be seriously prosecuted for defending themselves and family in their home with any means necessary in any state or municipality in the Union).

Peace,
D.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by jmichna

I would also add, however, that given the Constitution is a secular document, it was drawn up by people who (the vast majority) believed in a Supreme Being or Deity..

"Secular"....certainly not entirely....for both religious and practical reasons.

The words "our Creator" certainly reflect the belief in a "supreme being or deity" as you referred to. The words "in this year of our Lord" goes a bit more towards the specific. Certainly they were not referring to the Chinese, Islamic, Indian, Jewish, or any of the other calendars that were in use at the time. It was obviously the Christian calander, and I have never heard anyone voice an opposition to that usage. Not even the most militant atheists or easily offended Muslims (don't draw cartoons of Mohammad!!!)

There's a point in which practicality requires some kind of common ground. It's one thing to be "politically correct" (somehow that term seems wrong, but I can't think of what would be right), another entirely to be ridiculous in the name of such "correctness". I'm sure that the USSR was never thrilled about English being the international standard language for aviation. But even that wild and crazy party animal, shoe pounding merry prankster - Everyone's favorite Elvis look-a-like, Grandpa Nikita; knew when to concede to reality.

Peace,
D.

[switchfoot]

Originally Posted by Delija

"Secular"....certainly not entirely....for both religious and practical reasons.

The words "our Creator" certainly reflect the belief in a "supreme being or deity" as you referred to. The words "in this year of our Lord" goes a bit more towards the specific. Certainly they were not referring to the Chinese, Islamic, Indian, Jewish, or any of the other calendars that were in use at the time. It was obviously the Christian calander, and I have never heard anyone voice an opposition to that usage. Not even the most militant atheists or easily offended Muslims (don't draw cartoons of Mohammad!!!)

There's a point in which practicality requires some kind of common ground. It's one thing to be "politically correct" (somehow that term seems wrong, but I can't think of what would be right), another entirely to be ridiculous in the name of such "correctness". I'm sure that the USSR was never thrilled about English being the international standard language for aviation. But even that wild and crazy party animal, shoe pounding merry prankster - Everyone's favorite Elvis look-a-like, Grandpa Nikita; knew when to concede to reality.

Peace,
D.

I don't believe the words "our Creator" are anywhere in the Constitution. It is in the Declaration, though. And "the year of our Lord" is barely a religious term. More a legal tradition than anything else.

[robinsre]

I am of the opinion that one cannot "incite" violence in the hearts of grown men unless that violence already resides there.

Free speech needs to be just that free. Any restrictions sets precedent for ALL restrictions.

If you want to minimize the effect of radical speech, work on the education system and train people to think and reason for themselves. This will innoculate them to the negative effect of ranting by wierdos, nutjobs, morons, and cowards.

[jmichna]

Originally Posted by robinsre

I am of the opinion that one cannot "incite" violence in the hearts of grown men unless that violence already resides there.

I disagree. Mobs can certainly inspire/incite people to take actions no person would reasonably expect of themselves. Take another look at films of Adolph Hitler speaking to the crowds of ten of thousands, in pre-war Germany. All these people had violence in their hearts? Some did, certainly, but most were caught up in mob behavior.

Unless you mean that violence exists in all men's hearts, but is kept under restraint by most.

[switchfoot]

Originally Posted by Delija

Nicely worded!!! And obviously quite true. (especially with the qualifier "usual").




Seems you have mixed what is and is not the apparent intent of the founding fathers. Although in general principal, I think you have it right.

"To support this nation's enemies".....sort of a broad concept, but if we take it specifically to the instance of supporting (giving aid and comfort) to a declared enemy in a declared state of war, then according to the constitution, this is treason.

Article 3 Section 3 defines treason: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

According to Websters Dictionary of 1828, (the closesest we have to a seance with the Founders)

(http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,aid) aid is defined in this context as:
"1. Help; succor; support; assistance"

( http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,comfort) comfort is defined from a legal standpoint as:
"5. In law, support; assistance; countenance; encouragement; as, an accessory affords aid or comfort to a felon."

(http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,adhere) adhere is defined as
"3. Figuratively, to hold to, be attached, or remain fixed, either by personal union or conformity of faith, principle, or opinion; as, men adhere to a party, a leader, a church, or creed."

I don't think there is any requirement for a formal declaration of war. If a person levies war against any of the states, he is guilty of treason. If he adheres or gives aid and comfort to their enemies, he also commits treason.

(I'm not sure what the legal definition of "comfort" is, but I'd guess the words were intentionally meant to be subjective enough to give the powers that be enough flexibility to work the law to their own "comfort" in prosecution or enforcement? Or perhaps it's a case of outdated language. Or the "comfort" of "quartering" troops, etc. - We really could use one good seance with one of those guys..LOL).

But the constitution does not prohibit "the right to advocate the overthrow of the gov't" does it?

Correct. I don't think any rights are prohibited by the Constitution, again, it is a document that limits the federal government, not the states or the people (until, that is until the 13th amendment established that states could not legalize slavery). Unless we want to consider an age requirement for holding federal office a right prohibited.

Certainly the Declaration of Independence proclaims it is the not just the right, but the duty of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government (win, you are a revolutionary, lose you are a traitor). The Second Amendment is commonly interpreted to be the means of the individual States to be prepared to stand ready (well organized and armed) to assure that they are not trampled (in the sense of law)

Not just in the sense of law, according to the Federalist Papers. FP's 28 and 46 both reference the militia as the states' check against a standing army and federal despotism as well.

by the federal government. The Civil War is still referred to as the War of Nothern Aggression by many to this day for just that reason. (As I understand that argument - I could be wrong, the argument could be wrong, any combination of the above....all of it seems, again, like the ambiguous term "comfort" [to the enemy] - intentionally left to interpretation?).

Which is all kind of strange from my perspective since I always believed that the founders of our government wanted to avoid such ambiguity....to avoid the type of "living" (malleable) set of common laws as is and was practiced in the UK.

I agree whole-heartedly. That is why I begin with the assumption that they had specific meaning for each word that they said and wrote, and then blame any ambiguity on my lack of understanding. Then I endeavor to use what resources are available, like the 1828 dictionary, and any writings they might have make that address the subject to put together a contextual "picture" for it.


The Magna Carter and other ancient documents still stand as the somewhat loose basis of 'right and wrong"....maybe even going as far back as the Code of Hammurabi....whatever....the bottom line is that it seems the American Constitution was meant to specifically spell out what is and is not "lawful"

The Constitution isn't the source of what is lawful. It is the deliniation of what the federal government can do lawfully. It describes the powers the federal government has, and which branch within it has these powers. As laws are passed by the legislature, they are supposed to be within the scope that the Constitution gives the federal government. Once the Congress passes a law, it is "lawful" by definition until challenged by the people, where the Supreme Court is called to decide if it is constitutional, or in otherwords, did the law passed unconstitutionally empower government at the expense of either state's or individual rights.

and when questions arise, we have a specific solution to find answers (the Supreme Court), while the British have powdered wigs along with a ceremonial system of royalty to give an illusion of continuity, but we all know about their gun control laws as an example of how "tradition" can fly out the window in their system quite rapidly......in practical terms it seems it is they, not us, that are ruled by a "living" document.....in fact it's so "lively" I'm not even sure they have it written down - Moves too fast. LOL. Although some common law obviously is based on sound logic and practicality (for example, our "Castle Doctrine" laws....while they may differ somewhat state to state, at the end of the day I don't imagine anyone would be seriously prosecuted for defending themselves and family in their home with any means necessary in any state or municipality in the Union).

Peace,
D.

I love this stuff.

[Delija]

Originally Posted by switchfoot

I love this stuff.

LOL....glad you were entertained!

And you are correct in pointing out that I was wrong to say the constitution declares what is and is not lawful. My poor choice of wording. What I meant was the constitution spells out HOW what is and is not lawful is determined.

I "love this stuff" too....it's always fun to point out the absurdities of the various systems of laws and who gets to make them.

I have an acquaintance here in Florida who was a prosecutor in Haiti and had to leave the country because he messed up on a promise based on a bribe (an important part of the judicial system in Haiti apparently - his life was supposedly at risk if he didn't leave the country). He came here, had to learn to speak English and is now studying for the Florida bar. He was going to go to Louisiana because the Louisiana justice system is based on Napoleonic Law (like Haiti) but the hurricane blew that plan away (pun somewhat intended).

I asked him why he didn't just go to Quebec....perfect, Napoleonic Code, his French is very good - certainly MUCH better than his English so far (Creole isn't that different). He said Canada was too cold for a Hatian. Same with Denmark and Iceland - Greece has good weather, but the language is all Greek to him. And he was pretty sure there were no black lawyers in Greece. Possibly by Greek law (Napoleonic style).

Anyway, at this point he's actually more a friend than just an acquaintance. I've been helping him with his English and some investment strategies and he's been a great source of inspiration and knowledge to me. Without him I'd never know how to properly put together effective Voodoo dolls or cast spells.

Everyone should have a Haitian lawyer - how else can you get a lawyer, a doctor and a spiritual advisor wrapped up in one tidy package?



Peace,
D.