- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,556
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Working out the same way and actually being the same are different, especially when it's being stated that if you don't believe exactly the same OPINION that Pete has you don't have a brain.
your rights and liberty doesn't give you the right to infringe on other persons rights and liberties.
You have the right to protest against speech you don't like or disagree with but you don't have the right to have that speech or person silenced
Yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one and let us know how that works out for you? All rights have limitations. Sorry.your rights and liberty doesn't give you the right to infringe on other persons rights and liberties. You have the right to protest against speech you don't like or disagree with but you don't have the right to have that speech or person silenced
Well there's your first mistake. Which would you rather have defend you in court, God or a Lawyer? Choose wisely, and in the real world.
Yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there isn't one and let us know how that works out for you? All rights have limitations. Sorry.
If I own a newspaper, I have an absolute right to determine what goes in and what does not.
wrong it is an Inherent Right granted by our Creator. the bill of Rights wasn't written to give us those rights it was written so those rights could not be taken away. This is one of the fundamental differences between the Right and the Left. The left believes our rights come from government granted to them by the Bill of Rights. The Right knows they are Inherent Rights granted by our Creator and the Bill of Rights was to keep government from taking them away
the Constitution isn't an enabling document is was written as a limiting document
im arguing against the left thinking they have the right to protest the news paper and pressuring them to silence speech they don't like
You don't have the right to be paid by somebody to say it. He is free to start his own paper and print whatever he wants, but there is no right to work for a newspaper.
For example: You have the right to stand on a street corner and say whatever you want. You don't have a right to a TV show.
I read it but his post doesn't actually say that, but you might mistakenly think it does. Yelling out something that isn't true doesn't "infringe" upon anyone's rights. If it did there would be no preachers.Ummm...you realize his post you quote acknowledged that right?
The whole "doesn't give you the right to infringe on other persons rights and liberties" part?
Did you actually read his post, or are you just on "liberal propoganda auto-pilot" where you imagine the words you think people say based on their lean and then fill in your standard response?
im not arguing against the news papers right to hire or fire. im arguing against the left thinking they have the right to protest the news paper and pressuring them to silence speech they don't like
you have the right to protest but you don't have the right to protest to have some one silenced. you cant use a right to violate some one elses rights
Oh, I agree that Pete was wrong, and the "no brain" part was, ironically, kinda brainless.
You don't have the right to be paid by
somebody to say it. He is free to start his own paper and print whatever he wants, but there is no right to work for a newspaper.
For example: You have the right to stand on a street corner and say whatever you want. You don't have a right to a TV show.
im not arguing against the news papers right to hire or fire. im arguing against the left thinking they have the right to protest the news paper and pressuring them to silence speech they don't like
you have the right to protest but you don't have the right to protest to have some one silenced. you cant use a right to violate some one elses rights
The people that buy that Newspaper also have the right to cancel their subscriptions.
If enough do, and this guy is rehired, I guess it's lesson learned.
that's not beyond the paleOh, come on. Do you really think the White House contacted this newspaper? Please.
he makes the argument that the policy was effected AFTER he made the headline edit. the veracity of that should be easy to assessYou're a Conservative. Don't you believe in following the policies of your job??
I read it but his post doesn't actually say that, but you might mistakenly think it does. Yelling out something that isn't true doesn't "infringe" upon anyone's rights. If it did there would be no preachers.
We use our collective rights to limit the rights of individuals to harm society and others. It's where the yelling fire, and inciting a riot, and threatening the life of the President limitations come into play. Your rights and my rights have to be in balance. It's not just do whatever you like as long as you aren't affecting anyone else. I know you want that to be true but it isn't. If if was I could drive 100 miles an hour and ignore all the red lights as long as no one else was on the road. Life doesn't work that way.im not arguing against the news papers right to hire or fire. im arguing against the left thinking they have the right to protest the news paper and pressuring them to silence speech they don't like
you have the right to protest but you don't have the right to protest to have some one silenced. you cant use a right to violate some one elses rights
The people that buy that Newspaper also have the right to cancel their subscriptions.
If enough do, and this guy is rehired, I guess it's lesson learned.
Perhaps you mis-stated this?im arguing against the left thinking they have the right to protest the news paper and pressuring them to silence speech they don't like
Complaining to the paper about its content is not a violation of someone's rights afaict.you cant use a right to violate some one elses rights
If Jon Stewart can call Obama "Dude" to his face on national TV and everyone laughs, including Obama, it's already been established that there isn't much of a baseline of dignity or respect expected for Obama. e
The fact of this firing simply shows the left's increased sensitivity now that the Obama presidency has resulted in such an unmitigated disaster in front of the entire world.
Okay, so you're just ignorant of why "yelling fire in a crowded theater" is illegal.
It's not because it's "untrue". It's because yelling such a thing in a crowded location with minimal exits is realistically likely to cause a paniced situation that has a high proability of leading to injury to some of those within the location.
It's why the example is always "in a crowded theater".
I could walk out to the middle of a park at 6:00 PM tonight when it's almost empty and shout out "FIRE!" and it not be illegal, because the conditions aren't such that I'm posing a legitimate threat to the public with my words.
Good. You have some idea what you are talking about. Now yell "fire" in the park but this time have someone hear it, call the fire department, and on the way to your fire the truck rolls and a fireman dies. The charge against you is now Manslaughter.
It's never as simple as you think.
As for speaking (and writing) untruths, we have laws on that as well. We call it Slander, Libel, and Perjury.
Good. Now tell me why calling Obama a murderer won't get me in trouble but saying the same thing about my neighbor, even if he is one, likely will? It's all Free Speech right? Tell us why we have different ways of dealing with speech directed at different people? Doesn't Obama have a right not to be called something false or slanderous just like the guy next door?I know, I spoke about them in post 62, 5 posts befoer the one you quoted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?