Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What is "abusive language" if not compression of the air interpreted by our brains? The fact of the matter is that they are not abusing anyone, they are in public and assembling and protesting and so long as that remains true, they MUST be allowed to continue doing so. This is a consequence of freedom, you either accept it or choose "not freedom".
Language has meaning. And when we make meaning form it. And when we do, we respond. And no, those words, that abuse, hits my nose.
Words are wind.
Even the Bible notes the importance of words.
The Bible has no bearing on law, so that's a moot point.
The point is, in all things (espeically law) words matter.
To an extent, but not very far. If the "words" cause actual damage then yes (such as slander or libel); but beyond that no.
This is a rather long thread so someone may have already brought this up but the free speech zones ship has sailed. I find it atrocious but if Obama is going to limit speech about him it makes sense he would limit if for his armies as well.
HR 347 Trespass Bill
House Vote(399-3)
Senate Vote(Unanimous Consent)
Votes Per Govtrack
If you don't know what this is below is a pretty good summary. Before you go saying that damned Obama look at the votes in congress. Now that's what I call a bipartisan bill a damn shame this is what they both agree on.
No, more than that. If words had no meaning, we need not speak them. Funerals are private and whatever makes in way in, on the wind as you say, is an intrusion. Most we can live with. But an aimed intrusion, meant to do harm, is abuse that hits my nose.
Free Speech zones did not start with Obama, but as the ever so good Republocrat he certainly has been expanding on it.
And just because they are doing it, doesn't mean we should allow more.
Also, I really like that Young Turks program, in general I mean, not just this clip.
Funerals are private, but you cannot then say people in public cannot act certain ways because they are in public. It's like making a law that says "no honking horns!" because some may find it distracting.
Boo, you haven't defended your ideal of why this is a right, you haven't explained it from base, you haven't demonstrated proper use of government force for a group assembled in public. I fear that you've allowed your emotions to compromise you on this subject.
Actually, I think I can say it. Being over the fence or on the sidewalk doesn't mean they are not in fact interfering, imposing themselves on my private moment.
We're not talking about the government, not a politiican, not anyone who has a public face. But private citizens who are grieving. No, I do not believe they have any right to that.
And while it is an emotional issue (Emotions are nto bad btw), I think there is a fundametal right here, my right to grieve in peace. I think it takes priority over someone's right to be an asshole.
And that is public property. And they are free to yell all they want out there. Sound travels through air, sorry.
But we ARE talking about government. Who is making the law? Who is enforcing the law? We are talking government force against the free exercise of rights. And there is no demonstratable damage, no infringement of right. They may assemble and protest in public
Emotions are not bad, perfectly normal human response. However, they do tend to cloud rational thought. And when dealing with eliciting government force against the rights of the People, we must fall to rational thought. To grieve in peace is not necessarily a right as you have no expectation to that privacy in public.
I am just going to say, our constitution says freedom of speech. Yeah, you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences. A example, I shout "NOMB" in a crowed airport, should I be arrested? Yes. I can argue that it is unconstitutional that if found convicted it would be destroying the first admendment. So, is it unconstitutional? No, when you say something, be ready to accept the consequences. I support this bill.
Everyone wants free speech when they want to say something...and then in turn wants everyone else to STFU that does say what they agree with...
No, we're talking about an out cry form the public, those who have had to suffer.
We're not talking about a politiican protecting himself (the government). And you can have emotion and be perfectly rational. No matter where you stand, when your words interfer with my grief, you're crossed the line (hitting my nose so to speak).
I am just going to say, our constitution says freedom of speech. Yeah, you can say whatever you want, but there will be consequences. A example, I shout "NOMB" in a crowed airport, should I be arrested? Yes. I can argue that it is unconstitutional that if found convicted it would be destroying the first admendment. So, is it unconstitutional? No, when you say something, be ready to accept the consequences. I support this bill.
When I was talking about shouting "Bomb" in an airport, I was making a refrence to this thread, I guess it wasn't that obvious next time I will know. I was comparing the two, if I shout "Bomb," in a crowed airport, people with get hurt. If I have a anti-gay protest at an openly-gay marine's funeral or anything, people wil get hurt. I don't know about you, but people get real emotional about these things. Should I get arrested for shouting, "Bomb?" Yes. Should I get arrested for protesting a soldiers funeral? Yes. Still freedom of speech.Well if you shout bomb in a crowded airport you can cause a panic which can threaten the well being of those there. Furthermore, given that we're on "alert" for terrorism, it will surely call response from the agents there. But there is a difference yelling fire or bomb in crowded places (which cause panic and lead to people becoming injured) without a threat and a group of people peacefully assembled on public land protesting. I'd hope that the difference was obvious.
If I have a anti-gay protest at an openly-gay marine's funeral or anything, people wil get hurt. I don't know about you, but people get real emotional about these things. Should I get arrested for shouting, "Bomb?" Yes. Should I get arrested for protesting a soldiers funeral? Yes. Still freedom of speech.
And what are they saying? "Please government! Please come in here and save me from that guy practicing his rights over there!"
Your nose is not getting hit, you're just getting worked up over words and freedom. I can understand WHY you would push for a bill like this, I think it's very understandable. But this is government force we're talking about, force used against the free exercise of rights and in that light, we have to be careful with what we're using it for. Not only that, it can only justly be elicited if we demonstrate that through their actions they had been infringing upon the rights of others. That's where restrictions such as yelling fire in a crowded theater come from. In this case, there are no rights being infringed upon. You made one up and claim it to be violated, but the right to grieve in peace isn't a right as "peace" is very much dependent upon location. In public, where the WBC folk are at, you do not have the right to grieve in peace, you do not have reasonable expectation to that privacy.
Ok, now this is one issue that "EVERYONE" should say Thank You Mr President....
President Barack Obama signed the Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012 into law on Monday, providing a wide-ranging package of benefits to military personnel and enacting new restrictions on protests of service member funerals.
"We have a moral sacred duty to our men and women in uniform," Obama said before signing the bill, according to a pool report. "The graves of our veterans are hallowed grounds."
Honoring America's Veterans Act Signed By Obama, Restricting Westboro Military Funeral Protests
US vets no longer fight for freedom and country. They fight for the government instead.
I suppose I or someone else could shoot them, but I don't think that's the preferred answer.
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?