There is no such thing as a "natural" or "unalienable" right

[NatMorton]

So if the first Amendment were re-written to reflect that, why would you have an objection ?

Of course you'd have to make allowances for negative political campaigning like Trump saying "I will create jobs, Biden will cost jobs"
That causes harm to Biden and is completely unprovable

Would you agree that you shouldn't be able to say that someone is ugly or that a group of people are "stupid" or "unpatriotic" ?
Like all lesbians are "ugly" or all blacks are "stupid" ?

A person, in say an office or school, can cause quite a lot of mental distress with verbal bullying - would you agree that this should not be protected under the 1st Amendment ?

The first amendment need not be rewritten to accommodate the exceptions I cited; those exceptions are well accounted for in our case law as they represent a conflict of two rights, the right to free speech vs. the right to be free from harm. Since the conflict cannot be resolved without infringing on one of the two rights, the courts come down on the side of which infringement itself does less harm, and in most of these cases, infringing on speech does less harm.

No, if someone finds lesbians ugly or blacks stupid he or she ought to be free to make their opinion known. Others are also free to judge them on their words.

 

[Rich2018]

The first amendment need not be rewritten to accommodate the exceptions I cited; those exceptions are well accounted for in our case law as they represent a conflict of two rights, the right to free speech vs. the right to be free from harm. Since the conflict cannot be resolved without infringing on one of the two rights, the courts come down on the side of which infringement itself does less harm, and in most of these cases, infringing on speech does less harm.

No, if someone finds lesbians ugly or blacks stupid he or she ought to be free to make their opinion known. Others are also free to judge them on their words.

So how do you feel about someone constantly calling someone else "ugly" or "stupid" ?
Don't you care about the mental stress caused by bullying this way ?

I think it says a lot about you that some should be free to publicly slander another group - like lesbians, blacks or Jews.
This is how intolerance is started

Would you be OK if the GOP released an updated version of "The Eternal Jew" ?

(substitute Jew for a member of any minority).

 

[NatMorton]

So how do you feel about someone constantly calling someone else "ugly" or "stupid" ?
Don't you care about the mental stress caused by bullying this way ?

I think it says a lot about you that some should be free to publicly slander another group - like lesbians, blacks or Jews.
This is how intolerance is started

Would you be OK if the GOP released an updated version of "The Eternal Jew" ?

(substitute Jew for a member of any minority).

Yes, I care for someone who feels stress at being called names, but the best thing I can do for that person is not make the meanie go away but rather explain to them how name-calling is childish and to pay it no heed. As a fully functioning adult, one really needs to have the thicker skin.

As for tolerance, I'm actually showing far more than you. I'm not looking to imprison those who say things I do not like. You are.

 

[Rich2018]

Yes, I care for someone who feels stress at being called names, but the best thing I can do for that person is not make the meanie go away but rather explain to them how name-calling is childish and to pay it no heed. As a fully functioning adult, one really needs to have the thicker skin.

Yet it's not unknown for bullied children to commit suicide

Why should anyone have the need to alter their personality (or as you say develop a thicker skin) in order to survive verbal bullying

You're like the gun lovers club who say victims of gun violence should have been packing themselves

Or victims of physical bullying need to undergo courses in body-building and full contact combat sports

Why can't the law protect them ?

You have given no answer to this or indeed any example of how such protective legislation regarding speech might adversely affect you or anyone else

As for tolerance, I'm actually showing far more than you. I'm not looking to imprison those who say things I do not like.

???

Your "tolerance" is the tolerance of the murderer, the rapist, the thief

You would allow others to openly exhibit intolerance towards others, and yes ultimately I would imprison/commit to mental healthcare such people

You seem to think that tolerance of racism/sexism is OK
I do not
I would not tolerate any group re-releasing an updated version of "The Eternal Jew" - it seems you would and blindly ignore the worst consequences we have seen of that in our history.[/QUOTE]

 

[NatMorton]

Yet it's not unknown for bullied children to commit suicide

Why should anyone have the need to alter their personality (or as you say develop a thicker skin) in order to survive verbal bullying

You're like the gun lovers club who say victims of gun violence should have been packing themselves

Or victims of physical bullying need to undergo courses in body-building and full contact combat sports

Why can't the law protect them ?

You have given no answer to this or indeed any example of how such protective legislation regarding speech might adversely affect you or anyone else





???

Your "tolerance" is the tolerance of the murderer, the rapist, the thief

You would allow others to openly exhibit intolerance towards others, and yes ultimately I would imprison/commit to mental healthcare such people

You seem to think that tolerance of racism/sexism is OK
I do not
I would not tolerate any group re-releasing an updated version of "The Eternal Jew" - it seems you would and blindly ignore the worst consequences we have seen of that in our history.

[/QUOTE]
Okay, you're now moving the goal post. I specifically said "fully functioning adult" earlier, and with reason. A child is a different matter. They are not mature enough to defend themselves intellectually and thus more vulnerable. One can also find other special examples such as the Skokie case from the 70's when a neo-Nazi group wanted to parade in a neighborhood populated with Holocaust survivors; the pain that would have inflected was something entirely different from what I am discussing here. The same is true for bullying of young school children.

And I did give you an answer, you just don't want to process it. Again, the reason law enforcement should not prosecute people for saying offensive things is because that is a far worse state of affairs than the insults themselves. You want me in jail if I call you ugly. Do I still go to jail if I call the President's brother ugly? How about if I call the President ugly? The idea that we should have some tribunal deciding which statements are too offensive for adults to hear is absurd beyond belief. Can you imagine if such a counsel were populated by Trump appointees?

You are an authoritarian, and I want no part of your attempts to control others.

 

[Rich2018]

Okay, you're now moving the goal post. I specifically said "fully functioning adult" earlier, and with reason. A child is a different matter. They are not mature enough to defend themselves intellectually and thus more vulnerable. One can also find other special examples such as the Skokie case from the 70's when a neo-Nazi group wanted to parade in a neighborhood populated with Holocaust survivors; the pain that would have inflected was something entirely different from what I am discussing here. The same is true for bullying of young school children.

If you did mention adult then I apologize because I missed it

But are you suggesting that the 1st Amendment shouldn't apply to minors ?
What would that be? Under 21, under 18, under 16, under 10 - tailoring laws to a person's age is a legal minefield (was there not a recent case of a school girl being jailed for telling a vulnerable boy to kill himself - and he did?)

Would you differentiate law on the grounds of the age of the victim of verbal abuse or the age of the abuser ?
I seriously doubt you could differentiate law that would stand up to a legal challenge

Could you suggest how this law might be written ?

And there are plenty of vulnerable people over 18 or over 21 who suffer verbal abuse up to the point of suicide

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/28/inyoung-you-alexander-urtula-manslaughter-suicide/

And I did give you an answer, you just don't want to process it.

No you didn't

But to ask you again: Can you give any example of how protective legislation regarding speech might adversely affect you or anyone else ?
ie: What do you fear you could say that would lead you to jail ?

...the reason law enforcement should not prosecute people for saying offensive things is because that is a far worse state of affairs than the insults themselves....

Not to the victims of verbal abuse it isn't
Or the victims of physical abuse and persecution, stirred up by "free speech" preaching intolerance

Eg: the Jews in Nazi Germany had to endure the demonization of the Nazis and offensive political films like The Eternal Jew. This lead to "Chrystal Night", the Nuremburg Laws and ultimately the Holocaust
Or you can use the example of 19th century/early 20th century lynching parties, murdering black people after films like Birth of a Nation demonized "the negro"
Or today when TV pastors openly say homosexuals are outside of god's grace and even some advocate death to them:



We could solve AIDS if we just killed all the gay people according to that pastor
Is that OK under "free speech" ?

You want me in jail if I call you ugly. Do I still go to jail if I call the President's brother ugly? How about if I call the President ugly?

Ultimately yes
If your verbal assaults/bullying cause such distress that you cause mental harm up to the point of suicide, I want you locked up

You are an authoritarian, and I want no part of your attempts to control others.

No, I'm a liberal and seek to protect people

You support authoritarianism by condoning the intolerants' abuse and attacks on the helpless.

Better 100 Nazi racists in jail, than one innocent victim's suicide.

 

[NatMorton]

But are you suggesting that the 1st Amendment shouldn't apply to minors ?

No, I'm saying -- again -- that first amendment rights can be legally infringed if they cause undue harm. The feelings of a fully functional adult being hurt is not, IMO, undue harm. Psychological damage done to a child who is not yet mature enough to realize that naming calling is just that or taunting of someone about violent actions done to them in the past can cause undue harm. You seem to be making an effort to ignore this point.

Would you differentiate law on the grounds of the age of the victim of verbal abuse or the age of the abuser ?
I seriously doubt you could differentiate law that would stand up to a legal challenge

You shouldn't. Read about the Skokie case. Or this one: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendmen...endment-challenge-in-school-bullying-incident

Can you give any example of how protective legislation regarding speech might adversely affect you or anyone else ?

Yes, your own example, calling someone "ugly. If I find them so, I have a right to say that. I could be referring to their visage, their morals, or their politics, but you'd see me thrown in jail for it. That is, well, ugly.

Not to the victims of verbal abuse it isn't
Or the victims of physical abuse and persecution, stirred up by "free speech" preaching intolerance

Eg: the Jews in Nazi Germany had to endure the demonization of the Nazis and offensive political films like The Eternal Jew. This lead to "Chrystal Night", the Nuremburg Laws and ultimately the Holocaust
Or you can use the example of 19th century/early 20th century lynching parties, murdering black people after films like Birth of a Nation demonized "the negro"

Do I really need to cite the plight of the world's political prisoners whose lives have been ruined for no other reason than making statements that offended someone in power? Most of what you cited here are not mere words but words said alongside actual instances of human rights abuse. It's the physical harm done, the damaging to property, the assault and battery, the false imprisonment, the torture that are crimes in what you mention here. Isolating what was said and holding it up as the crime is a gross distortion.

If your verbal assaults/bullying cause such distress that you cause mental harm up to the point of suicide, I want you locked up

You move the goal posts more than a groundskeeper. What if it doesn't lead to suicide? What if I call you ugly and you complain to police that your feelings have been hurt. Is that enough to lock me up?

Better 100 Nazi racists in jail, than one innocent victim's suicide.

That's not the question. How many people who've done no harm are you willing to lock up in order to hear only nice things said about you?

 

[Rich2018]

No, I'm saying -- again -- that first amendment rights can be legally infringed if they cause undue harm...

Just how does 1st Amendment rights not applying AND "first amendment rights can be legally infringed" differ ?

And at what age would you draw the line ?

Psychological damage done to a child who is not yet mature enough to realize that naming calling is just that or taunting of someone about violent actions done to them in the past can cause undue harm. You seem to be making an effort to ignore this point.

That is entirely my point

And such "psychological damage" is not restricted to a particular age group - as the example I gave you in my last post demonstrates

...read about the Skokie case. Or this one: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendmen...endment-challenge-in-school-bullying-incident

Reinforces my point further

The 1st Amendment allows/condones bullying and verbal abuse as part of bullying shouldn't be allowed
Therefore the 1st Amendment is at fault and needs to be re-written

Yes, your own example, calling someone "ugly. If I find them so, I have a right to say that...

Yes you do
But you shouldn't have such a right

Do I really need to cite the plight of the world's political prisoners whose lives have been ruined for no other reason than making statements that offended someone in power?

No, again you wriggle in order to evade the point

The objective is to protect people from harm - specifically mental harm from verbal abuse/bullying
Are these political prisoners across the world in jail because they threatened innocent victims or because they challenged oppressive regimes? Why can't you see the difference and continue to counter a drive to protect people by somehow equate preventing this kind of abuse with political prisoners in repressive regimes
Do you seriously equate your situation if prevented from calling someone "ugly" to the situation of political prisoners suffering in repressive regimes ? If so your value system is seriously unbalanced

I keep asking you and you keep refusing; If the 1st Amendment was re-written to prevent abusive speech, what things do you fear you'd be unable to say ?
Is there any political prisoner, anywhere in the world, who's locked up for saying such a thing ?

You move the goal posts more than a groundskeeper. What if it doesn't lead to suicide? What if I call you ugly and you complain to police that your feelings have been hurt. Is that enough to lock me up?

Nope you move the goalposts
When told that the objective is to prevent mental harm to individuals, you start talking about political prisoners around the world who were locked up by repressive regimes for challenging them on human rights and democracy. Where's the harmful abuse there ?
Do you think you might keep the goalposts stationary from now on ?
Now how about answering if you think that pastor, in the video I posted above, is potentially causing harm. Do you think he should have the liberty to say such things ?

In answer to your question if you publicly verbally abuse someone, they should be able to have you charged and fined
If you continue anti-social behavior, the fines grow and yes, ultimately you should be jailed and be liable to lawsuits

That's not the question. How many people who've done no harm are you willing to lock up in order to hear only nice things said about you?

No-one, who's done no harm, should be locked up/fined etc

But the people who have/are should face legal repercussions.

 

[NatMorton]

I keep asking you and you keep refusing; If the 1st Amendment was re-written to prevent abusive speech, what things do you fear you'd be unable to say ?
Is there any political prisoner, anywhere in the world, who's locked up for saying such a thing ?

You cannot be serious. The world’s prisons are chocked full of people who’ve said the wrong thing to power. The USSR was famous for it with their decrees of “anti-Soviet activities.”

What I fear is you or I will be unable to say is to criticize our government because — with the authority you would give the government — they would declare that speech “abusive.” I find it hard to believe you cannot see this as a possibility. Speak out against the Chinese government while in Beijing and you’ll be speaking with authorities in a windowless room before the day is out. Say the wrong thing about a Muslim cleric today while in the wrong country and you earn yourself a death sentence.

So tell me, with your rewritten 1A, would criticism of Christianity be “abusive?” Of BLM? Of gays? Of abortion? Of gun rights?

You greatly underestimate the value of free speech, even when it’s offensive.

 

[joko104]

Yes there is. We explained it in our Declaration of Independence.

Most Democrats are atheists and hate the Declaration of Independence in "All men were created equal."

 

[NotreDame]

And no, my argument does not ignore yours. It recognizes it for what it is: a political tactic masquerading as jurisprudence and to serve as a means of creating new federal law in a manner that bypasses the legislative process. In short, it's judicial activism in search of desired political outcomes.

Oh, how cute, you know how to play the silly speculate in a negative manner the true purpose of an argument game. Okay. I’ll play. How’s this, I recognize your argument for what it is, a political ploy to satiate your already preconceived ideology of legislative supremacy masquerading as sound jurisprudence to combat your ideologically driven notion of judicial activism. I have as much evidence for that as you do for your speculation about me, but your own actions show a lack of evidence shouldn’t be impediment.

No one is arguing that judges are bound by a literal interpretation of the Constitution, so your speech example is a straw-man.

This is the second time you’ve erroneously misrepresented my view. I’ve not said anyone is arguing a literal interpretation. So, take this rubbish and your mistaken allegation and have it exit stage right.

You seem to be making the argument that determining the intent [/QUOTW]

How many times have I told you “intent” sucks? How many? Several. Several. It is factually impossible I’m arguing for something I’ve derided time and time again. So, no, there isn’t any I “seem to be making the argument that determining intent” because I’m not and never have argued intent. Ever. Intent sucks.

I’m arguing textualism/Originalism. I’ve made this clear several times before and much like everything else, you ignore it, say I’m doing the contrary, and conceive of ghost Strawman arguments.

That is, IMO, ridiculous.

Couldn’t care less and doesn’t matter. Facts and argument matter.

It relies on the unsaid premise that there is a consensus around what is and what is not an unenumerated right -- a consensus that simply does not exist.

And this is factually false. Once again, Randy Barnett in his work, “The Ninth Amendment: It Means What It Says,” illuminates the original meaning at the time with a lot of facts. You’ve not refuted or addressed any of them.

Yes, contrary to your factually unsupported contention the 9th lacked a meaning in regards to unenumerated rights that was similar to meaning in regards to enumerated rights at the time, is true. Randy Barnett has provided the evidence and other scholars have augmented the evidence of this meaning of enumerated rights in the 9th.

 

[Rich2018]

You cannot be serious. The world’s prisons are chocked full of people who’ve said the wrong thing to power. The USSR was famous for it with their decrees of “anti-Soviet activities.”

You're shifting the goal posts

Are you saying that the world's prisons are full of political prisoners who've repeatedly said mentally harmful things in a personally malicious way ? Because it is that which I want to ban

Not criticizing a country's system of government

...I will be unable to say is to criticize our government because — with the authority you would give the government — they would declare that speech “abusive.” I find it hard to believe you cannot see this as a possibility.

So you feel that banning you from saying things maliciously in order to cause mental harm is the same thing ?
On what planet is that the case ?
Which democracy, that bans such malicious anti-social behavior, extends this to criticizing the government ? Answer none

Speak out against the Chinese government while in Beijing and you’ll be speaking with authorities in a windowless room before the day is out. Say the wrong thing about a Muslim cleric today while in the wrong country and you earn yourself a death sentence.

And both cases are unjustified but again is irrelevant (and IMO deliberately so by you)

Again you shift the goal posts to pretend that that you can't protect people from malicious verbal abuse that causes mental harm, without somehow gagging people from criticizing their government

So tell me, with your rewritten 1A, would criticism of Christianity be “abusive?” Of BLM? Of gays? Of abortion? Of gun rights?

Nope - the re-write of the 1A would be to protect PEOPLE (specifically vulnerable people) not institutions

But I note you remain silent of whether that TV pastor calling for gays to be killed is a good thing, or whether it should be protected under the 1A

You greatly underestimate the value of free speech, even when it’s offensive.

Free speech does of course have a value, yet you seem to think that if you're prevented from malicious verbal abuse (or written for that matter), you're gagged on ALL issues and you're not
Equating banning malicious anti-social behavior with political prisoners is at best disingenuous of you and at worst deliberately perverting the subject

I also note that you skipped over that adult's suicide in reaction to verbal/written abuse from a woman.