Vandeervecken
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Midland MI USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:I said:
"Okay. You've demonstrated you're not capable of understanding that harm can befall from imprudent speech and that persons causing such harm should be subject to both criminal and civil actions."
That's a rather esoteric form of name-calling, I must say. Usually when I have the urge to describe someone as a blank blank, I just fill in the blanks.
You can dress a pig in a silk gown. What do you have? A pig in a silk gown. It matters not how pretty you make an insult, it remains an insult. You may actually think that you are being clever and making people think it is not, but no.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Since you disagree with that assessment, do you in fact agree that harm can come from imprudent yap flapping?
Yes of course harm can come from, "imprudent yap flapping," as you call it. Not all harm is legally actionable though.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:If you do agree that harm can come, do you assert that it's still permissible? If the speech is permissible, then the Constitution grants people the freedom to harm others without consequence. Do you think the Constitution does that?
Because of the 1st amendment and several relevant court rulings. The press has even a more wide latitude than the people at large. Remember, if a person is committing crime, and the press exposes it, they are harmed, but it is most certainly not something they can take action legally for.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Clearly you do make that assertion, else you'd be agreeing with me.
I make the assertion that not all harm is actionable and that the Constitution and Courts give the press a VERY wide set of protections.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you.
They do not frustrate me at all. I am not the one trying to claim the Constitution and courts are all wrong and only I am right, as you are doing. The facts are on my side.