Do our rights come with a responsibility?

[OriginalShroom]

Yes, it is an example of a governmental interest.

The interest is preventing injury and possible death resulting from the panic. The person criminally prosecuted for starting the panic would not be able to claim a First Amendment defense.

It is an example of how, as a result of someone infringing on other people's rights, the Government set reasonable limits on that right.

Just as a panic can ensue from someone shouting "Fire" in a crowd, that limit was set. It is a reasonable limit. The person isn't forbidden from speaking or required to get a license to speak.. he is punished when he exceeds that set limit.

It has nothing to do with ‘other peoples’ rights.’

There is a First Amendment right to free speech.

If the government wishes to restrict or preempt some form of free speech it must have a compelling reason and be rationally based.

Wishing to prevent injury and death is rational on the part of the government, and a compelling, justified reason; consequently the government is authorized to pass a law punishing someone who yells fire in a theatre, as it is not ‘protected speech.’

The "Government" has no interest in a person shouting "Fire" in a Theatre. If it is empty, who cares? The Government doesn't. The Government has no rights to be infringed upon here.

However, the people who are in the theatre and believe the shouter and then panic which results in injuries and even death definately have an "Interest" in it. As a result the Government placed a limit on that speech. Not because the Government has an interest, (Remember, the Government has no "Rights" ) but because the people do. People whose rights are being infringed upon by that shouter. And it is the Government's job to protect those rights from being infringed upon.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

In court under oath I would not answer the poll question nor respond to the question above.

However, when America was at its strongest (up through about 1975) every "right" came with BOTH responsibilities and accountabilities.

Now corporations have no community responsibilities and the result is individuals are also abandoning community responsibilities. It is amusing to watch the filthy god damned scum who absolve corporations of community duty go on to blame the poor and the stupid for abandoning community responsibilities for personal pleasure.

The next few years are going to be interesting. And likely violent.

 

[The Rabbi]

Stephen King wrote and published a novel about a teenage boy who killed his teacher and held his classmates hostage. The Novel, "Rage", was cited as inspirationby perpertrators for a number of mass shootings in the 1980's and 1990's.

The shootings prompted King to withdraw the book from the market. He had every right to exercise his first amendment rights, but did the responsible thing.

Which brings up an important aspect of our civil liberties and citizens’ responsibilities. There is no requirement that a citizen ‘justify’ the exercising of a Constitutional right, there is no prerequisite that the exercising of a right will somehow ‘benefit’ society in general, even when the exercising of that right seems inane or pointless to other citizens.

This obviously goes to the issue of gun control, where those who exercise their Second Amendment rights are often asked ‘why do you need an “assault weapon”’? As with the exercising of any other right, a citizen is not required to explain his ‘need’ to own a given firearm otherwise legal to posses in his jurisdiction. Citizens often say and do things in the context of their civil liberties that others find strange or even offensive, but that is not justification to curtail or preempt the exercising of that right.

That society may perceive a potential danger with regard to citizens owning a certain firearm does not justify banning that weapon, whether he ‘needs’ that weapon or not.

So the absolute right to express oneself in a free society is protected, and we should never require (or even expect) a citizen to show restraint in exercising their rights, is that correct in your view?

Putting guns aside, do you support someone standing naked on a public street, in full view of students attending an elementary school masturbating? Such behavior is offensive but is it protected by the First Amendment?

You're blabbering again. No one has the right to stand around masturbating (except maybe in CA as a demonstration of gay love). That is not a right under the 1A. But if you criminalize that behavior how does a citizen "show restraint" by not doing it? He isn't showing restraint. He is following the law.
You were closer with Stephen King pulling his own book from the shelves, an act he was not requried to do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That is the point. Did he have such a right? If we read the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law...abriding the freedom of speech" and subsquent USSC decisions which defined expression (for example burning our flag) as protected as speech, one must come to the belief that the example of the naked man is protected under the Constitution.

Do I think such behavior is right, no, because it infringes on others. But my opinion has not the weight of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Stephen King wrote and published a novel about a teenage boy who killed his teacher and held his classmates hostage. The Novel, "Rage", was cited as inspirationby perpertrators for a number of mass shootings in the 1980's and 1990's.

The shootings prompted King to withdraw the book from the market. He had every right to exercise his first amendment rights, but did the responsible thing.

Which brings up an important aspect of our civil liberties and citizens’ responsibilities. There is no requirement that a citizen ‘justify’ the exercising of a Constitutional right, there is no prerequisite that the exercising of a right will somehow ‘benefit’ society in general, even when the exercising of that right seems inane or pointless to other citizens.

This obviously goes to the issue of gun control, where those who exercise their Second Amendment rights are often asked ‘why do you need an “assault weapon”’? As with the exercising of any other right, a citizen is not required to explain his ‘need’ to own a given firearm otherwise legal to posses in his jurisdiction. Citizens often say and do things in the context of their civil liberties that others find strange or even offensive, but that is not justification to curtail or preempt the exercising of that right.

That society may perceive a potential danger with regard to citizens owning a certain firearm does not justify banning that weapon, whether he ‘needs’ that weapon or not.

So the absolute right to express oneself in a free society is protected, and we should never require (or even expect) a citizen to show restraint in exercising their rights, is that correct in your view?

Putting guns aside, do you support someone standing naked on a public street, in full view of students attending an elementary school masturbating? Such behavior is offensive but is it protected by the First Amendment?

It has nothing to do with ‘my view,’

These are fundamental principles concerning Constitutional law. The burden rests with the state to justify its desire to restrict a given right in the context of substantive due process.

Ideally, someone should not wish to stand naked on a public street, in full view of students attending an elementary school, masturbating, out of a sense of social responsibility, as this is clearly not a form of protected ‘free expression.’ Consequently a person committing such an act is subject to criminal prosecution, and not entitled to a First Amendment defense.

But the state must take care in its effort to prevent such an act, it is not allowed to engage in a presumption of guilt, or restrict free expression based on a subjective motive, or fear of some potential harm absent evidence and justification.

This is part of the difficult, ancient struggle of the right to be free from and the right to be free to.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is the point. Did he have such a right? If we read the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law...abriding the freedom of speech" and subsquent USSC decisions which defined expression (for example burning our flag) as protected as speech, one must come to the belief that the example of the naked man is protected under the Constitution.

Do I think such behavior is right, no, because it infringes on others. But my opinion has no not the weight of law.

Your opinion is irrelevant. It is criminal conduct. There is no need for restraint, since it is a criminal activity. And the right is not within the purview of constitutional protection.

Do you even understand what you are talking about?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Dante made sure his screen showed no more than the 1st post - the OP as we call it.

The question(s) although well intended will be attacked on many levels...the major one being that rights are not given by the US Constitution.

That is too bad because instead of asking exactly what you mean...the Agendists and clueless here will attack, attack, attack...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

wow!


Dante was in error,,,as far as the first 15 posts (14 replies) was concerned. Not one smahty pants bothered to actually read and comprehend what it was the OP was asserting

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the hell with it, 45 posts and still people are NOT paying attention to what they are debating?

I could go past 45 posts, but why bother. This is what is wrong with online discussions...people jump in without paying attention to exactly what they are discussing.

The OP (original poster) of the OP (opening/originating post) was technically incorrect. The US Constitution does not give out rights.

That said we can assume what the OP meant, but to know...what the OP meant...one needs...needs...to ask....

OP, what did you mean? Can you rephrase your OP?

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Gpod question.
What responsibility is attached to the right to have an abortion?

Responsibility to show up on time and not delay the line, thereby minimizing individual patients' exposure to filthy lowlife scum harassing decent people standing in line outside?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante needs to compile a list of the clueless in this thread for purposes of exposure ....

Only the OP gets a pass here...wry isn't it?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Dante made sure his screen showed no more than the 1st post - the OP as we call it.

The question(s) although well intended will be attacked on many levels...the major one being that rights are not given by the US Constitution.

That is too bad because instead of asking exactly what you mean...the Agendists and clueless here will attack, attack, attack...

..or worse....they will all fall into line like lemmings at the slaughter.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That is the point. Did he have such a right? If we read the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law...abriding the freedom of speech" and subsquent USSC decisions which defined expression (for example burning our flag) as protected as speech, one must come to the belief that the example of the naked man is protected under the Constitution.

Do I think such behavior is right, no, because it infringes on others. But my opinion has no not the weight of law.

Your opinion is irrelevant. It is criminal conduct. There is no need for restraint, since it is a criminal activity. And the right is not within the purview of constitutional protection.

Do you even understand what you are talking about?

Rabbi, I know you believe what the hypothetical naked man did was criminal, but your opinion hasn't the weight of the law either. What you have posted would easily be comported into someone offering this opinion, "possessing any firearm which is more powerful and efficient than those in use by the 18th century militia is criminal". And I know you will not understand that either.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Gpod question.
What responsibility is attached to the right to have an abortion?

Responsibility to show up on time and not delay the line, thereby minimizing individual patients' exposure to filthy lowlife scum harassing decent people standing in line outside?

So.... no, there's no responsibility associated with the right to an abortion.
I guess that answers the question asked in the OP.
Thank you.

 

[OriginalShroom]

the hell with it, 45 posts and still people are NOT paying attention to what they are debating?

I could go past 45 posts, but why bother. This is what is wrong with online discussions...people jump in without paying attention to exactly what they are discussing.

The OP (original poster) of the OP (opening/originating post) was technically incorrect. The US Constitution does not give out rights.

That said we can assume what the OP meant, but to know...what the OP meant...one needs...needs...to ask....

OP, what did you mean? Can you rephrase your OP?

What was said in the OP is a common misunderstanding of the Constitutionally protected rights, which, according to the Founders of this great nation, were given to all men by the Creator.

While the OP contains this error, I was being forgiving of it as well as the somewhat poor wording in general, and answering as I believed the OP intended.

Do we, as Americans and having these enumerated rights protected by the Constituiton, have a specific or even non-specific duty and responsibility when it comes to exercizing those rights?

My personal answer is yes, we do.

We have the duty and responsiblity to ensure that we do not infringe upon our fellow Citizen's rights while taking advantage of ours. We have the duty and responsibilty to be knowledgeable on the issues and candidates when exercizing our rights to vote.

We have the duty and responsiblity to ensure that there is no eroding of those enumerated and unenumerated rights so that they can properly exercized by our children and our children's children.


Does that answer your question?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is an example of how, as a result of someone infringing on other people's rights, the Government set reasonable limits on that right.

Just as a panic can ensue from someone shouting "Fire" in a crowd, that limit was set. It is a reasonable limit. The person isn't forbidden from speaking or required to get a license to speak.. he is punished when he exceeds that set limit.

It has nothing to do with ‘other peoples’ rights.’

There is a First Amendment right to free speech.

If the government wishes to restrict or preempt some form of free speech it must have a compelling reason and be rationally based.

Wishing to prevent injury and death is rational on the part of the government, and a compelling, justified reason; consequently the government is authorized to pass a law punishing someone who yells fire in a theatre, as it is not ‘protected speech.’

The "Government" has no interest in a person shouting "Fire" in a Theatre. If it is empty, who cares? The Government doesn't. The Government has no rights to be infringed upon here.

However, the people who are in the theatre and believe the shouter and then panic which results in injuries and even death definately have an "Interest" in it. As a result the Government placed a limit on that speech. Not because the Government has an interest, (Remember, the Government has no "Rights" ) but because the people do. People whose rights are being infringed upon by that shouter. And it is the Government's job to protect those rights from being infringed upon.

Perhaps this might help:

Substantive due process

A doctrine holding that the 5th and 14th Amendments require all governmental intrusions into fundamental rights and liberties be fair and reasonable and in furtherance of a legitimate governmental interest. The U.S. Supreme Court during the middle of the 20th Century used substantive due process to give added force to the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution by constraining certain actions by law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges.

Substantive due process | LII / Legal Information Institute

If the government limits speech, but its purpose in doing so is not based on the content of the speech, then the limitation on speech may still violate the First Amendment, but it is less likely than a content-based restriction to do so. This is because the Supreme Court applies less than “strict scrutiny” to non-content-based restrictions. With respect to non-content-based restrictions, the Court requires that the governmental interest be significant” or “substantial” or “important,” but not necessarily, as with content-based restrictions, “compelling.” And, in the case of noncontent-based restrictions, the Court requires that the restriction be narrowly tailored, but not, as with content-based restrictions, that it be the least restrictive means to advance the governmental interest.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf

Feel free to do similar searches of your own if interested.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Gpod question.
What responsibility is attached to the right to have an abortion?

Responsibility to show up on time and not delay the line, thereby minimizing individual patients' exposure to filthy lowlife scum harassing decent people standing in line outside?

names taken... TruthOut10, GuyPinestra, Meathead, Dugdale_Jukes, M14 Shooter, The Rabbi, C_Clayton_Jones, OriginalShroom, DStar777, RetiredGySgt, CrusaderFrank, MisterBeale, BreezeWood, bigrebnc1775, bripat9643, Mr Clean, dblack, Sallow, NYcarbineer, tjvh, hjmick, mudwhistle

22 members @ USMB replied to...

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and...

,,,

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the hell with it, 45 posts and still people are NOT paying attention to what they are debating?

I could go past 45 posts, but why bother. This is what is wrong with online discussions...people jump in without paying attention to exactly what they are discussing.

The OP (original poster) of the OP (opening/originating post) was technically incorrect. The US Constitution does not give out rights.

That said we can assume what the OP meant, but to know...what the OP meant...one needs...needs...to ask....

OP, what did you mean? Can you rephrase your OP?

What was said in the OP is a common misunderstanding of the Constitutionally protected rights, which, according to the Founders of this great nation, were given to all men by the Creator.

While the OP contains this error, I was being forgiving of it as well as the somewhat poor wording in general, and answering as I believed the OP intended.

Do we, as Americans and having these enumerated rights protected by the Constituiton, have a specific or even non-specific duty and responsibility when it comes to exercizing those rights?

My personal answer is yes, we do.

We have the duty and responsiblity to ensure that we do not infringe upon our fellow Citizen's rights while taking advantage of ours. We have the duty and responsibilty to be knowledgeable on the issues and candidates when exercizing our rights to vote.

We have the duty and responsiblity to ensure that there is no eroding of those enumerated and unenumerated rights so that they can properly exercized by our children and our children's children.


Does that answer your question?

My question would be "Why didn't you make that clear early on?"

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Gpod question.
What responsibility is attached to the right to have an abortion?

Responsibility to show up on time and not delay the line, thereby minimizing individual patients' exposure to filthy lowlife scum harassing decent people standing in line outside?

So.... no, there's no responsibility associated with the right to an abortion.
I guess that answers the question asked in the OP.
Thank you.

Here's the thing, chief; an abortion is a medical procedure. The patient's responsibilities in comparision to the patient's "rights" are identical to those when visiting the dentist or any other medical procedure.

To view an abortion differently, one would have to buy into the notion that laws in the Constitution and notes on medical procedures in the Bible are wrong.

According to the supreme court the Constitution provides rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom FROM government interference in private behaviors including a right "to be let alone", while the Bible, when it mentions punishing abortion at all, suggests small fines as the most severe penalties for abortion - and then only for causing one accidentally in someone else's family.

So all the nutball horseshit notwithstanding, abortion is a long term right in the history of most cultures. Only papist scum got it outlawed in some jurisdictions in America before evangelical scum took over the heavy lifting.

Next.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can the rights given us by our Constitution be abused and do we have a duty to enjoy our rights responsibly?

Gpod question.
What responsibility is attached to the right to have an abortion?

There is no ‘right’ to an abortion, there is, however, a right to privacy, and in the context of the right to privacy the state may not manifest an undue burden to a woman accessing abortion services. See: Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Otherwise the right to privacy bears the same responsibility as any other right: to ensure that the state does not unlawfully violate one’s privacy rights, and to challenge the state in court when it seeks to do so.