Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?
So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?
If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?
Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.
Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.
The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.
It’s insanity.
All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.
My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.
My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.
My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.
That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.
You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.
That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?
If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.
It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.
we have a common law system of law. our caselaw IS based on precedent. And precedents only get overturned with good cause. (you know, like when Brown v Bd of Ed superseded Plessy v Ferguson). you just don't get up and say, meh...I don't agree with that decision. I don't agree with a lot of decisions (see, Heller, Citizen's United). And while those are garbage decisions, they are the law. and no lower court is going to say, oh, I don't like that and not enforce it. And if they do, it will be overturned when it goes up. At least until normal judges are back on the court.
it might be convenient for you to ignore our legal system. But how 'bout you leave the law to people who actually understand our system of jurisprudence.
Although you do have free speech, it is not absolute. Same thing with the 2nd, you have a right to bear arms, but not any arms you want, like a nuke.Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.
My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.
My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.
My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.
That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.
You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.
That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?
If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.
It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.
I'm not trying to imply that it's absolute. However, allowing people to speak in public risks that they MISUSE the freedom of speech and, for instance, call a crowd to violence once they've got a platform. If we didn't have that freedom, they wouldn't have such an easy time securing the platform in the first place.
there are time place and manner restrictions on speech. no right is absolute.which is why the gun nuts don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons."The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby."the policies of the gun manufacturers lobby.... which is all the NRA is now, have absolutely abetted school shootings. and shills who stand in the way of things like tightened background checks and keeping guns away from felons, the mentally ill/dangerous and domestic abusers are also abetting school shootings.
I have suspected this for a while, and this post confirms it. You're an idiotic clown who can't be taken seriously. The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby. They represent their members who in the past did support background checks until it became obvious that background checks are abject failures due to government inefficency. Sadly, since you are not intelligent, you can't understand this and just vomit propaganda as if it was true, though it is not.
Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.
^^^^^^^^^^
ding, ding, ding, ding.... we have a winner!
Although you do have free speech, it is not absolute. Same thing with the 2nd, you have a right to bear arms, but not any arms you want, like a nuke.Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.
That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?
If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.
It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.
I'm not trying to imply that it's absolute. However, allowing people to speak in public risks that they MISUSE the freedom of speech and, for instance, call a crowd to violence once they've got a platform. If we didn't have that freedom, they wouldn't have such an easy time securing the platform in the first place.
there are time place and manner restrictions on speech. no right is absolute.which is why the gun nuts don't know what the hell they're talking about.
You're replying to a post where I just said that I know free speech isn't absolute. . . to tell me that free speech isn't absolute. Again, who are you arguing with? It ain't me.
That's 2 responses in a row where you seem to have responded to the opposite of what I actually said. Have you had your morning coffee, yet?
Although you do have free speech, it is not absolute. Same thing with the 2nd, you have a right to bear arms, but not any arms you want, like a nuke.That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?
If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.
It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.
I'm not trying to imply that it's absolute. However, allowing people to speak in public risks that they MISUSE the freedom of speech and, for instance, call a crowd to violence once they've got a platform. If we didn't have that freedom, they wouldn't have such an easy time securing the platform in the first place.
there are time place and manner restrictions on speech. no right is absolute.which is why the gun nuts don't know what the hell they're talking about.
You're replying to a post where I just said that I know free speech isn't absolute. . . to tell me that free speech isn't absolute. Again, who are you arguing with? It ain't me.
That's 2 responses in a row where you seem to have responded to the opposite of what I actually said. Have you had your morning coffee, yet?
Free speech is absolute. For example, threatening people is illegal regardless of whether that threat is written, spoken, sign language or otherwise. But the speech isn't illegal, the threat is illegal. Threats are threats, it's wrong to conflate that with that somehow speech is being limited. It's not.
Look at it this way. Name one thing where speech is limited but you can do the same thing in other ways and it's not illegal unless is't spoken
Although you do have free speech, it is not absolute. Same thing with the 2nd, you have a right to bear arms, but not any arms you want, like a nuke.
I'm not trying to imply that it's absolute. However, allowing people to speak in public risks that they MISUSE the freedom of speech and, for instance, call a crowd to violence once they've got a platform. If we didn't have that freedom, they wouldn't have such an easy time securing the platform in the first place.
there are time place and manner restrictions on speech. no right is absolute.which is why the gun nuts don't know what the hell they're talking about.
You're replying to a post where I just said that I know free speech isn't absolute. . . to tell me that free speech isn't absolute. Again, who are you arguing with? It ain't me.
That's 2 responses in a row where you seem to have responded to the opposite of what I actually said. Have you had your morning coffee, yet?
Free speech is absolute. For example, threatening people is illegal regardless of whether that threat is written, spoken, sign language or otherwise. But the speech isn't illegal, the threat is illegal. Threats are threats, it's wrong to conflate that with that somehow speech is being limited. It's not.
Look at it this way. Name one thing where speech is limited but you can do the same thing in other ways and it's not illegal unless is't spoken
That final exercise would be worthwhile if speech was defined only as what is spoken. It is not. Spoken word, written word, even political campaign donations are considered speech. Thus, my example is slander.
Slander is something that you cannot commit without using "speech" to commit it.
I'm not trying to imply that it's absolute. However, allowing people to speak in public risks that they MISUSE the freedom of speech and, for instance, call a crowd to violence once they've got a platform. If we didn't have that freedom, they wouldn't have such an easy time securing the platform in the first place.
there are time place and manner restrictions on speech. no right is absolute.which is why the gun nuts don't know what the hell they're talking about.
You're replying to a post where I just said that I know free speech isn't absolute. . . to tell me that free speech isn't absolute. Again, who are you arguing with? It ain't me.
That's 2 responses in a row where you seem to have responded to the opposite of what I actually said. Have you had your morning coffee, yet?
Free speech is absolute. For example, threatening people is illegal regardless of whether that threat is written, spoken, sign language or otherwise. But the speech isn't illegal, the threat is illegal. Threats are threats, it's wrong to conflate that with that somehow speech is being limited. It's not.
Look at it this way. Name one thing where speech is limited but you can do the same thing in other ways and it's not illegal unless is't spoken
That final exercise would be worthwhile if speech was defined only as what is spoken. It is not. Spoken word, written word, even political campaign donations are considered speech. Thus, my example is slander.
Slander is something that you cannot commit without using "speech" to commit it.
Maybe those weren't the best examples, but obviously you can threaten people without various forms of speech. The right person giving the right look. Asking for a donation then torching someone's car, killing their dog, etc. until they pay the donation.
Flip it around.
If I say "I'm going to kill you" to your daughter when she doesn't do her homework, should you be arrested? Are the words "I'm going to kill you" illegal, or only when it's an actual threat?
It's the threat that's illegal, not the speech
Wow.If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.I already have, scroll up.yes one can, give me a demonstration of where the NRA is abetting a crime?You can abet a crime and be convicted for that, even if you're not the shooter. Now you know.I'm still waiting on the crime they committed with a gun. You know where the NRA pulled a trigger. Do you even know who the NRA is? Nope. You think it is a building with 30 or so employees. Don't you?
there are time place and manner restrictions on speech. no right is absolute.which is why the gun nuts don't know what the hell they're talking about.
You're replying to a post where I just said that I know free speech isn't absolute. . . to tell me that free speech isn't absolute. Again, who are you arguing with? It ain't me.
That's 2 responses in a row where you seem to have responded to the opposite of what I actually said. Have you had your morning coffee, yet?
Free speech is absolute. For example, threatening people is illegal regardless of whether that threat is written, spoken, sign language or otherwise. But the speech isn't illegal, the threat is illegal. Threats are threats, it's wrong to conflate that with that somehow speech is being limited. It's not.
Look at it this way. Name one thing where speech is limited but you can do the same thing in other ways and it's not illegal unless is't spoken
That final exercise would be worthwhile if speech was defined only as what is spoken. It is not. Spoken word, written word, even political campaign donations are considered speech. Thus, my example is slander.
Slander is something that you cannot commit without using "speech" to commit it.
Maybe those weren't the best examples, but obviously you can threaten people without various forms of speech. The right person giving the right look. Asking for a donation then torching someone's car, killing their dog, etc. until they pay the donation.
Flip it around.
If I say "I'm going to kill you" to your daughter when she doesn't do her homework, should you be arrested? Are the words "I'm going to kill you" illegal, or only when it's an actual threat?
It's the threat that's illegal, not the speech
Fair enough, I suppose, though some would argue that all of those threats fall under "expression", which is generally understood to fall under freedom of speech.
However, even if I concede this point about threats, there still remain libel, slander, and incitement of violence. I fail to see how any of these can be accomplished without any form of speech, and thus, I fail to see how they aren't restrictions on speech.
nice bumper sticker!If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.
So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?
So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?
If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?
Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.
Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.
The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.
It’s insanity.
All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.
My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.
My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.
My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.
That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.
You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.
You spout such airy fairy notions that come down to this simple fact: the trade off between unfettered gun ownership and the numbers of Americans being terrorized by mass shootings in the US, has reached a tipping point. Those who just want to go about their daily lives without fear, are speaking up.
The NRA has stopped working on behalf of its members and are acting fomenting sedition and violent overthrow of the government. See NRA TV.
The NRA is currently under active investigation by the FBI for money laundering and illegal campaign contributions.
do you know those restrictions? there aren't too many.Although you do have free speech, it is not absolute. Same thing with the 2nd, you have a right to bear arms, but not any arms you want, like a nuke.Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.
My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.
My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.
My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.
That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.
You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.
That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?
If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.
It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.
I'm not trying to imply that it's absolute. However, allowing people to speak in public risks that they MISUSE the freedom of speech and, for instance, call a crowd to violence once they've got a platform. If we didn't have that freedom, they wouldn't have such an easy time securing the platform in the first place.
there are time place and manner restrictions on speech. no right is absolute.which is why the gun nuts don't know what the hell they're talking about.
oh wow, two of you in here saying the same thing. ahh the new bumper sticker came out eh? LOL. Why don't you post those restrictions? Let's see what you know beyond the bumper sticker.Although you do have free speech, it is not absolute. Same thing with the 2nd, you have a right to bear arms, but not any arms you want, like a nuke.Too bad we're not talking about every right out there, just the right to bear arms, which you'll still have even if some more weapons are added to the no-buy list.So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?
So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?
If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?
Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.
Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.
The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.
It’s insanity.
All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.
My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.
My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.
My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.
That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.
You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.
That's what we're talking about right NOW, sure, but have you ever heard of the concept of legal precedent?
If you set the precedent that a right can be taken away once it impugns the safety of another individual, you enable future governing officials to repeat the same action along the same lines of principle. Maybe next time people are afraid because free speech is allowing people to talk each other into doing horrible things.
It might seem convenient to you to ignore principle and compartmentalize each action to avoid acknowledging self contradictions, but reality won't allow these conversations to remain in their individual compartments. The law simply doesn't work that way.
You're replying to a post where I just said that I know free speech isn't absolute. . . to tell me that free speech isn't absolute. Again, who are you arguing with? It ain't me.
That's 2 responses in a row where you seem to have responded to the opposite of what I actually said. Have you had your morning coffee, yet?
Free speech is absolute. For example, threatening people is illegal regardless of whether that threat is written, spoken, sign language or otherwise. But the speech isn't illegal, the threat is illegal. Threats are threats, it's wrong to conflate that with that somehow speech is being limited. It's not.
Look at it this way. Name one thing where speech is limited but you can do the same thing in other ways and it's not illegal unless is't spoken
That final exercise would be worthwhile if speech was defined only as what is spoken. It is not. Spoken word, written word, even political campaign donations are considered speech. Thus, my example is slander.
Slander is something that you cannot commit without using "speech" to commit it.
Maybe those weren't the best examples, but obviously you can threaten people without various forms of speech. The right person giving the right look. Asking for a donation then torching someone's car, killing their dog, etc. until they pay the donation.
Flip it around.
If I say "I'm going to kill you" to your daughter when she doesn't do her homework, should you be arrested? Are the words "I'm going to kill you" illegal, or only when it's an actual threat?
It's the threat that's illegal, not the speech
Fair enough, I suppose, though some would argue that all of those threats fall under "expression", which is generally understood to fall under freedom of speech.
However, even if I concede this point about threats, there still remain libel, slander, and incitement of violence. I fail to see how any of these can be accomplished without any form of speech, and thus, I fail to see how they aren't restrictions on speech.
So you think you will be arrested for saying you're going to kill your daughter for not doing her homework? How is it the speech that's limited if you say no?
Free speech is absolute. For example, threatening people is illegal regardless of whether that threat is written, spoken, sign language or otherwise. But the speech isn't illegal, the threat is illegal. Threats are threats, it's wrong to conflate that with that somehow speech is being limited. It's not.
Look at it this way. Name one thing where speech is limited but you can do the same thing in other ways and it's not illegal unless is't spoken
That final exercise would be worthwhile if speech was defined only as what is spoken. It is not. Spoken word, written word, even political campaign donations are considered speech. Thus, my example is slander.
Slander is something that you cannot commit without using "speech" to commit it.
Maybe those weren't the best examples, but obviously you can threaten people without various forms of speech. The right person giving the right look. Asking for a donation then torching someone's car, killing their dog, etc. until they pay the donation.
Flip it around.
If I say "I'm going to kill you" to your daughter when she doesn't do her homework, should you be arrested? Are the words "I'm going to kill you" illegal, or only when it's an actual threat?
It's the threat that's illegal, not the speech
Fair enough, I suppose, though some would argue that all of those threats fall under "expression", which is generally understood to fall under freedom of speech.
However, even if I concede this point about threats, there still remain libel, slander, and incitement of violence. I fail to see how any of these can be accomplished without any form of speech, and thus, I fail to see how they aren't restrictions on speech.
So you think you will be arrested for saying you're going to kill your daughter for not doing her homework? How is it the speech that's limited if you say no?
Why are you back on the example of threats? I've already conceded that a threat can be made without speech.
It's libel, slander, and incitement that you've got to explain to support your point. How can those three things be accomplished without speech?
Also, even as far as threats go, the example you've just given doesn't support your argument.
If my daughter feels as though that threat is for real and takes it to the police, yeah, I might be arrested.
If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.
So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?
So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?
If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?
Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.
Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.
The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.
It’s insanity.
All of my rights threaten my neighbor to some degree.
My right to free association enables people to get together in groups AT WILL to plan, for instance, acts of violence against my neighbor. Without the right to associate, we could save everyone who gets beaten to death by a violent mob.
My freedom from illegal search and seizure enables me to potentially conceal a weapon beneath my clothing, so that even if police were present in the immediate surroundings, I might still get close enough while in possession of a weapon to murder my neighbor before the police were able to react. Without the right to privacy, nobody would be able to sneak weapons around to commit their acts of violence.
My right to free speech enables me to say terribly hurtful things to my neighbor, and a large and increasing number of people on the left have started qualifying hurtful words as threats to safety, including a fair deal of college professors and academics.
That's why I'm asking where the line is drawn. If any right that impugns my neighbor's safety is therefore not a valid right, then none of us really have any rights. Even the right to life enables me to commit acts of violence that I would be unable to commit if I wasn't allowed to live.
You must not have thought too extensively about any of this, because you seem to be under the mistaken impression that most of these rights don't potentially enable violence, but most of them actually do. The unfortunate truth is that freedom and safety are, to a large degree, trade-offs. We could prevent ALL future murders by simply confining every individual to a padded, concrete cell, but I don't think anybody would find that to be a valid solution. So you have to decide which freedoms are more important than their negative consequences, because they ALL have negative consequences.
You spout such airy fairy notions that come down to this simple fact: the trade off between unfettered gun ownership and the numbers of Americans being terrorized by mass shootings in the US, has reached a tipping point. Those who just want to go about their daily lives without fear, are speaking up.
The NRA has stopped working on behalf of its members and are acting fomenting sedition and violent overthrow of the government. See NRA TV.
The NRA is currently under active investigation by the FBI for money laundering and illegal campaign contributions.
I love it. You tell me I'm spouting airy fairy notions about principle, and then IMMEDIATELY justify your position by pointing out that Americans are scared and want action.
Yes, the fear of people who watch sensational news stories and get all afraid without ever actually looking into the numbers is TOTALLY a more solid basis for reason than the actual principles involved. Holy SHIT!
And no, I'm not going to go search through NRATV to find proof for you. If you've got a clip to back up your accusations, post it, otherwise, don't expect me to take your word at face value when you just essentially told me that fear should trump principle.
That final exercise would be worthwhile if speech was defined only as what is spoken. It is not. Spoken word, written word, even political campaign donations are considered speech. Thus, my example is slander.
Slander is something that you cannot commit without using "speech" to commit it.
Maybe those weren't the best examples, but obviously you can threaten people without various forms of speech. The right person giving the right look. Asking for a donation then torching someone's car, killing their dog, etc. until they pay the donation.
Flip it around.
If I say "I'm going to kill you" to your daughter when she doesn't do her homework, should you be arrested? Are the words "I'm going to kill you" illegal, or only when it's an actual threat?
It's the threat that's illegal, not the speech
Fair enough, I suppose, though some would argue that all of those threats fall under "expression", which is generally understood to fall under freedom of speech.
However, even if I concede this point about threats, there still remain libel, slander, and incitement of violence. I fail to see how any of these can be accomplished without any form of speech, and thus, I fail to see how they aren't restrictions on speech.
So you think you will be arrested for saying you're going to kill your daughter for not doing her homework? How is it the speech that's limited if you say no?
Why are you back on the example of threats? I've already conceded that a threat can be made without speech.
It's libel, slander, and incitement that you've got to explain to support your point. How can those three things be accomplished without speech?
Also, even as far as threats go, the example you've just given doesn't support your argument.
If my daughter feels as though that threat is for real and takes it to the police, yeah, I might be arrested.
How are those different? Slander is only illegal again if it's in a certain context.
Give me an example of slander that is illegal regardless of context. If I say John Gresham is a pedophile on the news, I can be sued for slander. Can I be sued for slander if I say that in my book club or at my kitchen table? If I have a cop over for dinner, can he arrest me for that?
If "speech" is illegal, there would have to be something that you say that is illegal regardless of the context you say it. It is the context that makes it illegal. It's a threat, it's slanderous. It has to cause a harm. Causing the harm is illegal, not the speech.
Give me one example of anything you can say or write that is illegal regardless of context
Maybe those weren't the best examples, but obviously you can threaten people without various forms of speech. The right person giving the right look. Asking for a donation then torching someone's car, killing their dog, etc. until they pay the donation.
Flip it around.
If I say "I'm going to kill you" to your daughter when she doesn't do her homework, should you be arrested? Are the words "I'm going to kill you" illegal, or only when it's an actual threat?
It's the threat that's illegal, not the speech
Fair enough, I suppose, though some would argue that all of those threats fall under "expression", which is generally understood to fall under freedom of speech.
However, even if I concede this point about threats, there still remain libel, slander, and incitement of violence. I fail to see how any of these can be accomplished without any form of speech, and thus, I fail to see how they aren't restrictions on speech.
So you think you will be arrested for saying you're going to kill your daughter for not doing her homework? How is it the speech that's limited if you say no?
Why are you back on the example of threats? I've already conceded that a threat can be made without speech.
It's libel, slander, and incitement that you've got to explain to support your point. How can those three things be accomplished without speech?
Also, even as far as threats go, the example you've just given doesn't support your argument.
If my daughter feels as though that threat is for real and takes it to the police, yeah, I might be arrested.
How are those different? Slander is only illegal again if it's in a certain context.
Give me an example of slander that is illegal regardless of context. If I say John Gresham is a pedophile on the news, I can be sued for slander. Can I be sued for slander if I say that in my book club or at my kitchen table? If I have a cop over for dinner, can he arrest me for that?
If "speech" is illegal, there would have to be something that you say that is illegal regardless of the context you say it. It is the context that makes it illegal. It's a threat, it's slanderous. It has to cause a harm. Causing the harm is illegal, not the speech.
Give me one example of anything you can say or write that is illegal regardless of context
So wait, the idea I'm getting is that you believe that it's only a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are ALWAYS illegal? Personally, I disagree. I don't see how it's not a restriction on speech if certain combinations of words are banned in any context, even if it's not in all contexts. Since absolute means not qualified or diminished in ANY WAY, even a contextual limit contradicts the idea that free speech is absolute.
Of course they are, why do you think the NRA sued Florida for raising the age limit to buy certain guns? All their members who wanted one already have those soon to be banned guns, so who else needs protection? The people making and selling more of those weapons."The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby."Since the NRA has never abetted a school shooting, it does not count at all.
the policies of the gun manufacturers lobby.... which is all the NRA is now, have absolutely abetted school shootings. and shills who stand in the way of things like tightened background checks and keeping guns away from felons, the mentally ill/dangerous and domestic abusers are also abetting school shootings.
I have suspected this for a while, and this post confirms it. You're an idiotic clown who can't be taken seriously. The NRA is NOT a gun manufacturers lobby. They represent their members who in the past did support background checks until it became obvious that background checks are abject failures due to government inefficency. Sadly, since you are not intelligent, you can't understand this and just vomit propaganda as if it was true, though it is not.
Your irrational beliefs aside, they are NOT. And your laughing emoji doesn't change that fact.
If you block legislation to, for example as the NRA is trying to do, raise the purchase age to 21 in Florida, then you're a psrtner in all the gun crimes committed by 18, 19 and 20 year olds.sorry, I don't get your analogy then. How does blocking legislation abed? explain it to me.I already have, scroll up.yes one can, give me a demonstration of where the NRA is abetting a crime?
So wait. If I wish to retain my right to something, then I take on responsibility for everyone who misuses that right?
So if I work to block legislation that bans people from speaking to one another, am I to blame for all the hate speech that occurs from then on?
If bad things happen because humans choose to commit acts of evil, how much of my rights am I obligated to give up in order to be free of the guilt of those things? Should I seek to support some sort of legislative move to isolate each individual human in their own padded cell to prevent all violence? Seriously, where do you draw the line with this principle?
Your rights end when you impugn the right to safety and security for your neighbour.
Studies have shown that even owning a gun doubles your risk of being killed in gun violence. In homes where there is spousal abuse, the woman's risk of her husband killing her is increased seven fold if her husband owns a gun.
The NRA even opposes background checks. You can’t transfer ownership of a car without registering that change of ownership, but you can sell a gun to a stranger with no responsibility to report.
It’s insanity.
