Am I overreacting?
-
Surely you're allowed to use your freedom of speech to comment, just not to smack them in the face ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Christian Graus wrote:
Surely you're allowed to use your freedom of speech to comment, just not to smack them in the face ?
Not more than I week ago I was being assured by Jon, and others, that freedom of speech was not about being offensive. Now, we are back to it being exclusively about being offensive. I wish people could make their minds up. For my part, the reason I have freedom of speech is specifically so that I can state that flag burning should be illegal and actually have it become illegal if enough of my neighbors agree with me. Unless, that is, there is specific language in the constitution stating that burning a flag is protected free speech. Freedom of speech is not about making comments, it is about making law.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I thought it was illegal?
When Gregory Lee Johnson burned a flag as part of a political protest in 1989, he was convicted for flag desecration under Texas law, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction on First Amendment grounds and the Supreme Court confirmed that physically damaging the flag constituted symbolic--and protected--speech. In it's decision the Court said, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Surely you're allowed to use your freedom of speech to comment, just not to smack them in the face ?
Not more than I week ago I was being assured by Jon, and others, that freedom of speech was not about being offensive. Now, we are back to it being exclusively about being offensive. I wish people could make their minds up. For my part, the reason I have freedom of speech is specifically so that I can state that flag burning should be illegal and actually have it become illegal if enough of my neighbors agree with me. Unless, that is, there is specific language in the constitution stating that burning a flag is protected free speech. Freedom of speech is not about making comments, it is about making law.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not more than I week ago I was being assured by Jon, and others, that freedom of speech was not about being offensive
Huh? wtf are you talking about? Freedom of Speech is about one thing: the Government is prohibited from abridging the right to Free Speech. The only exception that has been allowed is when "fighting words" - a direct exhortation to violence - are used.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Freedom of speech is not about making comments, it is about making law.
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." The words of the First Amendment should be simple enough for even you to understand.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Ilíon wrote:
after all, your defense of abortion is unreasonable (the indefensible cannot be otherwise),
I guess that can't be said of you, because you never defend your views, not even when they are shown to be at odds with the bible. Instead you just call names.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
It is a waste of time to defend one's views to intellectually dishonest persons, such as you.
Regular as clockwork. See, I defend my view to you, despite all of your flaws, because I understand that on a public forum, others will also read what I said, and see that I am able to respond intelligently and that I am the one with a viewpoint that is defensible. As you lack these things, I guess name calling is your best option.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Not more than I week ago I was being assured by Jon, and others, that freedom of speech was not about being offensive
Huh? wtf are you talking about? Freedom of Speech is about one thing: the Government is prohibited from abridging the right to Free Speech. The only exception that has been allowed is when "fighting words" - a direct exhortation to violence - are used.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Freedom of speech is not about making comments, it is about making law.
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." The words of the First Amendment should be simple enough for even you to understand.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
the Government is prohibited from abridging the right to Free Speech.
For what purpose?
Oakman wrote:
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." The words of the First Amendment should be simple enough for even you to understand.
I'm pretty sure I do understand it. What part of "YOu can't make a law against flag burning" can't you understand is an abridgment of free speech?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
when speech becomes incendiary
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
-
Oakman wrote:
the Government is prohibited from abridging the right to Free Speech.
For what purpose?
Oakman wrote:
"Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech." The words of the First Amendment should be simple enough for even you to understand.
I'm pretty sure I do understand it. What part of "YOu can't make a law against flag burning" can't you understand is an abridgment of free speech?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What part of "YOu can't make a law against flag burning" can't you understand is an abridgment of free speech?
The part where it directly contravenes the First Amendment. In other words, all of it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I thought it was illegal? I thought it can only be disposed of in a certain way only?
How these things work, in practice, is that if a person perfoms an act which is approved by "liberals" -- say, burning the flag, or harrassing the patrons of the public library with one's massively unwashed body odors -- then it counts are "free speech". But on the other hand, if a person perfoms an act which is disapproved by "liberals" -- say, displaying a picture of the results of abortions, or stating that abortion is murder, or stating that homosexual behavior is immoral -- then it does not count as "free speech," but rather is an incitement to "hatred" and ought to be suppressed.
-
It is a waste of time to defend one's views to intellectually dishonest persons, such as you.
Then it should be viewed as a waste of time to share them in the first place. ;)
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
In my little town there is a house on the main drag with tons of anti-abortion stuff like signs saying "ABORTION IS MURDER." Never really cared about it before, however, today I drove by and there is a new sign. It says, "ABORTION IS TODAY'S HOLOCAUST" WTF? I understand that abortion gets a lot of people riled up, but I find this so totally offensive. I understand free speech but I find this incendiary. Am I just overreacting because of my religion or would those of you WHO ARE REASONABLE (which excludes a number from SB) feel the same way?
Blog link to be reinstated at a later date.
leckey wrote:
Am I just overreacting because of my religion
What on Earth is your religion? Are you a Peloci Catholic? But no, you're not overreacting. That sort of statement is designed specifically to be abrasive to anyone who doesn't agree. I wouldn't exactly say that it's incorrect, but it is low to use that kind of imagery to help promote their view. And of course, to anyone who doesn't agree with the sentiment, it seems to deminish the holocaust which would be incendiary to them. Even thought they are really saying that they truely believe that it's just as serious as the holocaust.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
I thought it was illegal? I thought it can only be disposed of in a certain way only?
How these things work, in practice, is that if a person perfoms an act which is approved by "liberals" -- say, burning the flag, or harrassing the patrons of the public library with one's massively unwashed body odors -- then it counts are "free speech". But on the other hand, if a person perfoms an act which is disapproved by "liberals" -- say, displaying a picture of the results of abortions, or stating that abortion is murder, or stating that homosexual behavior is immoral -- then it does not count as "free speech," but rather is an incitement to "hatred" and ought to be suppressed.
Ilíon wrote:
But on the other hand, if a person perfoms an act which is disapproved by "liberals"
Both knee-jerk liberals and knee-jerk conservatives try, quite often, to get laws passed that limit free speech to what they want to hear. AFAIK, all of those attempts to ignore the constitution are sooner or later reviewed by an appellate court and declared unconstitutional. Of course the concept that the system, though imperfect, actually works violates your paranoid world view and so you will of course respond with one of your oh-so-half-witty insults, rather than attempting to defend or explain your ideas in a rational manner.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
What part of "YOu can't make a law against flag burning" can't you understand is an abridgment of free speech?
The part where it directly contravenes the First Amendment. In other words, all of it.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
How is an action considered speech? Freedom of speech should be just that - the freedom to voice one's opinion without fear of retribution. Burning a flag is an overt action that ought to be condemned. The argument saying that burning a flag is expressing freedom of speech is like saying freedom of speech allows me to punch someone in the face. It has ceased being speech and become an action... Commence flaming now...
-------------------------------------------------------- Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!!
-
Then it should be viewed as a waste of time to share them in the first place. ;)
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Then it should be viewed as a waste of time to share them in the first place
I wonder who he thinks wants to read them. Stan, maybe?
-
How is an action considered speech? Freedom of speech should be just that - the freedom to voice one's opinion without fear of retribution. Burning a flag is an overt action that ought to be condemned. The argument saying that burning a flag is expressing freedom of speech is like saying freedom of speech allows me to punch someone in the face. It has ceased being speech and become an action... Commence flaming now...
-------------------------------------------------------- Knowledge is knowing that the tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in fruit salad!!
_Damian S_ wrote:
allows me to punch someone in the face.
Flipping you the bird is freedom of speech. Punching you in the nose is battery.
-
In my little town there is a house on the main drag with tons of anti-abortion stuff like signs saying "ABORTION IS MURDER." Never really cared about it before, however, today I drove by and there is a new sign. It says, "ABORTION IS TODAY'S HOLOCAUST" WTF? I understand that abortion gets a lot of people riled up, but I find this so totally offensive. I understand free speech but I find this incendiary. Am I just overreacting because of my religion or would those of you WHO ARE REASONABLE (which excludes a number from SB) feel the same way?
Blog link to be reinstated at a later date.
leckey wrote:
I understand free speech but I find this incendiary. Am I just overreacting because of my religion or would those of you WHO ARE REASONABLE (which excludes a number from SB) feel the same way?
If they are doing because they are Christians, then it is wrong. We are not ordered to go about accusing people of their sins. In fact, we never accepted our own sins until we became Christians. I know in the US, it is a political slang, and interestingly most involved also oppose social services. Listening to a born-again radio, there was an advert and I thought it was something to help girls/women who find themselves in the position to commit abortion. I went to the website to donate just to find out they want money to fight in court for a law to be passed. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Then it should be viewed as a waste of time to share them in the first place
I wonder who he thinks wants to read them. Stan, maybe?
I've often wondered that. And what his motivation is.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
leckey wrote:
I understand free speech but I find this incendiary. Am I just overreacting because of my religion or would those of you WHO ARE REASONABLE (which excludes a number from SB) feel the same way?
If they are doing because they are Christians, then it is wrong. We are not ordered to go about accusing people of their sins. In fact, we never accepted our own sins until we became Christians. I know in the US, it is a political slang, and interestingly most involved also oppose social services. Listening to a born-again radio, there was an advert and I thought it was something to help girls/women who find themselves in the position to commit abortion. I went to the website to donate just to find out they want money to fight in court for a law to be passed. Best regards, Paul.
Jesus Christ is LOVE! Please tell somebody.
We have free help lines for girls considering abortion,. run by churches, who basically attack the girls and tell them not to do it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
It is a waste of time to defend one's views to intellectually dishonest persons, such as you.
Christian is one of the most honorable and honest persons I have met during my 6+ years on CP. You, one the other hand, are an abject failure and do not deserve to share pixels with one such as Christian.
-
Then it should be viewed as a waste of time to share them in the first place. ;)
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.