I'll type slowly

[Gonz]

and use big letters so that all may understand, even the slow readers.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Lawmakers in Arizona want to pass a law forbidding college professors from spreading comments that are deemed "inflammatory" or "offensive" toward minorities via campus computers, reports the Arizona Republic.

Democrat state Rep. Steve Gallardo said he believes intellectual liberty is important, but that hate isn't protected under the U.S. Constitution. He wants professors that don’t toe the multi-culti line to be dismissed.

Gallardo is irked that Glendale Community College math professor Walter Kehowski had the nerve to call some Latino students racist following a Dia de la Raza celebration in October. Following the event, he sent out a campus-wide e-mail saying that ethnic groups should be assimilated into society and that activists are using ethnic pride as an excuse for separatism.

 

[chcr]

that activists are using ethnic pride as an excuse for separatism.

Did he figure that out all on his own??? That's only been going on at least as long as I've been paying attention.

Freedom of speech:
If I'm free to say whatever I want to, so are you regardless of how much it pisses me off. I really don't understand why this concept is so hard to grasp. Some of these people need to excercise their freedom to shut the fuck up.

 

[Inkara1]

Damn, Berkeley's grown, hasn't it?

 

[MrBishop]

Free to hate
Free to talk of your hatred
Free to spread hatred via any media you choose
Free to assemble others with like feelings and share the hatred
Free to teach hatred to others
Free to form a religion based on hatred

Hate being free? Hate me for writing this? Feel free.

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, Drill Instructor: There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here, you are all equally worthless.

 

[MrBishop]

Hey fury... quick question. If we live in a free world, then why are opinions sometimes wiped from OTC? Why are some people erased from OTC simply because of their post-names?

What happened to "niggastolemybike" ?

IMHO Freedom of speech works well on paper, but falls short when applied to real-life. Same goes for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. I've seen numerous times where each has fallen short of the reality that was aimed at in the constitution.

What about riot police beng sent to peaceful assembly like Gay Pride parades, or pro-peace/anti-Bush rallies?
What about closed courts (No press/no photos) in certain selected courts?
What about the blind eye turned by the police and courts when mosques get burned or people harrased upon entry into unpopular churches?

The constitution is too "interpreteable"...time to close a few doors and tighten a few loopholes.

 

[Gonz]

Free to hate
Free to talk of your hatred
Free to spread hatred via any media you choose
Free to assemble others with like feelings and share the hatred
Free to teach hatred to others
Free to form a religion based on hatred

Hate being free? Hate me for writing this? Feel free.

Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, Drill Instructor: There is no racial bigotry here. I do not look down on niggers, kikes, wops or greasers. Here, you are all equally worthless.

Absolutely. All of it.

In America it is okay to hate. It is okay to speak what's on your puny worthless ingrained ingratious little pea brain without fear of retribution from the government. I, on the other hand, may kick your ass. Ain't America grand.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Hey fury... quick question. If we live in a free world, then why are opinions sometimes wiped from OTC? Why are some people erased from OTC simply because of their post-names?

What happened to "niggastolemybike" ?

IMHO Freedom of speech works well on paper, but falls short when applied to real-life. Same goes for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. I've seen numerous times where each has fallen short of the reality that was aimed at in the constitution.

What about riot police beng sent to peaceful assembly like Gay Pride parades, or pro-peace/anti-Bush rallies?
What about closed courts (No press/no photos) in certain selected courts?
What about the blind eye turned by the police and courts when mosques get burned or people harrased upon entry into unpopular churches?

The constitution is too "interpreteable"...time to close a few doors and tighten a few loopholes.

Because there's a difference between free speech and incitement. There's also another statement that you should consider..."Your rights end where my nose begins." Free speech is not about spreading hate. It's about a free exchange of ideas and ideology. Sure...you can say just about anything you want, but you are responsible to say only what you mean. I'd say that differently, but I don't have the time to try to explain that last line. You're intelligent so you can figure it out on your own.

 

[MrBishop]

It is okay to speak what's on your puny worthless ingrained ingratious little pea brain without fear of retribution from the government. I, on the other hand, may kick your ass. Ain't America grand.

Chu talkin' t'me? Chu talkin' t'me? Chu must be talkin' t'me...I'm de only one 'ere!

Seriously...You can't kick my ass (assault and battery). You can browbeat me and throw verbal "sticks and stones" to your heart's content. Hell, you can even IP-Ban me, but you can't make me like what's done under the auspices of the freedom of speech.

It was written decades before the internet and the global village, both of which cross borders (on the other side of which those freedoms don't necessarily exist/ or exist under different terminology).

Thank for being frank, gonz....OTC wouldn't be the same without you!

 

[freako104]

actually he could if you are on his property and spouting stupid shit like that. also if you threaten someone i think

 

[MrBishop]

Because there's a difference between free speech and incitement.

the problem is that the term 'freedom of speech' doesn't state where the line is. That's why I'm asking for clarification.

There's also another statement that you should consider..."Your rights end where my nose begins." Free speech is not about spreading hate. It's about a free exchange of ideas and ideology.

But...that's not wwhat it's used for. When people quote 'freedom of speech', they're not talking about their opinion on the use of public funds for streets, or on the povert of Christ. The term is brough out and ironed when it's hatred being spread.

Sure...you can say just about anything you want, but you are responsible to say only what you mean. I'd say that differently, but I don't have the time to try to explain that last line.

Doesn't ahppen often. It's tough to make a second first impression and in the world of sound-bytes, the second opinion doesn't get out there.

You're intelligent so you can figure it out on your own.

Thanks.

 

[freako104]

its spread by anyone who talks. they will say whatever but that they have a right to(they do in all actuality)and a friend of mine has a quote i loved

In order to have the Freedom of Speech, we must first abide to those who would abridge it)

to have it we cannot take it away from any others

 

[Rose]

In America it is okay to hate. It is okay to speak what's on your puny worthless ingrained ingratious little pea brain without fear of retribution from the government. I, on the other hand, may kick your ass. Ain't America grand.

See, that's the problem. As Bish aptly pointed out, you can't kick [whomever's] ass. Because [whomever] is sure to take you to court and [whomever] is sure to win.

It's sad. It's stupid. And it's how America works.

We only like to taut that we have freedom of speech. What we really have is a bunch of easily-offended pansy-asses who would rather pretend we have free speach, but take anyone and everyone to court who tries to exercise said freedom.

 

[Gonz]

I assume Postal Boy knows I wasn't talking to him, just thru him

For the record, Bish & Rose, yes, I can kick his ass. I may be arrested for my actions. That won't stop me if the words are in a time & place that I deem inappropriate enough for me to take that chance.

They had better never be inappropriate enough for the government to arrest one for using them though.

If said words are immediately & situationally actionable to cause harm to another, would be a case for interference (yelling fire in a crowded theatre)

and finally

It was written decades before...

Yes sir, it was. Back in the day when they used to settle arguments with a duel at dawn and the sheriff never arrested anyone for assault & battery.

 

[MrBishop]

I assume Postal Boy knows I wasn't talking to him, just thru him .

Yup...got that.

For the record, Bish & Rose, yes, I can kick his ass. I may be arrested for my actions. That won't stop me if the words are in a time & place that I deem inappropriate enough for me to take that chance..

You can try anyway.

They had better never be inappropriate enough for the government to arrest one for using them though..

How about releasing GVT top-secret information with proof to the general public?

If said words are immediately & situationally actionable to cause harm to another, would be a case for interference (yelling fire in a crowded theatre).

That's a tough call. Which words would cause immediate harm or incite others. Would screaming about nigg***s close to the Black Coolition headquarters be considered immediate. What about Holocaust denial in front of a Kibbutz? etc...?

Yes sir, it was. Back in the day when they used to settle arguments with a duel at dawn and the sheriff never arrested anyone for assault & battery.

and you don't find that those situations are a wee bit anachronistic for todays' society? Getting someone to shut-up by killing them or beating them to death's door? That'd be nice. Perhaps the next time that someone insults me with their mouth, I can just shoot them. Beat them with a monkey-wrench? Burn them out of town?

The whole point is that in comparison to today's communication era, the time of the pony-express and carrier pigeons is vastly different. Laws made in those days should change with the times. If they don't change...they lose their venom, their effectivness and worst of all...their intent. Protect the comman man from being trod upon by te GVT for something as simple as telling his neighbor that he's anti-X.

Now the comman man isn't just insulting his neighbor, he's likely to insult the world. Wars have started on lesser things. Murder done for lesser causes. Injustices have stood on weaker grounds.

Don't stop the freedom of speech. Use the maxim "Your rights end where mine begin", and stretch the rights the individual to NOT have to face outright hatred daily outwards some, so that the boundary of the individual's right pushes back the right of speech a wee bit. A lot to ask for?

 

[Rose]

For the record, Bish & Rose, yes, I can kick his ass. I may be arrested for my actions. That won't stop me if the words are in a time & place that I deem inappropriate enough for me to take that chance.

Yes, yes I suppose you can. I suppose technically one can do just about anything he wants to do.

 

[Ms Ann Thrope]

Would screaming about nigg***s close to the Black Coolition headquarters be considered immediate. What about Holocaust denial in front of a Kibbutz? etc...?

Now the comman man isn't just insulting his neighbor, he's likely to insult the world. Wars have started on lesser things. Murder done for lesser causes. Injustices have stood on weaker grounds.

Those instances could fall under the definition of "fighting words" and therefore would NOT be protected.

Legal definition of 'fighting words'

Fighting words doctrine. The First Amendment doctrine that holds that certain utterances are not constitutionally protected as free speech if they are inherently likely to provoke a violent response from the audience. N.A.A.C.P. v. Clairborne Hardware Co., Miss., 458 U.S. 886, 102 S.Ct. 3409, 73 L.Ed.2d 1215 (1982). Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, having direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, remark is addressed. The test is what persons of common intelligence would understand to be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight. City of Seattle v. Camby, 104 Wash.2d 49, 701 P.2d 499, 500.

The "freedom of speech" protected by the Constitution is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances and there are well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which does not raise any constitutional problem, including the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031.

SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

 

[samcurry]

"Hey fury... quick question. If we live in a free world, then why are opinions sometimes wiped from OTC? Why are some people erased from OTC simply because of their post-names?

What happened to "niggastolemybike" ?

IMHO Freedom of speech works well on paper, but falls short when applied to real-life. Same goes for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly. I've seen numerous times where each has fallen short of the reality that was aimed at in the constitution.

What about riot police beng sent to peaceful assembly like Gay Pride parades, or pro-peace/anti-Bush rallies?
What about closed courts (No press/no photos) in certain selected courts?
What about the blind eye turned by the police and courts when mosques get burned or people harrased upon entry into unpopular churches?

The constitution is too "interpreteable"...time to close a few doors and tighten a few loopholes."

bish mostly because we have to abide by the rules of the host. otherwise i think very little is censored. believe me i only had one (1) word censored because there is no place in my mind whe it can be used for anything other than an attack on someone and i had to take it off because of the bashing i got. hmm that sounds like giving in to peer pressure doesnt it?
And like gato pointed out the rest is purely for incitement and not because they really wanted the names. they were trying to provoke fights within the community thet were unnecessary.

 

[MrBishop]

Thanks Nathalie

So... in certain cases, the freedom of speech has limitations, where it would cause immediate and violent responces.

Not sure if you'all remember the statue of the murdered homosexual boy with the words "On X date, so-and-so entered Hell for breaching God's law" etc...I raged on about it for a while.

It's a permanent marker...anyone seeing it for the first time defines 'immediacy'. Anyone reacting violently to it at that point proves that the subject violates the 'fighting words' part of the right to free speech.
I can heartily say that my first viewing of the statue made me feel violent. I was not physically present, so I could not do anything about my feelings, yet the feeling was there. Should this statue, which violates the freedom of speech not be removed?

This preacher's words are hateful. Any family member of the slain boy would react violently to this preacher's utterances...many homosexuals would react simularly. Isn't this preacher's talk not violating the right to free speech?

I hope that you all understand that I'm not trying to make a point about this occurance specifically, but I'm trying to illustrate why the right to free speech should be refined in more encompasing, and less anachronistic, terms in order to better serve the people.

Comments?

 

[MrBishop]

bish mostly because we have to abide by the rules of the host. otherwise i think very little is censored. believe me i only had one (1) word censored because there is no place in my mind whe it can be used for anything other than an attack on someone and i had to take it off because of the bashing i got. hmm that sounds like giving in to peer pressure doesnt it?
And like gato pointed out the rest is purely for incitement and not because they really wanted the names. they were trying to provoke fights within the community thet were unnecessary.

I understand that you have to follow the rules of the host. I don't mind..in fact, I prefer it this way. Stops spammers and prevents this fine place from degrading into something filled with porn, violence, and childish idiocy. I applauded you when you got rid of niggastolemybike. Good on you again!

I have no issues with OTC, but I was using it as a real-life example, that we can all appeal to, that the right to free speech is too maleable. The reason why it doesn't work is that it has no teeth and no boundaries. Anyone can use it for any vile reason and get away with it because of that reason.

If I had a choice between keeping the freedom of speech as is, or removig it altogether, I'd vote to keep it intact 100% of the time. If I had to vote between keeping it as is and redefining it in order to strenghten it...i'd revamp it 100% of the time.

Take a look at the anti-child-porn laws in Canada. They're going through a forced revamp. Why? Because a child-pornographer is fighting to make it stronger...he's arguing that the law, as is, makes it legal for him to own as much kiddie-porn as he likes, so long as he doesn't sell it or give it to others. He can legally buy it or recieve it and own it. He's right. The law was and is too weak...because it's badly worded and has too many loopholes. Same goes for the freedom of speech...it's weak because it's too all-encompasing.

 

[Inkara1]

Ever notice how many similarities there are between freedom of speech and capitalism? Both are great ideas, and both left unchecked can lead to problems. It makes sense that the US has limits on both. But where the lines on both are drawn has been a subject of great debate for centuries.