I find it somewhat hysterical when the left claims Republicans are stifling free speech ... Could someone explain the origins of Political Correctness for us? The loadest and most hysterical shreiking originates from the left. Ask David Horowitz about that. http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/ All the cries to pull the plug on "Faux" news, Rush, Pat Robertson, Legalize abortions protests, Campaign Finance Reform, etc ... Even as the NY Times leaks top-secret information .. A few of you idiots called for the ban or curtailing freedom of religion yesterday. I still remember the outcry after Cheney excerised his right of free speech on the floor of the Senate ... How'd that go again, oh yeah, "Go Fuck Yourself"
well, are you saying that americans should only be granted constitutional rights on a selective basis? aka if acronym thinks they're a stooge than they don't deserve 1st amendment
lol i swear it's like explaining color to the blind, trying to have a mature, rational conversation about free speech rights you just love that generalization about 'hysterical shreiking' from the left, radical left, whatever. i don't see any hysterics here, just a bunch of adults talking re fox news, what more can you say than they intentionally labeled Foley a democrat on the screen multiple times. why not just launch a disinformation ministry ala the soviet union, saddam hussein etc? i don't think you would draw the line until there were literally metal bars surrounding your home
Why do you persist with this argument? There's no specific mention of FREE SPEECH contained in the 1st Amendment. It's IMPLIED. And for good reason. The court's have clearly distinguished between political speech and the INDIVIDUAL right of speaking your mind. i.e. Holding a neo-Nazi rally. permissible. Coming up to a stranger on the street and yelling into his face, "jews suck", NOT permissible. Holding an anti-Bush or anti-war rally, permissible. Showing up at a Bush fundraiser and heckling him, not permissible. Booing Barry Bonds at a ballgame, permissible. Booing him in a restaurant, not permissible. Obviously MOST people know these boundaries, thus a low level of "incidents." Those who think their "gripe" allows them to violate these common bounds should be beaten with sticks.
Well, the first posting has a one-person view of the incident, and even he admits to getting two feet from the Vice-President and then spouting off. Something tells me that it wasn't as benign an interaction as his depiction would suggest. We Will Never Know. Moral of the Story, Probably a bad thing to move two feet away from the VP of US and act threatening. Just my take. How this gets us closer to "Bars surround your home" is beyond me ... And I'd catagorize that claim as more "hysterical shrieking from the Left" It's been rumored often that Clinton regularlly sent the IRS after enemies in the media. I don't know if this is true, but it wouldn't surprise me.
lol fair enough. the metal bars where i really meant to characterize the same type of complacency we saw throughout europe in the 20th century, were more directed at the defense of fox news disinformation tactics. doesn't seem like a shreik to me ... but try to beat me with sticks if you all want to lol between voting machine conflicts of interest, mainstream media engaging in blatant identity disinformation tactics, campaign events requiring a written pledge of partisanship ... i see a disturbing trend in the bush presidency. no shreiking here, just cautious acknowledgement if cheney can't be approached in person with a calmly presented criticism while he's doing the rounds in a mall, like the man said, he shouldn't appear in public. it sounds like there's general agreement, if the story is as this man claims (undetermined), then it was wrong of cheney to have him arrested anyway the same theme seems to keep coming up, people prioritizing their partisan politics over the actual rights in question
I've given you perhaps ten non partisan, non-political example "illegal" free speech. Without even resorting to don't yell fire in a movie house......
yes, sorry. let's take a look: "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." i think your examples are common sense, as you said yourself, though the campaign example seems questionable. obviously that's been the status quo though, so i can't argue with bush's interpretation of the law as being current reality. for sure, you can't yell bomb on an airplane too in the case of this guy, if we take his story at face value, he was not acting outside his rights. do we agree on that? i wonder if there were any legal challenges to the partisan pledge required to attend bush campaign events
Avid, All Pabst is saying is that free speech is not an absolute. There are plenty of places where you don't have the right to unfettered free speech. The reason is obvious. There is a balance between your right to free speech and others right to participate in an activity or simply be left alone. The courts have struggled over the years with these cases, involving everything from religious proselytizing to sound trucks to anti-war demonstrators (the Supreme Court approved the latter being imprisoned during WW II). I would say you can legally be muzzled or removed from a speech or event, even if in public , when you are creating a disturbance. Cheney does not have to suffer attacks from fools every time he ventures into public, any more than Paris Hilton or Brad Pitt do. Surely you can see also there is a vast difference between a calm "I think your policies are reprehensible" and someone rushing a public official and screaming in their face. The latter could well fit the legal definition of an assault, which only requires a reasonable fear of harm.