Mr. Jefferson Would Not Approve

[rambone]

I am in the realist group, meaning that there should be some limitations of free speech. Personally I would not want to walk down the side walk and here someone screaming the F word at me the entire time, after all it is the public area, its free speech right?

I would not want to walk down a sidewalk where words are banned.

But it already is happening.

Wisconsin Man fined $500 for saying naughty words on a bus

 

[ATOMonkey]

Gotta love malum prohibitum law.

Because I said so, that's why!!! <--- Good enough for mom and dad, good enough for Uncle Sam.

 

[03mustgt]

That's easily fixed. Don't walk down the sidewalk. Or, get noise canceling or sound isolating headphones.

I can't hear a damn thing with mine in.

Problem solved, no laws needed, perfectly realistic.

Also, I'm not sure your problem is realistic. When is the last time that happened to you?

I think you might be a hyperbolist.

Realist, I see multiple cases of harassment every week, I see threatening and intimidation cases on a weekly basis, but hey I just exaggerate things. Every person is good and pure of heart and would never try to follow someone, or show up to their work, or even their house and threaten them. just like they would never make harassing phone calls or text messaging.

By all means keep your head in the sand and refuse to accept the rulings of
courts and the laws.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I really had no idea that government agents could be this un-informed about the limitations of government powers. It's honestly quite baffling that government agents who are tasked with defending our liberties understand so little concerning the subject or the limitations on the powers of government, or of the Constitution in limiting them.

Unfortunately for you, guys much smarter than you or I, with legal education, have repeatedly held my view to be true.

 

[level.eleven]

Unfortunately for you, guys much smarter than you or I, with legal education, have repeatedly held my view to be true.

Why do you think those men are smarter than you? It's the Latin, isn't it?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh, I see. This is where you equate the term "freedom of speech" with

This is the exact same tactic used by other statists who equate the term "right to bare arms" with "murder, robbery, rape, etc."

It's a dishonest ploy when they do it, and it's equally dishonest when you do it. Stop it.

Yeah, you reached out into red herring land with that one. "perjury, libel, slander, fraud, etc" are all forms of speech, are they not?

Pretty simple question... care to answer it?

The "Right to bear arms" has no legitimate association with murder, robbery, or rape because all of those things can be done without that right. "Perjury, libel, slander, fraud, etc" ARE speech.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why do you think those men are smarter than you? It's the Latin, isn't it?

Yep, you should see me in a Catholic church. I'm always thinking people are talking about me...

 

[lashicoN]

Heck, you should be able to enter the presidents residence

Americans did this for many years. lol.

I really had no idea that people were this un-informed about the limitations on free speech. It's honestly quite baffling that people understand so little concerning the subject or the powers of govt (extend to it since the inception of the Constitution) in limiting them.

I would not call it un-informed, more like ignores the rulings of our government concerning it.

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

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.

I just went ahead and copied my last post, because you either didn't read it or couldn't grasp it. The First Amendment is right there in front of you. There is no excuse for you not to understand what it means, you aren't mentally handicapped, and it's written very plainly.

Libel and slander are a whole different can of worms. Liberty is extended all the way up until you use your rights and freedoms to take away other people's rights and freedoms. This still isn't hard to understand. You're not a stupid person, you're just arguing for the wrong team (the team working to erase the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, so the Federal Government can do as they please).

 

[Kutnupe14]

Americans did this for many years. lol.

I just went ahead and copied my last post, because you either didn't read it or couldn't grasp it. The First Amendment is right there in front of you. There is no excuse for you not to understand what it means, you aren't mentally handicapped, and it's written very plainly.

Libel and slander are a whole different can of worms. Liberty is extended all the way up until you use your rights and freedoms to take away other people's rights and freedoms. This still isn't hard to understand. You're not a stupid person, you're just arguing for the wrong team (the team working to erase the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, so the Federal Government can do as they please).

Is that implied, or is THAT written into the Constitution? If so, please cite chapter and verse.

 

[lashicoN]

Is that implied, or is THAT written into the Constitution? If so, please cite chapter and verse.

Once again, the Constitution lays out the powers given to the Federal government, the Bill of Rights clearly states restrictions on Federal power. The definition of freedom or liberty are not found in our founding documents, probably because our founders never thought Americans would be so ignorant to the point where they don't understand the difference between freedom of speech and actual slander.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because there is no specific list of the rights of the American people to be found in our Bill of Rights, doesn't mean they don't exist.

There's plenty of room on our team for Americans who understand, love, and seek freedom at all costs.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Once again, the Constitution lays out the powers given to the Federal government, the Bill of Rights clearly states restrictions on Federal power. The definition of freedom or liberty are not found in our founding documents, probably because our founders never thought Americans would be so ignorant to the point where they don't understand the difference between freedom of speech and actual slander.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because there is no specific list of the rights of the American people to be found in our Bill of Rights, doesn't mean they don't exist.

There's plenty of room on our team for Americans who understand, love, and seek freedom at all costs.

Don't even try to play that game... you know full well the Constitution is a limitation on govt not individuals. So an individual should be afforded the opportunity to engage in libel/slander with impunity correct?

You fail to understand that the Constitution doesn't give rights, it only prohibits govt from taking certain ones away.

 

[Praetorian13]

Don't even try to play that game... you know full well the Constitution is a limitation on govt not individuals. So an individual should be afforded the opportunity to engage in libel/slander with impunity correct?

You fail to understand that the Constitution doesn't give rights, it only prohibits govt from taking certain ones away.

Wow, as lashicoN previously stated "unless you're mentally handicapped"...That is a big YES. If you believe that our Constitution and Bill of Rights does not give us rights, then you are totally incompitent to our rights. You might as well stop while you are ahead seeing that you are arguing in a losing battle agains lashicoN.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wow, as lashicoN previously stated "unless you're mentally handicapped"...That is a big YES. If you believe that our Constitution and Bill of Rights does not give us rights, then you are totally incompitent to our rights. You might as well stop while you are ahead seeing that you are arguing in a losing battle agains lashicoN.

Lol.... irony in action.

If You and LashicoN really believe that nonsense of the Constitution granting rights, then I highly suggest you take a class concerning the Constitution, and the idea of Natural Rights. If the govt grants rights, then it can also justify taking them away. However, if rights are innate (ie natural) the govt can only attempt to take them away, which would be tyranny and oppression.

Yeah, I'm done with this thread. If one cant understand simple Constitutional questions like this one, there's no need to argue until someone has done a lil more reading.

 

[lashicoN]

Don't even try to play that game... you know full well the Constitution is a limitation on govt not individuals. So an individual should be afforded the opportunity to engage in libel/slander with impunity correct?

You fail to understand that the Constitution doesn't give rights, it only prohibits govt from taking certain ones away.

Impunity from who? Should the government be able to silence me if I make up lies about you that lead to you losing your job? No. Should you be able to sue me for making up lies that lead to you losing your job? Yes. That's the only part the government has to play in this scenario, to determine whether or not I should be fined and/or jailed for libel or slander.

What do either have to do with my natural born right of free speech, which is protected by (or should I say from?) the Federal government? We should abridge freedom of speech because someone might lie? We should infringe our right to keep and bear arms because some criminal might use a gun in a crime? Sounds like a recipe for tyranny, if you ask me.

 

[Praetorian13]

Lol.... irony in action.

If You and LashicoN really believe that nonsense of the Constitution granting rights, then I highly suggest you take a class concerning the Constitution, and the idea of Natural Rights.

I highly suggest you take the same class and read the Constitution

 

[Kutnupe14]

I highly suggest you take the same class and read the Constitution

UF 98 BA/Political Science

 

[lashicoN]

Lol.... irony in action.

If You and LashicoN really believe that nonsense of the Constitution granting rights, then I highly suggest you take a class concerning the Constitution, and the idea of Natural Rights.

Huh? We're born with all kinds of rights, as thinking human beings. Our government is supposed to protect those rights from people who want to take them away. Our government is not allowed (legally) to deny, abridge, or infringe on those rights.

We're born with those rights, so the Constitution doesn't actually grant them, but it does enable those rights to exist because it lays out rules against the Federal Government from taking them away. The constitution is a good starting point to find out what rights we have, but just because a certain right isn't listed, doesn't mean you don't already have it.

 

[NYFelon]

LOL. Usually Kutnupe and I are on opposing ends of an argument, but I'm going to have to chalk up one for his camp this time around. The Constitution DOES NOT grant rights. Rather, it recognizes inherent, and natural rights born to all men, and creates bars on the government from enacting laws which abridge or curtail these rights.

 

[lashicoN]

LOL. Usually Kutnupe and I are on opposing ends of an argument, but I'm going to have to chalk up one for his camp this time around. The Constitution DOES NOT grant rights. Rather, it recognizes inherent, and natural rights born to all men, and creates bars on the government from enacting laws which abridge or curtail these rights.

I find it really funny that he said that, especially after he said that people should have to get permission from the government to peaceably protest, and that people shouldn't be allowed to say the F word on a public street. It appears that he does, in fact, believe that rights are granted by the government, simply by making those two arguments. He pretty much just took what I've been saying for the last 10 pages and tried to use it as an argument against me...not sure how he thought that would work.

 

[mrjarrell]

LOL. Usually Kutnupe and I are on opposing ends of an argument, but I'm going to have to chalk up one for his camp this time around. The Constitution DOES NOT grant rights. Rather, it recognizes inherent, and natural rights born to all men, and creates bars on the government from enacting laws which abridge or curtail these rights.

As far as I've seen Kutnupe is the only one who's made the assertion that rights are granted. Lashicon didn't.