Mr. Jefferson Would Not Approve

[jeremy]

If the govt owns nothing and the will of the public supercedes all, well... everything is open for free reign. There shouldn't be a single prohibition on any govt (ie public) holdings. Heck, you should be able to enter the presidents residence anytime you wish, or walk on to the floor of the house while in session... but of course that would be ridiculous.

Actually I see nothing wrong with any of your suggestions...

 

[NYFelon]

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

I saw this...

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.

and responded.

 

[Roadie]

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

The Constitution ENUMERATES Rights, it does not GIVE those Rights. The Founders believed Rights were inherent, and not theirs to grant. Some of them hesitated putting the BoR in the Constitution because they were afraid it would be misinterpreted as giving those Rights...

Looks like their fears were justified..

 

[thompal]

These are all limitations on free speech, whats dishonest about it? Disorderly Conduct? Making unreasonable noise after being warned. The government, like it or not, has limited free speech. If you choose to ignore it then you are living in a fantasy world. Statist, more like realist.

"Fraud and perjury" are no more "freedom of speech" than "murder" is the "right to bear arms."

Once you agree with Brady Inc and HCI that the "right to bear arms" is the same as "murder," you might as well be a paying member.

Both speech and bearing arms are rights. And like ANY right, can be misused. But, the misuse is NOT the same as the right, nor is it a direct result of the right. To claim otherwise is to claim (like many statists do) that rights=crime. The misuse should be punished, not the right.

Don't fall into the trap. It's a slippery slope. Either you are FOR rights, or you are AGAINST rights. There is no middle ground. To suggest that you are for SOME rights, then you put the government in the position of allowing or denying rights, based on some totally arbitrary criteria, which of course is chosen by the government. This reduces "rights" to the status of "privilege."

 

[thompal]

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?

So, you would advocate some "moral test" be applied to speech before it should be "allowed" by the government? Whose moral code? Christian? Which branch? At that, there is a lot that would still offend Muslims. A Baptist code could allow things to be said that may offend Catholics.

Like Lenny Bruce said, and the Supreme Court agreed, if you can't say "f***," you can't say "F*** the government."

 

[thompal]

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

Yes, accept the rulings of courts. If you can't say "f****," you can't say "F*** the government."

Saying the F word within earshot may make you uncomfortable. It may offend you. It may anger you. So, either you avoid them, or try to educate them so that they may respect your point of view. Kind of like political speech. If someone is standing on a street corner expressing his opinion of some government action, you are free to ignore him, leave the area, listen to him to try to understand his viewpoint, or enter into a debate with him. To ask the government to enforce your opinion over his is the statist's way. You have no right to not be offended. You also have no right to not be exposed to opposing viewpoints. It's just the way it is. If you want to never be exposed to opposing viewpoints, political debate, or be able to debate political viewpoints, maybe a Soviet style government would be more to your liking. There was not much public political debate made during their reign.

 

[thompal]

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

Were those the guys in charge in the USSR, or those pesky Germans? Both had an active and functioning court system.

 

[03mustgt]

Yes, accept the rulings of courts. If you can't say "f****," you can't say "F*** the government."

Saying the F word within earshot may make you uncomfortable. It may offend you. It may anger you. So, either you avoid them, or try to educate them so that they may respect your point of view. Kind of like political speech. If someone is standing on a street corner expressing his opinion of some government action, you are free to ignore him, leave the area, listen to him to try to understand his viewpoint, or enter into a debate with him. To ask the government to enforce your opinion over his is the statist's way. You have no right to not be offended. You also have no right to not be exposed to opposing viewpoints. It's just the way it is. If you want to never be exposed to opposing viewpoints, political debate, or be able to debate political viewpoints, maybe a Soviet style government would be more to your liking. There was not much public political debate made during their reign.

You can say the F word all you want, that wasnt my point. My point was that even though you are exercising your freedom of speech you can cross the line into the criminal realm by harassment, and disorderly conduct. Meaning that yes, the US supreme court, Indiana courts, and the Indiana legislation all believe that the government has the ability to interfere in freedom of speech. If you don't like it, vote and change something or go to another country that has it so much better than we do in the US. One of the first things I learned as an LEO is that the world is not black and white, there are many shades of grey and that just because you can do something does not mean that you should.

 

[03mustgt]

So, you would advocate some "moral test" be applied to speech before it should be "allowed" by the government? Whose moral code? Christian? Which branch? At that, there is a lot that would still offend Muslims. A Baptist code could allow things to be said that may offend Catholics.

Like Lenny Bruce said, and the Supreme Court agreed, if you can't say "f***," you can't say "F*** the government."

I never once mentioned religion, I would advocate the reasonable person test and the totality of the circumstances test.

 

[thompal]

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.

Yes, all of those things are forms of speech. Like I've said before, and you continually ignore, is that any action can be misused. You have a RIGHT to free speech. HOWEVER, you are responsible for your speech. If you misuse your speech, you are held accountable. What you propose sounds greatly like prior restraint.

If you can't have a firearm, you can't commit armed robbery. It is not the right that causes the crime, it is the criminal committing a crime who causes it. You can have a gun. You have no right to commit a crime with a gun. If you do, you are punished.

To sum it up: you have a right to speak, and to own guns. Those rights do NOT recognize any right to commit crimes. You should be held accountable for your actions, not subjected to prior restraint where you must ask permission from the government to exercise what is then a privilege, after getting your message or intent "approved" by a government agent.

You are either FOR rights, or you are AGAINST them, by demanding that they become privileges which require permission from the government.

Which are you? Be careful when you answer, we can go back and read your posts in this thread.

 

[thompal]

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.

Alright, if we agree that the government or Constitution does not "grant" rights, but merely recognizes pre-existing rights, then how do you justify your stance that rights are "limited" by the government? Any right that is "limited" is no longer a right, but merely a privilege. What clause in the Constitution do you rely on to convert pre-existing rights into government-granted privileges?

 

[thompal]

You can say the F word all you want, that wasnt my point. My point was that even though you are exercising your freedom of speech you can cross the line into the criminal realm by harassment, and disorderly conduct. Meaning that yes, the US supreme court, Indiana courts, and the Indiana legislation all believe that the government has the ability to interfere in freedom of speech. If you don't like it, vote and change something or go to another country that has it so much better than we do in the US. One of the first things I learned as an LEO is that the world is not black and white, there are many shades of grey and that just because you can do something does not mean that you should.

Again, you confuse the right of "speech" with a criminal act. The 1st Amendment exists SOLELY to protect unpopular speech (there's no need to protect speech with which everyone agrees, right?). The 1st Amendment does not protect criminal activity, any more than the 2nd Amendment protects the act of armed robbery.

Why is this concept so hard for you LEOs to grasp? Rather than restrict a right by prior restraint, or outright ban, why not punish any crime that may be committed?

 

[thompal]

These are all limitations on free speech, whats dishonest about it? Disorderly Conduct? Making unreasonable noise after being warned. The government, like it or not, has limited free speech. If you choose to ignore it then you are living in a fantasy world. Statist, more like realist.

BTW - thanks for the negative rep for daring to disagree with your political viewpoint. That says a lot.

I guess I now know how you feel about MY right to express political opinions.

 

[rambone]

 

[NYFelon]

 

[RockofStrength]

"I raise my eyebrow at you sir."

 

[03mustgt]

Again, you confuse the right of "speech" with a criminal act. The 1st Amendment exists SOLELY to protect unpopular speech (there's no need to protect speech with which everyone agrees, right?). The 1st Amendment does not protect criminal activity, any more than the 2nd Amendment protects the act of armed robbery.

Why is this concept so hard for you LEOs to grasp? Rather than restrict a right by prior restraint, or outright ban, why not punish any crime that may be committed?

thompal, my point is that speech, popular or not, can be criminal in nature. If it is criminal in nature then "free speech" has limitations. How is that so hard to grasp? You can say whatever you want, when it crosses into the criminal realm then you are punished. Your post seems to agree that there should be laws regulating speech, if not then you have done nothing but confuse the hell out of me.

 

[03mustgt]

BTW - thanks for the negative rep for daring to disagree with your political viewpoint. That says a lot.

I guess I now know how you feel about MY right to express political opinions.

Yup,

I will reiterate,

I disagree.

Glad we got that cleared up.

 

[thompal]

thompal, my point is that speech, popular or not, can be criminal in nature. If it is criminal in nature then "free speech" has limitations. How is that so hard to grasp? You can say whatever you want, when it crosses into the criminal realm then you are punished. Your post seems to agree that there should be laws regulating speech, if not then you have done nothing but confuse the hell out of me.

Nope, I would never agree with ANY law that regulated speech, any more than I agree with ANY law that regulates firearms. Both are tools, the misuse of which should be punished.

If you use a firearm to rob a store, you should be punished. If you use speech to commit fraud or slander that same store, you should be punished. Rights are unfettered, as long as they cause no harm to any other person. Up until that point, there should be no limitation. Just as it may irritate some to see a person OC while walking down the street, it may irritate someone to hear a person speak about something in public. If you suggest placing restrictions on the person speaking in public, would you also suggest placing restrictions on OCing in public? Neither is causing actual harm. The person who is offended can either realize that the offender is within his rights, or cross the street so as to not be offended. There is no "right to be not offended," and no where in Article I, Section 8 is there an authority granted to government to prevent people from being offended.

As this whole thing started with a discussion about people being arrested on federal property which is open to the public, let's recap and consider that the "speech" in this case was not slander, fraud, assault, slander, or any other crime. It was DANCING. Dancing to celebrate Thomas Jefferson, to be precise. And then dancing to protest the arrest of the person Dancing to celebrate Jefferson. Unless you consider "protest" to be illegal, then your constant arguments about the crimes of slander, fraud, etc., are irrelevant. So about the only thing left is to restrict any form of speech that THE GOVERNMENT doesn't like, and by arresting people who engage in it, create the de facto "crime" of "protesting against the government."

I dunno, still sounds rather Stalinist to me. What department do you work for again?

 

[03mustgt]

Nope, I would never agree with ANY law that regulated speech, any more than I agree with ANY law that regulates firearms. Both are tools, the misuse of which should be punished.

If you use a firearm to rob a store, you should be punished. If you use speech to commit fraud or slander that same store, you should be punished. Rights are unfettered, as long as they cause no harm to any other person. Up until that point, there should be no limitation. Just as it may irritate some to see a person OC while walking down the street, it may irritate someone to hear a person speak about something in public. If you suggest placing restrictions on the person speaking in public, would you also suggest placing restrictions on OCing in public? Neither is causing actual harm. The person who is offended can either realize that the offender is within his rights, or cross the street so as to not be offended. There is no "right to be not offended," and no where in Article I, Section 8 is there an authority granted to government to prevent people from being offended.

As this whole thing started with a discussion about people being arrested on federal property which is open to the public, let's recap and consider that the "speech" in this case was not slander, fraud, assault, slander, or any other crime. It was DANCING. Dancing to celebrate Thomas Jefferson, to be precise. And then dancing to protest the arrest of the person Dancing to celebrate Jefferson. Unless you consider "protest" to be illegal, then your constant arguments about the crimes of slander, fraud, etc., are irrelevant. So about the only thing left is to restrict any form of speech that THE GOVERNMENT doesn't like, and by arresting people who engage in it, create the de facto "crime" of "protesting against the government."

I dunno, still sounds rather Stalinist to me. What department do you work for again?

Now, I will agree that arresting people for dancing is ridiculous and that is not why I became an LEO.