Riots in Ohio???!!!

[Lynn7]

What is up in that state? Cincinatti and now this is going on in Toledo? I could not beleive it when I saw those huge boulders thrown at an ambulance and I was thinking why arne't the police tear gassing the place?

It was dumb to give the Nazis or whoever they were a permit to protest in that neighborhood, free speech or not. They should have been sent elsewhere to demonstrate. As far as those gang members who are throwing rocks, I ahve to wonder why they aren't in prison? These are some violent people and I'm sure this isn't their first offense. (They are gang members after all). I blame the judicial system for letting all of the criminals out of jail. And I also blame whoever decided to give that stupid permit. We won't hear the last of this I'm thinking.

[Raoul Duke]

I'd say it's good to limit free speech in terms of insane Nazi fucks yelling about crap to an audience...I mean, why do we need to hear this? I'm not going to lose sleep because Klause can't go on a tyrade about the Jews putting something in the drinking water.

[The Postmaster General]

I said it once, I say it again - Freedom of Speech and the Right to Bear Arms should be met with reasonable limitations.

[outsyder]

From what I hear the Nazis didn't do anything against the law. As much as I think they're all assholes, you've got to take free speech with the good and bad. That's kind of the whole point. It's not selective speech, but free. Although allowing a march in that area was a bad idea. A very bad one, as it turned out.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by outsyder
From what I hear the Nazis didn't do anything against the law. As much as I think they're all assholes, you've got to take free speech with the good and bad. That's kind of the whole point. It's not selective speech, but free. Although allowing a march in that area was a bad idea. A very bad one, as it turned out.

My sentiments exactly. Free speech dosen't harm anybody.

[Criminal Rock]

Well, I’ll tell you this much... if a nazi came preaching at my door, I don’t think you want to know what I’d do to him.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by outsyder
From what I hear the Nazis didn't do anything against the law. As much as I think they're all assholes, you've got to take free speech with the good and bad. That's kind of the whole point. It's not selective speech, but free. Although allowing a march in that area was a bad idea. A very bad one, as it turned out.

There were a couple of people debating this issue on one of the news debate shows last night and the guy was saying free speech needs to be respected and the woman said well, it depends on what is being said. That is the whole problem- some people would edit what is being said and then free speech goes out the door. But on the other hand, I think it is OK to not permit something that has the potential of being violent to take place in a place where people can get hurt or killed. Mabye they could allow it in a stadium where people who were interested in hearing the speech or seeing the parade could go but could be searched for weapons at the door?

[The Postmaster General]

"My sentiments exactly. Free speech dosen't harm anybody."


Neither do guns.

Just like guns, it all depends on how free speech is used, which is why there are laws governing "clear and present danger"

Running into an old folks home and shouting "FIRE" would surely create a strong possibility for harm, just as keeping a loaded gun around a child would.

No constitutional right, in of itself, causes harm. It's the people who misuse their rights that cause harm - free speech can cause just as much harm as the next thing. Ask that to the 95lb white guy who used his free speech to tell a black joke at the Run DMC concert in 1997 that free speech is harmless. He would disagree through the use of his computer that talks for him.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
"My sentiments exactly. Free speech dosen't harm anybody."


Neither do guns.

Just like guns, it all depends on how free speech is used, which is why there are laws governing "clear and present danger"

Running into an old folks home and shouting "FIRE" would surely create a strong possibility for harm, just as keeping a loaded gun around a child would.

No constitutional right, in of itself, causes harm. It's the people who misuse their rights that cause harm - free speech can cause just as much harm as the next thing. Ask that to the 95lb white guy who used his free speech to tell a black joke at the Run DMC concert in 1997 that free speech is harmless. He would disagree through the use of his computer that talks for him.


Then who's to say what "free" speech we should edit? Or censor?

[MacReady]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Neither do guns.

Just like guns, it all depends on how free speech is used, which is why there are laws governing "clear and present danger"

Running into an old folks home and shouting "FIRE" would surely create a strong possibility for harm, just as keeping a loaded gun around a child would.

No constitutional right, in of itself, causes harm. It's the people who misuse their rights that cause harm - free speech can cause just as much harm as the next thing. Ask that to the 95lb white guy who used his free speech to tell a black joke at the Run DMC concert in 1997 that free speech is harmless. He would disagree through the use of his computer that talks for him.

Comparing firearms to words is ridiculous IMO.

You can't kill people with free speech. Seriously, how many people die a year from free speech? Compare that to guns. There's a big goddamn difference.

Certainly there should be limits when it's used in death threats (which is telling people you are about to commit a crime), and when it's used to disrupt people thus shattering the 'it-dosen't-affect-the-unwilling' rule (yelling fire in a theater and forcing everybody to leave ruins their day). Other than that, say what you will.

People should be monitered and inspected to see if they're fit to own a gun as there are many cases of fatalaties, which gives a reason for government monitoring. You point ugly, hate filled rhetoric and it won't kill anybody. The same cannot be said of a gun.

As for that white guy in the Run DMC concert, I can't find any info, however if he was attacked during or after the concert for something that offended people that it was the attacker's fault for simply taking it too personal and harming somebody when it didn't really affect him. It's like a kid in high school saying that he assaulted some guy because he was dating a girl he liked and that it's his fault for not complying with his unstable mind.

Oh, and besides outsyder's good point, are you really sure it's a wise idea to allow government to control what we say?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by outsyder
Then who's to say what "free" speech we should edit? Or censor?

You can't censor or edit it -- You can only deal with those who use it wrongly. And its misuse is clearly defined in the Constitution, and I already defined it in my last post.

What you are asking is --- "If we tell someone they can't go around screaming at people, telling them to run that there is danger --- why can't we tell Martin Scorcese he can't make the same movies he has been?"

It would depend on what medium the free speech was being exercised, wouldn't it. Surely free speech contained in a movie would undergo different standards than free speech used in the streets.

Someone can make whatever movie they want, make whatever song they want - but it is subject to censorship by the record label, county laws, and most effectively - the public who will ultimately decide how much it is heard.

But I don't see what censorship or editing has to do with this. We aren't talking about a movie, we are talking about people standing in the streets yelling, basically - right? You can't censor that - You can only remove the individual when a crime has been broken, or if they've used their free speech to create due harm by way of "clear and present" danger.

There are city ordinances and local laws that govern what you can yell in the street.

I can't think of a city in the Union that wouldn't have you arrested if you were standing in front of City Hall screaming "Fuck! Fucker! Fuck! Fucker!" -- as even though you are expressing free speech, you are using free speech to break laws governing public decancy.

Again - Freedom of Speech isn't the right to say whatever you want without being punished -- It's the freedom to say what you want and choicing to accept the consequences if any arise.

I'm not sure what your point is - We already govern to what extent people can use freedom of speech and it's to the extent of it not breaking laws, or not creating safety issues. That's not very hard to figure out, and isn't a sign of our mouths being superglued shut by the Secret Police.

I mean - trully a person who screams fire in a crowded building is an asshole. The Constitution doesn't protect that. It only protects assholes who aren't really hurting anyone.

These Nazi's appear to be in their legal limits, but just like so many babies before them -- They should have been smart enough to know what they were saying, and what consequences could arise --- It had nothing to do with their Freedom of Speech. What went down there was exactly what the Nazi's wanted - they wanted a confrontation, and they got more than they expected. Leave Freedom of Speech out of it. This cause and effect had nothing to do with the same freedom that allowed them to make asses of themselves.

[Jon Lyrik]

Holy shit, are people actually insinuating clamping down on neo-Nazis for just spouting shit?

I don't like Nazis, you don't like Nazis. But freedom of speech is there to protect the nasty speech neither of us like.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Holy shit, are people actually insinuating clamping down on neo-Nazis for just spouting shit?

I don't like Nazis, you don't like Nazis. But freedom of speech is there to protect the nasty speech neither of us like.



I'm not. I don't even think freedom of speech should even be an issue in this case. The Nazis were acting in their legal rights, presuming they had all of the proper ordanances. They need to keep the constitution out of this case.

[JohnTheHenchman]

"There ought to be limits to freedom" - George W. Bush

There should be no limits to free speech. The quote I just used is so stupid because limiting freedom is a preposterous idea. Seriously, there are hateful people in this world. And there always will be. Reacting violently to them is giving them what they want. It makes them look right, which sadly...in terms of the law they are.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
"There ought to be limits to freedom" - George W. Bush

There should be no limits to free speech. The quote I just used is so stupid because limiting freedom is a preposterous idea. Seriously, there are hateful people in this world. And there always will be. Reacting violently to them is giving them what they want. It makes them look right, which sadly...in terms of the law they are.

Free speech should not be limited. However, I'd like to see the context of that quote. It could mean anything, whether it be referring to speaking freely, or for example, the freedom to beat someone to death with your bare hands.

[JohnTheHenchman]

I don't know and it doesn't matter.

We have freedom of speech. We don't have the freedom to kill as we please.

[The Postmaster General]

oops

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by JohnTheHenchman
"There ought to be limits to freedom" - George W. Bush

There should be no limits to free speech. The quote I just used is so stupid because limiting freedom is a preposterous idea. Seriously, there are hateful people in this world. And there always will be. Reacting violently to them is giving them what they want. It makes them look right, which sadly...in terms of the law they are.


There aren't limits to free speech, but there are laws governing what speech is protected. (Under the "clear and present danger" clause)

Do you see a difference between speech that is protected and speech that is not?

I feel like no one under stands the concept of "clear and present danger" based on the comments made here. The way people have responded, they sound like they believe that giving the police false information would be a protected act under free speech -- but that just ain't true.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by outsyder
Free speech should not be limited. However, I'd like to see the context of that quote. It could mean anything, whether it be referring to speaking freely, or for example, the freedom to beat someone to death with your bare hands.


If I remember correctly - this was his response toward a website about him. (Bushism's, I think)

I think it was meant to be in jest.