rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 In my opinion, yes. But that (along with my baby analogy) are tougher waters to tread because you're not stopping someone from expressing anything so much as just annoying people without a point.Metallica's worse than 2 Live Crew? :laugh: :laugh: Well, originally I was going to talk about noise levels and so I went to the opposite end of the spectrum - a group that is LOUD but without much profanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I agree, however I will always fight against people taking away peoples freedoms. This isn't just coming from me, those who disagree with Obama tend to see him as someone what of a radical, extreme leftist who is bordering on taking this country down the Socialism/Communist road.It is hard to stand next to your fellow Americans when you see our Great country getting ready to fall. I'm sure you don't see it, but I am totally for your right to rail, protest, and preach against Obama for whatever correct or incorrect reasons you can come up with. However, I also demand the right to counter with my own speech things I find incorrect, abrassive, silly, or dangerous. I don't want you to shut up. I just want you to listen to reason. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Techboy's not one of them. He claims he is, but he's too reasonable to be one of them. Frustrating, ain't it? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Techboy's not one of them. He claims he is, but he's too reasonable to be one of them. there's a difference between religious and blindly ignorant. I can completely accept and understand where techboy is coming from. Someone like SF51 or the like, who would be what I would consider "one of them" just don't even know what the hell they're talking about and reject logic and reason at a wholesale level. TB does no such thing and has rational reasons for believing what he does. It's never been religion or Christianity I've had anything against.....just stupidity and willfull ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Frustrating, ain't it? :laugh: you have NO idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Do I have any rights to visit a national monument in peace? Why should someone else's rights to speech have to trump my rights? Because "Freedom of Speech" is in the Constitution, but "Freedom to make everybody quit talking unless you want to hear them" isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 What's so hard for me to understand is why you draw a line between that and the whole noise ordinance/pollution thing. Why is that law more viable? Just because its older? If the Liberty Bell people truly did have ordinances drawn up that state you are not allow to practice this type of speech within a given distance why do they not have a right to enforce that ordinance? You seem to be cherry picking which laws should be applied and which shouldn't. democracy doesnt have the responsibilty to necessarily reflect the will of the majority..... it is also charged with the responsibility to protect the minority now..... in a private residential area..... keyword being residential..... you have an expected level of peace and pursuit of hapiness........ in a RESIDENTIAL area there is no PUBLIC area or very little of it...... now...... on a city or public street there is an expected amount of noise from horse and buggies..... or cars and trucks........ so the expectation of peace is less......... the point of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with how loud someone protest but as to whether or not the govt has the right to regulate our freedom of speech ..... which our courts have shown agin and again that it doesnt...... by your logic if the people of south carolina wanted to start sl;avery again ..... they could so long as the majority chooses...... which we know is not the case because the rights of the protesting minority must be protected as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I'm sure you don't see it, but I am totally for your right to rail, protest, and preach against Obama for whatever correct or incorrect reasons you can come up with. However, I also demand the right to counter with my own speech things I find incorrect, abrassive, silly, or dangerous.I don't want you to shut up. I just want you to listen to reason. :laugh: Dude, vote however you want, that is one reason why I love this country. You hate the situation now, I think it is cyclical, with a few extra dynamics. My biggest concern and I blame the media, is the level of Political Correct B.S. in this country. It will be the fall of us, look at this thread, a man is speaking freely and he gets arrested and people are calling for "Speech Free Zones" , that's the last thing we need. I find it hard to reason when people are trying to tell me what the real issues are. Not to hijack the thread with Obama stuff. I see Obama sitting in Wrights church for 20 years a real issue that = bad judgement on his part. I see him campaigning with Odinga in Kenya as another instance of "bad judgement". The list goes on, for instance, I would rather punch William Ayers in the jaw than sit on a board with him and I am not even a violent person. (Kind of proof - I was against my 3yo son seeing Kung-Fu Panda.) :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 democracy doesnt have the responsibilty to necessarily reflect the will of the majority..... it is also charged with the responsibility to protect the minoritynow..... in a private residential area..... keyword being residential..... you have an expected level of peace and pursuit of hapiness........ in a RESIDENTIAL area there is no PUBLIC area or very little of it...... now...... on a city or public street there is an expected amount of noise from horse and buggies..... or cars and trucks........ so the expectation of peace is less......... the point of this thread has absolutely nothing to do with how loud someone protest but as to whether or not the govt has the right to regulate our freedom of speech ..... which our courts have shown agin and again that it doesnt...... So you have no problem with someone like this jackhole spewing obscenities either? by your logic if the people of south carolina wanted to start sl;avery again ..... they could so long as the majority chooses...... which we know is not the case because the rights of the protesting minority must be protected as well Don't really see how you got that from my posts - but I've argued against the majority rules philosophy many, many times on this very board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 On the free speech zones, seriously the first time I heard about them was in 2004 when Bush utilized free speech zones to make sure that no opposing voices could be anywhere near him during his rallies and speeches. I thought it was an ugly idea then and I think it is an ugly idea now. As for our vote, that needs to be made through a combination of education, history, instinct, philosophy, and conscience. I'd never presume to tell you how to vote. I wouldn't think you'd listen anyway. I am just very wary whenever anyone person is villified to the degree Bush has been or Obama is now. Obama couldn't be all the things he is being labeled. If he were, he'd have never passed muster at the state level or as a Senator or to become a national candidate for President. It's just doesn't pass the smell test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 On the free speech zones, seriously the first time I heard about them was in 2004 when Bush utilized free speech zones to make sure that no opposing voices could be anywhere near him during his rallies and speeches. I thought it was an ugly idea then and I think it is an ugly idea now. See, this is exactly why I was likening this to breaking the noise ordinance laws. I'm sure at some point in time there were no noise pollution laws. But then, for some reason, they became 'necessary'. At the time there were surely protests of 'you're taking our freedom of speech'; but now we view those laws as not only obvious, but necessary for public peace. I just don't see how this isn't a modern version of the same exact story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 If the Liberty Bell people truly did have ordinances drawn up that state you are not allow to practice this type of speech within a given distance why do they not have a right to enforce that ordinance? . i assumed this would take a representation of the majority to enact........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I have to say - after all of this, I'm damn glad I'm not a lawyer. I really don't think this is a clean cut case either way and that both sides have valid arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 See, this is exactly why I was likening this to breaking the noise ordinance laws. I'm sure at some point in time there were no noise pollution laws. But then, for some reason, they became 'necessary'. At the time there were surely protests of 'you're taking our freedom of speech'; but now we view those laws as not only obvious, but necessary for public peace. I just don't see how this isn't a modern version of the same exact story. once again it comes to ones reasonable right to peace..... in a residential area there is a reasonable expectation to peace because it is majority private properties........ if my stereo interupts the sanctity of your home..... you have a reasonable right to peace and privacy...... by venturing into public areas and public land where there is construction and cars and trucks etc 24/7 then you shouldnt have a reasonable right to expect peace.......... pretty simple really...... or so i thought......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 On the free speech zones, seriously the first time I heard about them was in 2004 when Bush utilized free speech zones to make sure that no opposing voices could be anywhere near him during his rallies and speeches. I thought it was an ugly idea then and I think it is an ugly idea now.As for our vote, that needs to be made through a combination of education, history, instinct, philosophy, and conscience. I'd never presume to tell you how to vote. I wouldn't think you'd listen anyway. I am just very wary whenever anyone person is villified to the degree Bush has been or Obama is now. Obama couldn't be all the things he is being labeled. If he were, he'd have never passed muster at the state level or as a Senator or to become a national candidate for President. It's just doesn't pass the smell test. yup in seattle..... i remember it because it was before the g8 summit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 once again it comes to ones reasonable right to peace..... in a residential area there is a reasonable expectation to peace because it is majority private properties........ if my stereo interupts the sanctity of your home..... you have a reasonable right to peace and privacy......by venturing into public areas and public land where there is construction and cars and trucks etc 24/7 then you shouldnt have a reasonable right to expect peace.......... pretty simple really...... or so i thought......... I don't think its simple as, the way I see it, you're drawing two pretty arbitrary lines in the sand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 I don't think its simple as, the way I see it, you're drawing two pretty arbitrary lines in the sand. how so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Because "Freedom of Speech" is in the Constitution, but "Freedom to make everybody quit talking unless you want to hear them" isn't? Freedom of Speech with no restrictions anywhere anytime is not in the Constitution either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 how so? 1. Where is the line drawn between residental and public? Remember noise knows no boundaries - just think of those poor saps living a block off of Central Park. 2. Who gets to decide (and how) when I 'disturb the sancity of your home'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Do I have any rights to visit a national monument in peace? Why should someone else's rights to speech have to trump my rights? Actually, the concept of certain rights trumping other rights does exist, and free speech trounces visiting a national monument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Actually, the concept of certain rights trumping other rights does exist, and free speech trounces visiting a national monument. The First Amendment says that you can't be denied a permit or subjected to special conditions because of your message. Not that you can interfere or protest without a permit, if a permit is required by local law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Freedom of Speech with no restrictions anywhere anytime is not in the Constitution either. i agree with Corcaigh here but as i stated above " once again it comes to ones reasonable right to peace..... in a residential area there is a reasonable expectation to peace because it is majority private properties........ if my stereo interupts the sanctity of your home..... you have a reasonable right to peace and privacy...... by venturing into public areas and public land where there is construction and cars and trucks etc 24/7 then you shouldnt have a reasonable right to expect peace.........." this is pretty much the standard in the areas of the country i have lived..... illinois, north carolina, tennessee, connecticut.... not to mention other countries.... so freedom of speech is defined by context of public/private circumstances.... the courts have generally upheld this rule ..... thats why this case is important and i am surprised the aclu hasnt jumped on this yet......... this is over im sure........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 1. Where is the line drawn between residental and public? Remember noise knows no boundaries - just think of those poor saps living a block off of Central Park. 2. Who gets to decide (and how) when I 'disturb the sancity of your home'? ANSWERS 1. your local zoning board that determines RESIDENTIAL and COMMERICIAL properties..... since COMMERCIAL properties generate public traffic that would be a public area...... 2. you have NO right to disturb the sanctity of my home due to my right to pursuit of happiness..... that is decided by the constitution...... BY PEOPLE WITH LESS EXPERIENCE IN DEMOCRACY THAN OBAMA!!...... <sorry had to get that out> if you live where there is a freeway or the govt wants to run a road through your yard that is protected to them by............ eminent domain........there then would be less expectation of peace..... and if that IS breached it is provided for by further legiuslation that limits such things as traveling carnivals, loud car stereos and construction to certain hours if not prohibiting them altogether did i get them all right? did i pass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 ANSWERS 1. your local zoning board that determines RESIDENTIAL and COMMERICIAL properties..... since COMMERCIAL properties generate public traffic that would be a public area...... 2. you have NO right to disturb the sanctity of my home due to my right to pursuit of happiness..... that is decided by the constitution...... BY PEOPLE WITH LESS EXPERIENCE IN DEMOCRACY THAN OBAMA!!...... <sorry had to get that out> if you live where there is a freeway or the govt wants to run a road through your yard that is protected to them by............ eminent domain........there then would be less expectation of peace..... and if that IS breached it is provided for by further legiuslation that limits such things as traveling carnivals, loud car stereos and construction to certain hours if not prohibiting them altogether did i get them all right? did i pass? Nope. I understand zoning - but noise doesn't. The neighbor next to me who locked his dog in his shed for days on end, technically, has the right no? Despite the fact that the little ****er used to bark at 2am... nonstop. Is there a difference between the dog and if he was playing loud music? Like I said, to me this is a serious gray area. I don't think there is necessarily any right or wrong. I don't think that the Liberty Bell people were necessarily right in removing this person, but than on the other hand I don't think this is on level of the alien and sedition laws like some are making it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted June 17, 2008 Share Posted June 17, 2008 Nope. I understand zoning - but noise doesn't. The neighbor next to me who locked his dog in his shed for days on end, technically, has the right no? Despite the fact that the little ****er used to bark at 2am... nonstop. Is there a difference between the dog and if he was playing loud music? Like I said, to me this is a serious gray area. I don't think there is necessarily any right or wrong. I don't think that the Liberty Bell people were necessarily right in removing this person, but than on the other hand I don't think this is on level of the alien and sedition laws like some are making it out to be. i know its the "gray area" but that ole slope we refer to is just that...... gray. all i can say about the dog thing is that here if they didnt get you for disturbing the peace with the dog.... and yes it is a process ...... they would at least get the dog owner for neglect for locking it in a shed....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.