Exactly what constitutes free speach?

[peachykeen]

Im not saying Im little miss spell perfect, but when its at the top of the page.............cmon.

I'm with you on this one- if it's the actual topic, one should make the effort.

 

[Guest]

Dix said the G-word

 

[Carp]

Im not saying Im little miss spell perfect, but when its at the top of the page.............cmon.

Yeah. I totally boned it. But...

 

[Guest]

 

[Carp]

I appologized in th "All Hail" thread. Are ya gonna make me do it here, too?

I'm sorry- you got caught in the crossfire of my less than great day. I did bone the speech thing. Totally.

 

[Guest]

Free speech is that which does not harm others or pose a direct threat.
But it seems many Americans dont give a fuck about losing their freedoms.

 

[Carp]

Free speech is that which does not harm others or pose a direct threat.
But it seems many Americans dont give a fuck about losing their freedoms.

OK. Here's an answer. Let's talk about it. Who decides when speach harms someone, or is a threat? Who decides that the threat is direct? What constitutes a threat? What is the difference between a direct threat and an indirect threat?

 

[Ham Murabi]

It is a free speech board (just look at the top of the page), but it didn't come out of thin air. If the moderators don't allow unregistered posts, then that is their business. (You know, kind of like Augusta National not allowing women as members.)
The same is true for any policy the moderators/owners choose to have regarding the ability to ignore posts or threads. This makes the board less free-wheeling for those who use the ignore function. I don't use it. People can respond very negatively to what I write and it won't ruin my whole day. They might even change my point of view.
As a "free speech" board, though, I would imagine the moderators/owners would allow registered members to post any thread or comment they chose. That, I believe, is the spirit of the general board.
Freedom of speech and the "freedom" of not having to worry about your feelings getting hurt, or your way of thinking challenged, can't co-exist.

 

[Guest]

 

[Carp]

No, Im just going to make you rub my feet, then we can call it even.

Okie dokie. As long as they don't smell bad. What kind of lotion do you want? Scented or unscented. Candles? Wine? (no, not whine) Some soft music. Jazz? Classical?

 

[Guest]

OK. Here's an answer. Let's talk about it. Who decides when speach harms someone, or is a threat? Who decides that the threat is direct? What constitutes a threat? What is the difference between a direct threat and an indirect threat?

that which causes physical harm. You cant yell "fire" in a theatre unless there is one. Warning people is different than threatening. You know damn well what I meant.

 

[estevie]

that which causes physical harm. You cant yell "fire" in a theatre unless there is one. Warning people is different than threatening. You know damn well what I meant.

This is not true. You can very well yell fire in a crowded theater. You will pay the consequences for such an act but you most certainly can say it.

 

[teddybear4play]

As a "free speech" board, though, I would imagine the moderators/owners would allow registered members to post any thread or comment they chose. That, I believe, is the spirit of the general board.

However, it must be said that what Hanns was doing the other night was not "speech." It was a deliberate and malicious attack on the board.

Merely talking is not the same as "speech." You don't have the right to go to a mall, stand in the food court, and shout nonsensical syllables at the top of your lungs at everybody.

What's been done to Hanns and Unregistereds impinges on our rights to free speech as much as cops busting up a rowdy party: none.

TB4p

 

[estevie]

Merely talking is not the same as "speech." You don't have the right to go to a mall, stand in the food court, and shout nonsensical syllables at the top of your lungs at everybody.



TB4p

Sure you do. You have every right to do just that. How is it hurting anyone?

Just because something is annoying doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

[Mischka]

Public nuisance, estevie. The mall cops will cart you away. The freedom of speech does not mean a person has the freedom to speak anywhere.

But maybe I'm wrong. I say you try - in that bikini - and report back to us with the result.

 

[Guest]

This is not true. You can very well yell fire in a crowded theater. You will pay the consequences for such an act but you most certainly can say it.

thats what was inferred

 

[Ham Murabi]

However, it must be said that what Hanns was doing the other night was not "speech." It was a deliberate and malicious attack on the board.

TB4p

I agree 100 percent. I didn't touch on that in my post.

 

[estevie]

Public nuisance, estevie. The mall cops will cart you away. The freedom of speech does not mean a person has the freedom to speak anywhere.

But maybe I'm wrong. I say you try - in that bikini - and report back to us with the result.

Ohhh, public nuisance...hmmm, well, we aren't talking about that.

Anyway, I was just trying to make a point. I realize that there are consequences to our actions. People keep saying you can't say this and you can't say that, well, you sure as heck can...you just have to deal with whatever follows. Its the same as it is here. Of course you can say whatever you want to say, but should you? That is the question.


Oh, and when I give that mall thing a shot, you'll come bail me out won't you?

 

[estevie]

thats what was inferred

I didn't catch that cause you used the word 'threaten'. Yelling fire is not a threat. Induces panic but not threatens.

 

[Mischka]

Oh, and when I give that mall thing a shot, you'll come bail me out won't you?

I just finished Constitutional Criminal Procedure and Criminal Procedure, so it'd be my pleasure to flex a little legal muscle.

And good point on distinguishing speech from the consequences of that speech. You're right, of course.

 

[estevie]

I just finished Constitutional Criminal Procedure and Criminal Procedure, so it'd be my pleasure to flex a little legal muscle.

Wheww! I'd rather not get to know the other 'ladies' in my cell wearing that suit.



Merry Christmas, Mischka!!

 

[Mischka]

And a joyous Christmas to you, too, estevie.

 

[teddybear4play]

Anyway, I was just trying to make a point. I realize that there are consequences to our actions. People keep saying you can't say this and you can't say that, well, you sure as heck can...you just have to deal with whatever follows.

Well, obviously, you "can" do it. When I say "can" and "can't" I mean that you can't do it and be protected by the First Amendment.

TB4p

 

[patient1]

People were never charged to here me speak, nor was I ever paid for making one. I'd call that free.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Freya2
Actually, I do believe that speech can be spelled either way.


But I'm a dope, and am totally wrong here. Sorry.

It can be unless one is concerned about spelling it correctly in which case the version with two e's is the correct version.

Originally posted by estevie
This is not true. You can very well yell fire in a crowded theater. You will pay the consequences for such an act but you most certainly can say it.

God, am I impressed. There is actually someone who grasps the concept of consequences for one's actions.

Thanks so much, my dear. You have just made my decade!