Carlos,
Did they use Windows to write the constitution?
No, they probably used a goose-feather pen. But they likely used windows to let the light in so they could see where the ink well was and what they wrote.
... did I forget too start the subject wit "OT" ? No, it looks like I did.
Hello all,
To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the American constitution.
Did they use Windows to write the constitution?
To be more specific : that "popular interpretation" looks to have replaced >"the gouverment" with "everybody". As in : *nobody* is allowed to stop >anyone from saying whatever he wants, whereever he likes to do it.
First amendment. No law can be passed that limits
freedom of speech, press, or assembly.
The popular interpretation is that you can say what
you like
I don't know what retaliation means in that respect.
Newyana2,
First amendment. No law can be passed that limits
freedom of speech, press, or assembly.
Again, thats the *gouverment* telling you that it won't bother you if you do speak your mind.
The popular interpretation is that you can say what
you like
Thats why I posted my question : that "popular interpretation" doesn't seem to be based on either the amendments or the law.
To be more specific : that "popular interpretation" looks to have replaced "the gouverment" with "everybody". As in : *nobody* is allowed to stop anyone from saying whatever he wants, whereever he likes to do it.
I'd just like to know if there is /anything anywhere/ supporting that.
I don't know what retaliation means in that respect.
Yes, you do. Anything that will shut the person(s) up. From discrediting them upto picking them up just picking them off the street throwing them
into a gulag. Or make them disappear ofcourse.
And I'm not here to discuss politics. If I wanted that I would have posted my question in a politics related newsgroup. I would be pretty-much guaranteed a conflict. :-\Part of the problem is that many, many people confuse the right for one
To be more specific : that "popular interpretation" looks to have
replaced "the gouverment" with "everybody". As in : *nobody* is
allowed to stop anyone from saying whatever he wants, whereever
he likes to do it.
The "popular interpretation" is based on the general ignorance of
the population.
Part of the problem is that many, many people confuse the right for one to believe and opine what they think with the right to force another to
listen to such incantations.
Hello all,
To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right >described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the >American constitution.
The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if >something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
hear.
...But almost everyone I hear seem to have translated that into a right, a >right that may be claimed from /everyone/, not only the gouverment.
Websites do not seem to do much better, although they restrict themselves as >defining the right toward the gouverment (and not everyone else).
Like here :
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech
Which starts with "Freedom of speech-the right"
Or here :
https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
which starts with "freedom of speech, right"
Or here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
where in the second paragraph starts with "The First Amendment's freedom of >speech right"
tl;dr:
Where, in America's constitution or laws, is the "free speech" *right* >described - as the "no retaliation" promiss certainly isn't it.
Remark: This is a serious question. I'm trying to figure out if all those >people who demand "freedom of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have >the law on their side.
I don't think they have, but I might have overlooked something in that >regard.
On 2023-12-11 12:38, R.Wieser wrote:
Carlos,
Did they use Windows to write the constitution?
No, they probably used a goose-feather pen. But they likely used windows to >> let the light in so they could see where the ink well was and what they
wrote.
... did I forget too start the subject wit "OT" ? No, it looks like I did.
So what? It is not even related distantly to the themes of this
international area. It is not even my constitution.
| Anything that will shut the person(s) up. From discrediting
| them upto picking them up just picking them off the street
| throwing them into a gulag. Or make them disappear ofcourse.
That has nothing to do with law.
The law says you have freedom of speech
You seem to have some sort of agenda here that you're
refusing to be clear and honest about.
Why not just make whatever point it is that you want to make?
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
American Declaration of Independence, 1776.
Those were Enlightenment ideas; European mostly, France being the
leading light.
Hello all,
To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right >described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the >American constitution.
The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if >something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
hear.
...But almost everyone I hear seem to have translated that into a right, a >right that may be claimed from /everyone/, not only the gouverment.
Websites do not seem to do much better, although they restrict themselves as >defining the right toward the gouverment (and not everyone else).
Like here :
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech
Which starts with "Freedom of speech-the right"
Or here :
https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
which starts with "freedom of speech, right"
Or here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
where in the second paragraph starts with "The First Amendment's freedom of >speech right"
tl;dr:
Where, in America's constitution or laws, is the "free speech" *right* >described - as the "no retaliation" promiss certainly isn't it.
Remark: This is a serious question. I'm trying to figure out if all those >people who demand "freedom of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have >the law on their side.
I don't think they have, but I might have overlooked something in that >regard.
Also think of Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp that the American law does not >permit to exist, yet it stil does.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:23:22 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:
Also think of Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp that the American law does not >permit to exist, yet it stil does.
They get around that because it's technically not on American soil. So
it, for some reason, isn't America, not subject to American law, and only violates the ideals, not the law.
That's why it's in Cuba.
Go figure. Every system of laws can be gamed. That's why we have reforms. Eventually it starts to look like Asimov's three laws of robotics.
...I'm trying to figure out if all those people who demand "freedom
of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have the law on their
side.
They don't. It only applies to government regulation and sanction
of protected speech.
You have no "free speech" rights anywhere on Twitter, etc. if
the platform decides to shut down your speech.
Deplatforming is completely legal.
This is why moving speech to private platforms is a desperate
problem.
Well... corporate governance, possibly ONE person,can do anything
they want with that. They can silence whomever they care to.
Otherwise, on public spaces, you have the right to say what you like
so long as it is "protected speech"
(the yelling "fire" exceptions, look it up),
you have the right to publish what you like,
and you have the right to assemble ANY number of people because
the Constitution doesn't numerically limit the right to peaceably
assemble.
Personally, I think if you drop a hundred thousand people open
carrying assault weapons on Washington, it is no longer a peaceable
assembly, but> that hasn't been ruled yet and likely never will.
IMO, it's mass assault with a deadly weapon.
(Probably more than you wanted)
No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten
Zaghadka,
...I'm trying to figure out if all those people who demand "freedom
of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have the law on their
side.
They don't. It only applies to government regulation and sanction
of protected speech.
I know that, you know that.
The thing is that scores of (loud-mouth)Americans seem to think otherwise. Hence my "Did I miss something?" >question.
You have no "free speech" rights anywhere on Twitter, etc. if
the platform decides to shut down your speech.
Deplatforming is completely legal.
Yep. But why hide what happens behind a word like that ? The people *get >kicked out* - often even without knowing why.
In my country (The Netherlands) some companies have been tagged as >"utilities" (gas, water, light), and they have to come up with damn good >reasons (that wil stand in a court of law) to disconnect customers - and >proof that they tried to create a good-faith solution for a customers who >have money problems.
Otherwise, on public spaces, you have the right to say what you like
so long as it is "protected speech"
Ehhh... Try to set up a couple of Killo-watt speakers on a sidwalk, aim them >ad a random home and see how fast you will be "kicked out" (into jail). :-)
(the yelling "fire" exceptions, look it up),
Don't need to, I now. But, yeling "fire" "in" the public space of a(n open) >towns center most likely won't be punished. Why ? There is no expectation >of panic. Something which /does/ exist in a movie theater (which is often >used as a "where not to do it" example)
you have the right to publish what you like,
Nope. Slander isn't permitted. Handing out pornographic images isn't >either. Lots of things are prohibited in/on public spaces. Heck, you can't >even drop your pants and take a leak against a tree there, let alone a
number 2 in the center of a square. :-)
and you have the right to assemble ANY number of people because
the Constitution doesn't numerically limit the right to peaceably
assemble.
Nope, not even that. I'm pretty sure that, even at your side of the pond, >laws exist which limit that, to make sure no dangerous situation (for >example, due to overcrowding) will occur.
Personally, I think if you drop a hundred thousand people open
carrying assault weapons on Washington, it is no longer a peaceable
assembly, but> that hasn't been ruled yet and likely never will.
It is. But just as when a lot of people "peaceably assemble" there is just
a simple spark needed to create chaos.
IMO, it's mass assault with a deadly weapon.
Ah. So if large groups of guys come together you automatically have a rape >party ? :-p
But I get what you're trying to tell. There is no reason to take weapons >into a peacefull gathering. Doing so is suspect.
{snip from other post]
(Probably more than you wanted)
I knew of most, if not of all of it. My question was just to make certain I >did not overlook something somewhere.
To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the American constitution.
The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
hear.
Read, also, this excellent article regarding the regulation of
social media as "common carriers" in the US:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/social-media-companies-and-common-carrier-status-a-primer/
Also think of Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp that the American law does
not permit to exist, yet it stil does.
They get around that because it's technically not on American soil.
Go figure. Every system of laws can be gamed.
Eventually it starts to look like Asimov's three laws of robotics.
They don't. It only applies to government regulation and
sanction of protected speech.
I know that, you know that.
Why ask then? No, your initial question implies that you didn't
know.
So where is it described? First amendment. That was your direct question.
You sound like the lawyer with the burning cigarette on Saturday
Night Live.
This would really fit better in misc.legal.moderated.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:24:23 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right >> described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
American constitution.
The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if >> something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
hear.
This would really fit better in misc.legal.moderated.
To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the American constitution.
Right to the Pursuit of Happiness? If I enjoy screwing little boys, I can >pursue my happiness under those ideals. It is my "right?" Don't think so.
But technically it doesn't conflict with those little boys' rights to
life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness if I can demonstrate consent
and enjoyment on their part. There is nothing regarding age of consent in
the enforcement of liberty.
Zaghadka,
...I'm trying to figure out if all those people who demand "freedom
of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have the law on their
side.
They don't. It only applies to government regulation and sanction
of protected speech.
I know that, you know that. The thing is that scores of (loud-mouth) >Americans seem to think otherwise. Hence my "Did I miss something?" >question.
But I take it thats a round-about way of saying that you are not aware of
any law updating that "free speech" amendment.
You have no "free speech" rights anywhere on Twitter, etc. if
the platform decides to shut down your speech.
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote
|
| To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right >| described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
| American constitution.
|
First amendment. No law can be passed that limits freedom
of speech, press, or assembly. The popular interpretation is
that you can say what you like but you can't yell "Fire!" in a
crowded theater for kicks. Though in recent years we've come
up with the idea of hate speech.
I don't know what retaliation means in that respect. We
used the military to murder students at Kent State in '75.
But some of them were dirty hippies. You got a problem with
that?
Is Elise Stefanik legally oppressing speech if she attacks
college administrations that don't actively push Zionism while
my tax dollars fund the Israeli war machine?
I don't understand
how she got the right to silence people.
A Zionist donor/activist was threatening
to withold 1/2 billion dollar donation from UPenn unless they
paid lip service to Zionism,
fired their president, and vowed
to oppress free speech among students. One thing you need
to understand about the US: Dollars have more rights than
anyone. Our class system is based mainly on money and power,
both of which are more flexible than in Europe. And as much
as we brag about our civilized system, democracy is always
a sunny day philosophy.
US law was originally founded on revolutionary efforts
against oppression by Britain. We were officially British subjects.
American land was officially owned by the crown. People who
had established their own lands without help from the crown
were being exploited and pushed into the role of peasants with
limited rights. So it wasn't just a project of utopian idealism.
It was a struggle against a British ruling class who
saw no limit in how much they could milk out of those dumbass
barbarians living in North America. But those barbarians were
so far away that they began to think of themselves as independent
from the crown. (I once had an English girlfriend whose mother
explained to me that she was trying to forgive us Americans for
breaking with Britain! What I know as ancient history was, to her,
a recent wound to the glorious crown which might have otherwise
ruled the world.)
The result was laws based partly on resistance. It's been a
work in progress. For example, the 2nd amendment states the right
to bear arms. The intention of that was to say that British authorities
could not ban local militias in the 18th century. We would defend
ourselves. That law is now often interpreted to mean that I can
buy machine guns and cannons in case out-of-towners trespass
on my property.
I've read that the guarantee of the right to "life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness" was originally life, liberty and property.
But property owners at the time were basically the ruling class;
So it was changed. We couldn't let just anyone own property,
just as the Brits couldn't let just anyone own property in the
colonies.
Thus, even our
proclamation of independence from the crown was murky and
ambivalent. It was a bunch of clever, idealistic Deists who had
known only long-distance monarchy, declaring democracy. It
was inspired, but it was also a bit like spoiled, rich Gen-Zers
declaring that everyone has a right to a minimum income, and
that all land must be returned to the indigenous peoples -- except
for their family vacation home in the Hamptons and their ski
lodge in Aspen.
Joe McCarthy could claim that he was defending against threats
to the country in calling people commies. What is Elise Stefanik
protecting other than a powerful Zionist lobby? I don't know. I
guess she derives her authority from claims of hate speech: Any
questioning of Israel's bombardment of Gaza is hate speech. I just
have to assume that if she had no basis then college presidents
wouldn't let her get away with it.
The US Congress recently passed a resolution
declaring that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism! It's part of an effort
to classify any sympathy for Arabs as hatred of Jews. About 90
reps refused to vote. Only 12 out of 435 voted against the
resolution. We have a foreign country controlling our Congress.
There was an interesting case back when the US attacked
Iraq. A journalist working for National Geographic went in and did
a sympathetic interview with an Iraqi general, if I remember
correctly. The nation was stunned. A reporter had committed
the treason of humanizing an enemy. It took me several days
to find out what had happened. The reporter was fired from NG.
TV news announced only that he had been fired for his unspeakable
act. Had he fucked his cat? I couldn't find any report about what
he'd done. No one could bring themselves to even speak of the
possibility of humanizing an enemy. We might as well be
ambiguous about Satan!
So, yes, we have freedom of speech. We especially have freedom
of the press. But that doesn't nullify mainstream consensus reality.
Do you want to say something transphobic, for example? We'll come
over there, climb right over those dikes, and drag your ass to jail.
Trans people have rights! Come to think of it, you exhibit every
indication of being a witch as well as a hater of Taylor Swift. What
say thee in defense?!
As mentioned above, it is the First Amendment to the US constitution and >known legally as the "free speech clause," to aid Googling.
The First Amendment also contains the "non-establishment clause" which >prevents the government from instituting an official religion of the
state. It is actually the first sentence of the amendment, so when
someone mentions "separation of Church and state," you can imagine how >important that was to the Founders.
The expansion of separation of church and state to mean that the state
cannot express religious iconography, however, is up to common law and
court rulings. It isn't expressly mentioned.
Personally, I think so long as there is plurality in the expression of >religious displays, it should be perfectly fine for the government to put
up creches and menorahs and diwali displays. But, IMHO, you can't display
the Ten Commandments in front of a court house (it has been tried).
Nothing should give a specific religion government imprimatur, explicit
or implied.
(Probably more than you wanted)
So where is it described? First amendment. That was your direct question.
That wasn't the question. That was me stating which information I worked >with.
Zaghadka,
They don't. It only applies to government regulation and
sanction of protected speech.
I know that, you know that.
Why ask then? No, your initial question implies that you didn't
know.
You are complaining about me exhibiting doubs about what I think I know ? >Really ? :-(
I think I made it quite clear that I asked for information I was /possibly/ >unaware of.
And by the way, my above "I know that, you know that" doesn't mean either of >us is right. Just that we have understood it in the same way. Ever thought >of that ?
So where is it described? First amendment. That was your direct question.
That wasn't the question. That was me stating which information I worked >with.
You sound like the lawyer with the burning cigarette on Saturday
Night Live.
Than you have not understood my question or where it came from. Even though >I tried to explain that in my first post.
And as you have (implicitily) accused me of playing games I don't think it >will benefit either of us to continue this conversation.
First amendment. No law can be passed that limits freedom
of speech, press, or assembly. The popular interpretation is
that you can say what you like but you can't yell "Fire!" in a
crowded theater for kicks. Though in recent years we've come
up with the idea of hate speech.
Hate speech is not illegal anywhere, although it could be a violation of >private college rules. Colleges are entitled to have, and they do often >have, stricter rules than the rules of the criminal law.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 12:59:12 -0600, Zaghadka ><zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
As mentioned above, it is the First Amendment to the US constitution and >>known legally as the "free speech clause," to aid Googling.
The First Amendment also contains the "non-establishment clause" which >>prevents the government from instituting an official religion of the
state. It is actually the first sentence of the amendment, so when
someone mentions "separation of Church and state," you can imagine how >>important that was to the Founders.
The expansion of separation of church and state to mean that the state >>cannot express religious iconography, however, is up to common law and >>court rulings. It isn't expressly mentioned.
Personally, I think so long as there is plurality in the expression of >>religious displays, it should be perfectly fine for the government to put >>up creches and menorahs and diwali displays. But, IMHO, you can't display
FWIW there are now 66 different religious symbols the VA will put on the >grave marker in a veteran's cemetery. About 18 are one or another
version of a cross, and 2 look Jewish, but subtracting those
"duplicates". there still seem to be 48 or so different religions out
there, each of which may want "equal time".
https://www.gijobs.com/va-religious-symbols-tombstones/
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 13:42:12 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Right to the Pursuit of Happiness? If I enjoy screwing little boys, I can >>pursue my happiness under those ideals. It is my "right?" _Don't think so._ >>But technically it doesn't conflict with those little boys' rights to
life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness if I can demonstrate consent
and enjoyment on their part. There is nothing regarding age of consent in >>the enforcement of liberty.
Good try, but not quite.
If someone wants to use your intestines in his/her art exhibit, do
they have the right to do so (to consent or not)? You would claim
"right of consent", or so you would state. But that starts with YOUR
PREMISE you have the authority to make such a claim.You may--or you
may NOT.
For everyone who could not figure out what the question in my initial post
is :
Americas amendments contain a "free speech" clause, which boils down to a >promiss that the gouverment won't retaliate if you say something about them >they don't like.
Zaghadka,
Read, also, this excellent article regarding the regulation of
social media as "common carriers" in the US:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/social-media-companies-and-common-carrier-status-a-primer/
Thank you, but currently I just want to make sure that the "freedom of >speech" demands I hear so many throw around do actually have a basis in >American law.
Maybe after I've made (reasonably) sure I'll take a peek.
They don't. It only applies to government regulation and sanction
of protected speech.
I know that, you know that. The thing is that scores of (loud-mouth) >>Americans seem to think otherwise. Hence my "Did I miss something?" >>question.
You didn't miss anything. The loudmouths did.
...Thank you, but currently I just want to make sure that the "freedom
of speech" demands I hear so many throw around do actually have a
basis in American law.
I can assure you they only legally apply in regards to the government,
as you said.
So where is it described? First amendment. That was your direct
question.
That wasn't the question. That was me stating which information
I worked with.
OT - Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right described ?
Your header sir.
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:41:47 -0500, Art <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com>
wrote:
First amendment. No law can be passed that limits freedom
of speech, press, or assembly. The popular interpretation is
that you can say what you like but you can't yell "Fire!" in a
crowded theater for kicks. Though in recent years we've come
up with the idea of hate speech.
Hate speech is not illegal anywhere, although it could be a violation of
private college rules. Colleges are entitled to have, and they do often
have, stricter rules than the rules of the criminal law.
Actually, we have a thing in the U.S. called a "hate crime." This means
that if you murder someone, there is a sentencing guildeline, but if you murder a black man while screaming "nixxer" at him, you get *additional* sentence tacked on because you are doing it in "hate." It is essentially sentence extension for thoughtcrime.
It's not technically making hate speech illegal, as an example assault
and assault with a deadly weapon are similarly differentiated, but boy it
can be used that way if a government with bad will decides they want to
chill and/or crush certain kinds of speech.
If an authoritarian government gets hold of this, they can make the sentencing for the "hate" part egregious, then define "hate" as any disloyalty or treason to the country (as in, I "hate" my country), and
put someone in jail for 20 years for misdemeanor battery because they
were holding a "immigrants are people too" sign while they fended off a counterprotester. That is, they get let off with a fine or court
supervision for the battery, but get jailed for 10 years for the "hate" component. Imagine defending yourself from a brownshirt and getting
charged with this. We have effective brownshirts here. They're called the Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, and there are an infinite number of
militia with a lower profile ready to jump on and kick disloyal ass.
It can similarly be used to make crimes committed by the sufficiently
loyal less severely punished because there is no hate component. Bingo. Instant two-tiered system of justice. For reals, not the way it's being complained about now.
That none of my idiot leftist friends could see this possibility boggles
my mind. They seem to think it's only going to be used in ways they see
fit, or at the least have faith that it will be reasonably applied.
My take on history is things are eventually *not* reasonably applied.
They are abused to the fullest extent that power wills. This is so ready
to be abused. One of our candidates has even said he will use the law to
its maximum to crush his enemies. There's no reason he can't in turn get
new laws passed regarding "hate crimes" that allow him to do such things
with impunity.
Stan Brown wrote:
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:24:23 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right >>> described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
American constitution.
The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if >>> something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
hear.
This would really fit better in misc.legal.moderated.
I suggest it be headed "legal quibbles and how obnoxoius lawyers might >manipulate the law". You can only do what the law has specifically
allowed you to do.
Can I go for a walk in the country in early spring, see the hedgerows
budding and all nature coming back into life? Only if the constitution
has a clause permitting that?
Do I have freedom of movement, speech, dress, walking speed, language I
use? Only if it's written down in the law-books;
and nit-picking small
minds have spent years refining language, defining concepts. Until you
end up with the very opposite of life and liberty; you tread a path laid
down by dry, soulless minds who are terrified of freedom.
Ed
You have no "free speech" rights anywhere on Twitter, etc. if
the platform decides to shut down your speech.
Exactly. Twitter is not the government, therefore the first amendment
does not apply.
For everyone who could not figure out what the question in my initial post
is :
Americas amendments contain a "free speech" clause, which boils down to a >promiss that the gouverment won't retaliate if you say something about them >they don't like.
The question is : Does anyone know of a law which changes that "free speech" >promiss into an "everyone is allowed to say anything they like to everyone >else, and at any place they like" one.
Its a simple yes-or-no question :
[ ] No, I am not aware of any such law.
[ ] Yes, that law exists.
In the case of a "Yes" I would like to see it accompanied with a weblink so
I can read it for myself.
Thats all.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Hello all,
To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right >described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the >American constitution.
The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if >something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
hear.
...But almost everyone I hear seem to have translated that into a right, a >right that may be claimed from /everyone/, not only the gouverment.
Websites do not seem to do much better, although they restrict themselves as >defining the right toward the gouverment (and not everyone else).
Like here :
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech
Which starts with "Freedom of speech-the right"
Or here :
https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
which starts with "freedom of speech, right"
Or here :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
where in the second paragraph starts with "The First Amendment's freedom of >speech right"
tl;dr:
Where, in America's constitution or laws, is the "free speech" *right* >described - as the "no retaliation" promiss certainly isn't it.
Remark: This is a serious question. I'm trying to figure out if all those >people who demand "freedom of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have
the law on their side.
I don't think they have, but I might have overlooked something in that >regard.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:23:22 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:
Also think of Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp that the American law does not >>permit to exist, yet it stil does.
They get around that because it's technically not on American soil. So
it, for some reason, isn't America, not subject to American law, and only >violates the ideals, not the law.
That's why it's in Cuba.
Ed Cryer wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
Ed Cryer wrote:
Zaghadka wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:41:47 -0500, Art <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com>
wrote:
First amendment. No law can be passed that limits freedom
of speech, press, or assembly. The popular interpretation is
that you can say what you like but you can't yell "Fire!" in a
crowded theater for kicks. Though in recent years we've come
up with the idea of hate speech.
Hate speech is not illegal anywhere, although it could be a
violation of
private college rules. Colleges are entitled to have, and they do >>>>>> often
have, stricter rules than the rules of the criminal law.
Actually, we have a thing in the U.S. called a "hate crime." This means >>>>> that if you murder someone, there is a sentencing guildeline, but if >>>>> you
murder a black man while screaming "nixxer" at him, you get
*additional*
sentence tacked on because you are doing it in "hate." It is
essentially
sentence extension for thoughtcrime.
It's not technically making hate speech illegal, as an example assault >>>>> and assault with a deadly weapon are similarly differentiated, but
boy it
can be used that way if a government with bad will decides they want to >>>>> chill and/or crush certain kinds of speech.
If an authoritarian government gets hold of this, they can make the
sentencing for the "hate" part egregious, then define "hate" as any
disloyalty or treason to the country (as in, I "hate" my country), and >>>>> put someone in jail for 20 years for misdemeanor battery because they >>>>> were holding a "immigrants are people too" sign while they fended off a >>>>> counterprotester. That is, they get let off with a fine or court
supervision for the battery, but get jailed for 10 years for the "hate" >>>>> component. Imagine defending yourself from a brownshirt and getting
charged with this. We have effective brownshirts here. They're
called the
Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, and there are an infinite number of
militia with a lower profile ready to jump on and kick disloyal ass. >>>>>
It can similarly be used to make crimes committed by the sufficiently >>>>> loyal less severely punished because there is no hate component. Bingo. >>>>> Instant two-tiered system of justice. For reals, not the way it's being >>>>> complained about now.
That none of my idiot leftist friends could see this possibility
boggles
my mind. They seem to think it's only going to be used in ways they see >>>>> fit, or at the least have faith that it will be reasonably applied.
My take on history is things are eventually *not* reasonably applied. >>>>> They are abused to the fullest extent that power wills. This is so
ready
to be abused. One of our candidates has even said he will use the
law to
its maximum to crush his enemies. There's no reason he can't in turn >>>>> get
new laws passed regarding "hate crimes" that allow him to do such
things
with impunity.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance
CPS is UK's Criminal Prosecution Service. They vet submissions for
prosecution and decide which go forward and which don't.
If you survey the history of which passed and which didn't you'll
find a correlation with contemporary social factors. Two come to
mind. Islamic hatred of the West after 9/11; and recent racialist
issues. This clearly indicates that the law itself (or, rather, the
practitioners of the law itself) are biased and prejudiced; and use
it differently at different times.
Ed
If I were to put a soapbox on Hyde Park corner and shout out "I hate
Catholics and Protestants; and I loathe Islam. In fact I hate all
religious sects I've ever heard of, with their bigotry and myopic
senselessness". Well, I might get arrested and I might not. But I
suspect that whether I did or not would depend upon the size of the
crowd I drew, and whether they were heckling me or giving me serious
attention. It's the degree of public disturbance that would condition
that, not the crime itself.
Ed
Throughout known human history people have found other groups to blame
for their problems. The Jews in particular have had a rough time under
Christendom; they killed God, who came amongst them and warned them
against money-making, and throughout the two thousand years since then
they've been portrayed as misers and predators, and occasionally massacred. >> Even amongst the intellectual elite you find this prejudice; Richard
Wagner; and even Friedrich Nietzsche with his portrayal of priests
skulking behind their raw instincts and spouting bullshit.
Can we rise above such narrowness? Perhaps to some kind of Spockian pure
logic beyond mere emotion and prejudice?
I doubt it. The best that reason can provide is "skepticism"; which
recommends a holding back until all facts are known. But meanwhile the
predators will have moved in and wrought havoc on the sheep; demanding
that the officers of the law act and protect them.
Ed
All of which, as I'm sure you must have recognised, argues that human
law is not universal; not like the laws of science are presumed to be.
It changes from age to age, from one fashion to another. Sometimes God's >eternal guidance calls the shots, sometimes Sadam Hussein, sometimes
emperor Constantine, sometimes hatred of Ted Bundy, Peter Sutcliffe,
Fred and Rosemary West.
Thou shalt not kill, but there are times when it is good to do so.
Newyana2,
First amendment. No law can be passed that limits
freedom of speech, press, or assembly.
Again, thats the *gouverment* telling you that it won't bother you if you do >speak your mind.
The popular interpretation is that you can say what
you like
Thats why I posted my question : that "popular interpretation" doesn't seem >to be based on either the amendments or the law.
To be more specific : that "popular interpretation" looks to have replaced >"the gouverment" with "everybody". As in : *nobody* is allowed to stop >anyone from saying whatever he wants, whereever he likes to do it.
I'd just like to know if there is /anything anywhere/ supporting that.
I don't know what retaliation means in that respect.
Yes, you do. Anything that will shut the person(s) up. From discrediting >them upto picking them up just picking them off the street throwing them
into a gulag. Or make them disappear ofcourse.
And I'm not here to discuss politics. If I wanted that I would have posted >my question in a politics related newsgroup. I would be pretty-much >guaranteed a conflict. :-\
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Zaghadka,
So where is it described? First amendment. That was your direct
question.
That wasn't the question. That was me stating which information
I worked with.
OT - Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right described ?
Your header sir.
Yes, it is. The problem with it is that you blatantly ignore that I >described *two* definitions of that "freedom of speech".
Picking one and ignoring the other is /at least/ disingenious.
"Lying by omission" comes to mind.
Zaghadka,
...Thank you, but currently I just want to make sure that the "freedom
of speech" demands I hear so many throw around do actually have a
basis in American law.
I can assure you they only legally apply in regards to the government,
as you said.
THANK YOU.
Next time *start* with answering the question.
You:Me:
I don't think they have, but I might have overlooked something in that >>regard.
They don't. It only applies to government regulation and sanction of >protected speech. Political speech has an especially high bar as far as >protection goes.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:43:03 +0100,That's the error most people make. The word in the BoR is "abridging,"
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
Newyana2,
First amendment. No law can be passed that limits
freedom of speech, press, or assembly.
Yes. So many people in my country claim that "You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right of no consequences for your speech."I don't know what retaliation means in that respect.
Yes, you do. Anything that will shut the person(s) up. From discrediting >>them up to picking them up just picking them off the street throwing them >>into a gulag. Or make them disappear ofcourse.
Everyone involved in ratifying the First Amendment and the entire Bill
of Rights knew about the exceptions and knew the First was not meant to >outlaw those laws. I vaguely recall, not sure, that some colonies and
then states may have had laws against heresy. I'm sure a few people
thought those laws would remain, but iirc one was challenged and thus
all were found unconstitutional. Where heresy may be about speech,
enforcing a law agaisnt it is the estabilishment of religion. No can
do.
First amendment. No law can be passed that limits
freedom of speech, press, or assembly.
Again, thats the *gouverment* telling you that it won't bother
you if you do speak your mind.
That's right. The Constitution was/is the description of how
the government would work. It makes rules for the government.
Yes, that is the trouble with them. Years ago I tried to find one
that had civil discussions and no one could refer me to one.
I'm here trying to figure out if all those American people who demand
freedom of speech from any-and-everyone have a leg to stand on. As I
mentioned in my initial post, I don't think so. But as I'm not all-knowing >I'm trying to see if someone knows the answer to a very simple question (as >in the subject line).
"Art" <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com> wrote
| >my tax dollars fund the Israeli war machine?
|
| Not a word from you criticising what started this,
What started this was Britain offering to give away land
that wasn't theirs to give.
decades of born-again, upper middle class NY Jews going
to Israel on a roots trip and pushing Palestinians further
off their land with illegal settlements, building luxury
condos a stone's throw from poverty, guarded by the
Israeli military. The rock concert was rich kids having a
party just miles from starving Palestinians. No one wants
to see such violence, but their ignorance was their undoing.
The oppression and taking of land is escalating right
now in the West Bank. What if those Palestinians lose
patience and kill some Israelis? Will you claim those Israelis
were innocent victims? You'd only be fooling yourself.
There's no justice unless there's justice for both sides.
What I see is two groups with extreme hatred for each
other, and one group has no right to be there, except by
their claim that their God gave them the land 5,000 years
ago.
My impression is that most of the Israeli people are not
supporting Netanyahu's genocide.
(That is what he's doing.)
I have Jewish friends who are activists taking the position
that Israel has no right to exist.
They're not saying Jews
have no right to exist.
They're saying that taking Palestinian
lands, based on the ruse that England had a right to give that
land away,
was a dishonest and wrong act in the first place.
The only choice now, to redeen the Jewish/Israeli soul, is
probably a 2-state solution.
But that's not what the Jewish
lobby in the US is pushing. Instead they're trying to shout
down anyone who raises questions... questions about my
tax dollars funding an illegal nation-state that's actively
plowing under peoples' houses for more settlements.
So, yes, I resent having my tax dollars fund a militant
invasive force
and I resent the forceful guilt-tripping of
American Jewish activists, who would turn on the US in
a minute if the money was withdrawn...
Religious crusaders
with God on their side are the most dangerous of all.
I'm here trying to figure out if all those American people who
demand freedom of speech from any-and-everyone have a leg to
stand on.
There are lots of exceptions to unlimited freedom of speech and
they existed when the Constitution was written and no one reasonably
thinks they were outlawed by the First Amendement.
I was looking for where that free speech right is
written down in American law
I was looking for where that free speech right is
written down in American law
US Constitution, First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law
However, that only applies to the government.
jerry,
I was looking for where that free speech right is
written down in American law
US Constitution, First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law
Thats a promiss, not a right.
In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:23:22 +0100,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
I'm here trying to figure out if all those American people who demand >>freedom of speech from any-and-everyone have a leg to stand on.
There are lots of exceptions to unlimited freedom of speech and they
existed when the Constitution was written and no one reasonably thinks
they were outlawed by the First Amendement.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press...
Thats a promiss, not a right.
The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called
the Bill of Rights.
Where governments trample over whatever rights their people think
or wish they had, you'll find there is no right to bear arms ...
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:17:22 +0100, in <upb7f0$128dj$1@dont-email.me>, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
jerry,
I was looking for where that free speech right is
written down in American law
US Constitution, First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press...
Thats a promiss, not a right.
The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called the Bill of Rights. They're most certainly rights, not just a promise. That
doesn't mean some don't try to limit those rights more than the
framers intended, resulting in law suits and court decisions,
including the Supreme Court, but they are rights... if we're strong
enough to keep them... which is the point of the 2nd Amendment.
Where governments trample over whatever rights their people think or
wish they had, you'll find there is no right to bear arms and that
personal arms are essentially or completely banned. In the latter case nothing their govt says is even a promise... or is one to be broken on
a whim.
Thats a promiss, not a right.
However, that only applies to the government.
Exactly that.
bottom line :
1) it doesn't describe a right to anything.
2) it is limited to the gouverment only.
However, that only applies to the government.
Exactly that.
Who else *could* do it? DIY? Good luck with that....
In article <m4hjripk2qbh6tqsmne5khpqo5ior2dn8l@4ax.com>, Jim H wrote...
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:17:22 +0100, in <upb7f0$128dj$1@dont-email.me>,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
jerry,
I was looking for where that free speech right is
written down in American law
US Constitution, First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press...
Thats a promiss, not a right.
The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called the Bill of
Rights. They're most certainly rights, not just a promise. That
doesn't mean some don't try to limit those rights more than the
framers intended, resulting in law suits and court decisions,
including the Supreme Court, but they are rights... if we're strong
enough to keep them... which is the point of the 2nd Amendment.
Where governments trample over whatever rights their people think or
wish they had, you'll find there is no right to bear arms and that
personal arms are essentially or completely banned. In the latter case
nothing their govt says is even a promise... or is one to be broken on
a whim.
Over here, there is no right to bear arms, but a right to free healthcare (and >despite the pressures it's pretty good). (The only cashdesks you'll find in >our hospitals are in the visitors' restaurant or the gift shop.)
I know which I'd choose.
Thats a promiss, not a right.
The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called
the Bill of Rights.
It, as a group, can be called anything they want. It doesn't change
anything towards that particular amendment being a promiss, not a right.
And I see you ignored/dropped the part where I mentioned repeated that that >"right" of yours is limited towards the gouverment only. Not towards anyone >else. A not-so-minor "detail" I would say.
And I see you ignored/dropped the part where I mentioned repeated
that that "right" of yours is limited towards the gouverment only.
Not towards anyone else. A not-so-minor "detail" I would say.
Did you ever look up that article I posted on Common Carrier status?
There absolutely *is* a way for it to apply to entities other than
the government. The phone company - a common carrier - legally can't
limit speech;
Better yet, get a JD, pay your dues, and start arguing this
nonsense before a federal judge. It'd be good for a laugh.
You'll probably be found in contempt.
It, as a group, can be called anything they want. It doesn't
change anything towards that particular amendment being a
promiss, not a right.
That a bit glib though, Mr. Wieser.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:34:37 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:
And I see you ignored/dropped the part where I mentioned repeated that that >>"right" of yours is limited towards the gouverment only. Not towards anyone >>else. A not-so-minor "detail" I would say.
Did you ever look up that article I posted on Common Carrier status? At
the time you said it was more than you wanted. If you haven't, how the
hell are you making these arguments with just a single sentence from the
Bill of Rights?
There absolutely *is* a way for it to apply to entities other than the >government. The phone company - a common carrier - legally can't limit >speech; they can only transmit it
The government not only has an obligation to not abridge speech,
but also to support speech through regulation. That's more than a
tradition. It's vetted law.
The right of free speech also
consists of two centuries of case law, precedent, and dissents.
Wrong. No such obligation exists.
On Thu, 01 Feb 2024 12:02:45 -0500, Tim Slattery
<TimSlattery@utexas.edu> wrote:
Wrong. No such obligation exists.
You are wrong--again.
If there is no freedom of speech (First Amendment), then there *also*
is no right to own a gun (Second Amendment).
Nor would there be freedom of religion (First Amendment again). Guess
how the RWNJs would react--and how quickly--if they were ALL required
to be Muslim, and their women and female children were required to
wear burkas, not allowed to drive, must be escorted by a male family
member in public, and so on.
In summary, you do not have a clue. And your postings show that fact.
The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting
speech.
It does not require the government to force private entities to print
or air things that they don't want to.
As for the second amendment: gun nuts - and "originalist" judges -
overlook the first clause of tha second amendment
As for the second amendment: gun nuts - and "originalist" judges -
overlook the first clause of tha second amendment
Not quite. Good guess though.
Militias are state level,
Tim,
The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting
speech.
Sigh ... No, it doesn't.
All it says is that it won't restrict speech **AIMED AT THE GOUVERMENT**. >Thats quite a limitation in scope - and one thats most always, quite likely >willfully, ignored.
also : although the first amendment allows citizens to say whatever they
want towards the gouverment, it doesn't say anything about the gouverment >having to listen to them
And only that (in a state militia) percentage may claim the "right to bear >arms" from the fourt amendment.
So whats the percentage of gun-carrying citizens thats part of a militia and >allow themselves to be regulated by it/the state ? Hearing the gun lobby >bark its displeasure about its members being regulated in /any/ way I get
the feeling its a shockingly low number.
And only that (in a state militia) percentage may claim the "right to bear >arms" from the fourt amendment.
Though your connection between the "right to bear arms" amendment and the >"right to free speech" one does actually exist, but not for your (dreamed
up) if-then reason : Both groups of people are picking the parts outof their >amendments they like and can use, and forcefuly ignore all the rest.
By the way: Its "nice" to see how you shifted the argument from one
amendment to a fully different one - almost as if you realized you could not >win the first one ...
All it says is that it won't restrict speech **AIMED AT THE GOUVERMENT**. >>Thats quite a limitation in scope - and one thats most always, quite
likely willfully, ignored.
Wrong.
It says nothing about the topic of the speech that congress shall
not abridge.
And only that (in a state militia) percentage may claim the "right to
bear arms" from the fourt amendment.
No. The fourth amendment has to do will illegal search and seizure.
There are no "state militias".
Not quite. You missed the key point. The original claim was where
is the RIGHT to free speech put in writing as law in the US? The
answer is the First Amendment.
THEN it was claimed that is NOT a RIGHT.
That claim then brings up the contradiction (by the US courts) that
owning a gun is a RIGHT per the Second Amendment.
Based on the original poster's claim, owning a gun is NOT a RIGHT--because
it can be taken away, just as the freedom of speech claim allegedly CAN be taken away.
Actually, I win both. Not because I say so, but because my
documentation for the Second Amendment being irrelevant/not
in force is factually true.
First AND Second Amendment rights are equally valid--or they
are NOT. Can't have one be valid and the not.
So, which is it--and WHY?
although that constitution mentions "freedom of speech", it doesn't seem to define what that means (what its
limits, if any, are).
Slander isn't allowed. Yelling "fire!" in a packed cinema isn't allowed either. Putting a bullhorn on someones ear and talk
abot something isn't allowed either.
Also, companies can put conditions in their employee contracts that they are >not allowed to talk about certain things (often referred to as NDAs).
I'm sure you can come up with a number of others yourself.
THEN it was claimed that is NOT a RIGHT.
Yep, I certainly did so.
And you've yet to come up with an underbuilding to why you think it does.
And no, pointing your finger in some direction and claiming that its >mentioned "over there" doesn't cut it.
That claim then brings up the contradiction (by the US courts) that
owning a gun is a RIGHT per the Second Amendment.
Based on the original poster's claim, owning a gun is NOT a RIGHT--because >> it can be taken away, just as the freedom of speech claim allegedly CAN be >> taken away.
What you never had cannot be taken away from you.
You're still hammering that you had-and-have a "freedom of speech right",
but have not brought anything forward with which you explain, let alone >underbuild it.
Actually, I win both. Not because I say so, but because my
documentation for the Second Amendment being irrelevant/not
in force is factually true.
"Your documentation" ? Did you actually post it in this thread ? Where ?
First AND Second Amendment rights are equally valid--or they
are NOT. Can't have one be valid and the not.
Kid, you're the only one here who thinks that the validity of those >amendments are linked to one another. I don't
So, which is it--and WHY?
and as such I choose answer D - "none of the above".
[quote]
A State Defense Force (SDF) is a state militia under the command of the
chief executive of that state only. Twenty-five states in America have some >kind of SDF
and all states have laws allowing one. Whether they call it state guards, >state military reserves, or state militias, they are not a part of the >National Guard of that state
[/quote]
Are you sure about that ?
although that constitution mentions "freedom of speech", it doesn't
seeem to define what that means (what its limits, if any, are).
There are no limits to what a person *could* say.
It is NOT a militia and does not meet the requirements/definition of a militia per the govt. Militias were state groups BUT were under the obligation to become federalized at the order of the President. SDF
can not be federalized, thus it is NOT a militia as defined under
federal law.
The National Guard is the current-day version of state militias.
A quick google just now returned a website, showing a "State Militias" list >from 2024, with just 11 of the 50 states *not* having one.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 06:58:49 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,336,105 |