Freedom of speech!

#101
#101
Septic said:
One has every right to tell that person what they can or can't say. The other person doesn't necessarily have to do comply however...
Click to expand...
I will go along with that..... They do have the freedom to do that. Perhaps I should have specified the government....
 
#102
#102
AM64 said:
I'm not talking about censorship; only about the "venue". We by being here agree to share ideas and beliefs - sometimes widely differing views. I don't agree to that same thing from a stranger while sitting in an airplane, a restaurant, public transportation, or while walking down a street. We all have the right to voice our beliefs and to petition the government. By law, government generally can't refuse to hear or censor our beliefs, but I don't see where that extends to forcing what any one of us has to say or think on another person - a person not part of government. Once you deviate from speech being the reasoned transmission of thoughts in printed media or addressed in the proper forum, then you've likely moved on to the invasion of another's right not to be disturbed.

I have distinctly different views on the 1/6 issue, too. Instead of burning and looting on city streets where there was little chance of government officially being addressed, the 1/6 crowd took their message to the heart of government ... who stuck fingers in their ears, went into hiding, and locked the doors. Ask yourself which group - the one on the streets of Portland or the one at the capitol - was acting more in accordance with the thought behind the 1st Amendment - that of petitioning government.
Click to expand...
I'm not taking about illegally destroying property and stopping traffic or any such behavior. I'm not even talking about private property but public places such as parks and sidewalks, Public property. I'm not talking running naked through the streets and being lewd. I'm talking about teaching and preaching doctrines or ideas wether religious or not.
Everyone should have the right to serve God as God bids him to. That's the idea behind the 1st amendment. And it was from jewdeo Christian roots. The old world system was christians persecuting other christians because of what they preached or believed. That's exactly why we have a 1st and 2nd amendment.
 
#103
#103
Again public places are exactly that, public. They are for everyone. And I don't hang out in public places where people are that are offensive to me or my family. I just simply go somewhere else.
 
#104
#104
BigO95 said:
Do you think that let's say a Catholic priest should be able to go and either preach Catholic doctrine or talk to people about the Catholic religion as long as the people are willing to talk to him? What about openly protesting any subject on the public streets and parks?
Click to expand...

BigO95 said:
It doesn't matter if you like it or not, as long as they aren't harassing people they have a God given right to preach what they believe the gospel to be.
People are welcome to agree or disagree agree all they please, and nobody is making them sit and listen to it.
Click to expand...


really ? Would you have told that to the men in Rome, in the days of Martin Luther's speech ? // it surely seemed/seems to have mattered to Rome (right?) ;

was Luther "harassing people? ? Not according to most Christian scholars (rather, his speech was potentially effecting the pockets of certain men in Rome).

i.e. "These indulgences later began to be sold, leading to Martin Luther's dramatic protest" (Wiki); so, as Luther obviously told Rome that it was (according to the Bible) entirely wrong for Rome to be charging the people $ for forgiveness of sins (e.g. in the context of confession), Rome brought the hammer down on Luther, so to speak.

see John 20:30, Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 << Peter/the Apostles and Ananias did not require payment of $ from the 3000 and Saul/Paul upon their baptisms (i.e. such $ payments was, obviously, a 'tradition of men' (not "the church of God")).
 
#108
#108
Weezer said:
Then don't listen in on my conversations, dammit.
Click to expand...
Then keep your voice so I can't hear it from halfway across the restaurant. Or learn some interjections, adverbs and adjectives, and different ways to say how much you care. Ideally both.
 
Last edited:
#110
#110
EasternVol said:
Then keep your voice so I can't hear it from halfway across the restaurant. Or learn some interjections, adverbs and adjectives, and different ways to say how much you care. Ideally both.
Click to expand...


giphy.gif


tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#118
#118
Weird that none of you free speech warriors have discussed this one. Almost makes me think you don't really care about free speech, because it really doesn't get much worse than a government official that holds the highest executive position in the state trying to silence core political speech.

 
#119
#119
evillawyer said:
Weird that none of you free speech warriors have discussed this one. Almost makes me think you don't really care about free speech, because it really doesn't get much worse than a government official that holds the highest executive position in the state trying to silence core political speech.

Click to expand...

‘It’s the First Amendment, stupid’: Federal judge blasts DeSantis administration for threats against TV stations!
 
#122
#122
Ultimately I agree with the ruling, but I also have no issue with DeSantis challenging the commercial
 
#123
#123
I think it might be more along the lines of possible defamation with potential civil litigation. Not so much a 1A issue. But it isn’t that difficult to slip in a few words to make the statements legal.

Let them sue each other and run competing messages in their ads. DeSantis has no business using his office to get into a pissing match. He can leave that for the RNC and the PACs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and hog88
#124
#124
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I think it might be more along the lines of possible defamation with potential civil litigation. Not so much a 1A issue. But it isn’t that difficult to slip in a few words to make the statements legal.

Let them sue each other and run competing messages in their ads. DeSantis has no business using his office to get into a pissing match. He can leave that for the RNC and the PACs.
Click to expand...

Defamation? What are you talking about? The ad doesn't name anybody or even imply a criticism of Desantis. It simply attacks a bill. I don't think the ad even says "Republicans"

A government official suing for defamation over this would be an egregious violation of the spirit of the first amendment.

If you guys think it's appropriate to sue over this, you do not actually care about free speech.

Btw, this is like the third Desantis/speech controversy of the last year, and I'm not counting the Disney suit that was thrown out.
 
Last edited:
#125
#125
n_huffhines said:
Defamation? What are you talking about? The ad doesn't name anybody or even imply a criticism of Desantis. It simply attacks a bill. I don't think the ad even says "Republicans"

A government official suing for defamation over this would be an egregious violation of the spirit of the first amendment.

If you guys think it's appropriate to sue over this, you do not actually care about free speech.

Btw, this is like the third Desantis/speech controversy of the last year, and I'm not counting the Disney suit that was thrown out.
Click to expand...

Defamation can apply to things said about organizations.

I also said that (if there’s no legal recourse) that they should just battle it out with competing messages with their advertisements.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top