Bill's Wife: The Tasmanian Candidate

[PoliticalChic]

5. Let's examine the 'if the shoe were on the other foot' argument.....

....wouldn't those of us, religious folks, like the same protection against that "which offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules" us?????

Not hardly.

"Oxford don Richard Dawkins, in his God Delusions, described God as a “petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

This is the same God who was born on earth of the virgin Mary, the God whose name is Jesus. As a Christian, it cuts deep to hear the person you love abused like this. And of course it’s an attack on our character: “You worship a God like that?”

But I’m glad Dawkins can speak freely. Because free speech is important. Free speech is how goodness and truth comes to be discovered and tested and defined. It’s how what is harmful and false comes to be exposed and discarded.

We argue, we question, we challenge each other, and we grow.

And if my opponent resorts to the ad hominem, to call me a “Bigot with Bible” (to cite a recent example), then that just reveals the emptiness of their argument." MercatorNet: Areopagitica Tasmania



The point: simply provide an answer to whatever is said.....not shut down the right to say it.





Unless one is a Fascist/Nazi....Democrat.

 

[AntonToo]

Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon

THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC, Lyndon has exactly NOTHING to do with your charges that DoJ is threatening to go after someone that merely states opinion, even if hateful, about Muslims.

You've served your purpose....

....you're dismissed.

Moron, it's an online chat, you have no ability to stop someone from posting.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Democrat/Liberal Icon Lyndon

THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC, Lyndon has exactly NOTHING to do with your charges that DoJ is threatening to go after someone that merely states opinion, even if hateful, about Muslims.

You've served your purpose....

....you're dismissed.

Moron, it's an online chat, you have no ability to stop someone from posting.

You've been dissed, and dismissed.....

Stop begging.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. So....we have discovered that Democrat policy on the freedom to speak one's mind is the very same as that of Tasmania.
Both deny that unalienable right.


What should be the laws on speech be, and what shouldn't they be?


"No one should be free to slander and libel another, to defame another with objective untruths. No one should be free to harangue a crowd into violence.
But no one should be prosecuted and fined for simply expressing their beliefs.



In 1965 the United Nations General Assembly drafted its International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Everyone agreed that racism was an evil.

The Colombian representative, however, as Paul Coleman explains in his fine 2016 monograph Censored, foresaw the painful side-effects to the U.N.’s naïve hate speech laws:

“To penalise ideas, whatever their nature, is to pave the way for tyranny, for the abuse of power…. Ideas are fought with ideas and reasons; theories are refuted with arguments and not by resort to the scaffold, prison, exile, confiscation, or fines.”


Anti-discrimination laws may be well-intentioned. Who doesn’t want to shut up the person who offends, humiliates and intimidates? Who doesn’t want everyone to be free from insult and ridicule? The goal is beautiful, but the means is uselessly vague and subjective." MercatorNet: Areopagitica Tasmania





I grew up hearing what Liberals used to say...before they became strong enough to infringe on the free speech rights of those who disagreed with them (see the list in the OP).
They used to say "The answer to bad speech is good speech."


I still practice that view.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. There is no objective basis for claiming "hate speech," or any other bogus characterization that Liberals attach to speech they wish to make disappear.



".... the same words that may insult one person, may be simply laughed off by another. What may be felt as ridicule by one, may make another simply think again. What is perceived as intimidating by one person, may be perceived as “robust debate” by another.

So who draws the lines of what speech is right and what speech is wrong? And who decides what a “reasonable” person is?
The answer is: Whoever is the loudest, the cleverest, the one with most access to political power and media publicity. Whoever has the dominant ideology on their side.




I fear yet this iron yoke of outward conformity hath left a slavish print upon our necks. John Milton (1644).

Milton saw no need to fear free expression, for even falsehoods help us to get at the truth; “All opinions, yea errors, known, read, and collated, are of main service and assistance toward the speedy attainment of what is truest.”




Free-flowing debate is vital, for when the waters of truth “flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.”
Instead, Where there is much desire to learn, thereof necessity will be much arguing, much writing, many opinions; for opinion in good men is but knowledge and truth in the making.




Free public conversation is ultimately good,

For who knows not that Truth is strong next to the Almighty? She needs no policies, nor stratagems, nor licensings to make her victorious; those are the shifts and the defences that error uses against her power." MercatorNet: Areopagitica Tasmania



Who make the decisions as to what speech should be "allowed"?

Fascists.....the contemporary Democrat Party.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. Can you imagine turning over the political environs to a bunch who actually believe that it is government's obligation....not to mention ability.....to protect citizens from having their feelings hurt???


Did I miss that part of the Constitution?


a. Yet, the dominant political party/worldview promises to do just that. 'Your widdle feeling hurt? Or might be hurt? Well....we'll put in place rules, regulations, speech codes, 'trigger warnings,' ...

....and, don't forget the mantra that the Democrats provided during the Clarence Thomas nomination, that the accusation of criminal wrongdoing , namely the unproved sexual harassment claims of one Anita Hill....even though Ms. Hill couldn't prove her accusation, that didn't matter.

Nah....here's what mattered:

"The nature of the evidence is irrelevant. It's the seriousness of the charge."

Free speech was, it seems, perfectly alright then!




b. For conservatives, traditionalists, the lesson is very different.

My fav radio host, Dennis Prager explained a valuable lesson in life he learned early in his high school career. His Jewish school taught Hebrew subjects in the first half of the day, and the public school curriculum later. In the middle, the boys were required to participate in prayers.

On one day, young Dennis approached the Rabbi, and said something that the Rabbi had never, in his long life, heard:
"Rabbi," Prager said, "I'm not in the mood for prayers today."

The Rabbi stroked his long beard, and said two words, that Prager professed, changed his life.
"So what?" the rabbi said.



And that is the lesson. Your mood, the way you feel, even if you are 'offended' has no effect on the rest of the world, or how you go about your day.



And that is the view that our Liberal pals should incorporate.

The world need not heed your being offended
......including what ".... humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules....."



Leave free speech alone!!!


And let Bill's wife run for election in Tasmania.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

a. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
Branding some speech as 'hate speech,' and thereby granting government the right to abridge same, is as anti-American as one can get. Yet, Obama put on the Supreme Court a women who claimed just such a right for government.

You really don't know a damn thing about the Law so you should refrain from speaking with any sort of authority until you do gain some Constitutional knowledge along with some understanding of the purpose of statutory law! Here is an example for you!

You cite Amendment I's speech clause exclaiming somehow Congress does not have the power to limit certain speech by asserting the government has no right to curb 'hate speech' even though that can disrupt good order inciting the darker passions and endangering life and property! There are literally 10's of thousands of examples of that happening during the civil rights era, which appears to have raised its ugly countenance yet again today.

But getting to the basic thrust of your assertion that limiting ANY speech, by the UNABRIGDED implication of what you wrote, then something like inciting to riot would be lawful speech and is lawful according to your interpretation of Amendment I. However, every State in the Nation has laws against inciting to riot for what ever reason. Even the Federal has a law PASSED BY CONGRESS making inciting to riot, under specific circumstances, unlaw speech. Here it is for you and others of your faulty thinking to ponder;

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—

(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;

and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]​

Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.​

(b) In any prosecution under this section, proof that a defendant engaged or attempted to engage in one or more of the overt acts described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a)[2] and (1) has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or (2) has use of or used any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including but not limited to, mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, to communicate with or broadcast to any person or group of persons prior to such overt acts, such travel or use shall be admissible proof to establish that such defendant traveled in or used such facility of interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) A judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the laws of any State shall be a bar to any prosecution hereunder for the same act or acts.

(d) Whenever, in the opinion of the Attorney General or of the appropriate officer of the Department of Justice charged by law or under the instructions of the Attorney General with authority to act, any person shall have violated this chapter, the Department shall proceed as speedily as possible with a prosecution of such person hereunder and with any appeal which may lie from any decision adverse to the Government resulting from such prosecution.

The 2A folks make the same tired and faulty argument with the word 'infringed' in Amendment II as you make with 'abridged' in the prior amendment. You are in error on this point noted above, but since you will never admit your errors you will either ignore this post or try to lie your way out of it with you brand of ad hominem, boast and bluster, Cynthia/Chica.

 

[PoliticalChic]

a. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
Branding some speech as 'hate speech,' and thereby granting government the right to abridge same, is as anti-American as one can get. Yet, Obama put on the Supreme Court a women who claimed just such a right for government.

You really don't know a damn thing about the Law so you should refrain from speaking with any sort of authority until you do gain some Constitutional knowledge along with some understanding of the purpose of statutory law! Here is an example for you!

You cite Amendment I's speech clause exclaiming somehow Congress does not have the power to limit certain speech by asserting the government has no right to curb 'hate speech' even though that can disrupt good order inciting the darker passions and endangering life and property! There are literally 10's of thousands of examples of that happening during the civil rights era, which appears to have raised its ugly countenance yet again today.

But getting to the basic thrust of your assertion that limiting ANY speech, by the UNABRIGDED implication of what you wrote, then something like inciting to riot would be lawful speech and is lawful according to your interpretation of Amendment I. However, every State in the Nation has laws against inciting to riot for what ever reason. Even the Federal has a law PASSED BY CONGRESS making inciting to riot, under specific circumstances, unlaw speech. Here it is for you and others of your faulty thinking to ponder;

18 U.S. Code § 2101 - Riots
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—

(1) to incite a riot; or
(2) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
(3) to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
(4) to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;

and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph— [1]​

Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.​

(b) In any prosecution under this section, proof that a defendant engaged or attempted to engage in one or more of the overt acts described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (1) of subsection (a)[2] and (1) has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce, or (2) has use of or used any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including but not limited to, mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, to communicate with or broadcast to any person or group of persons prior to such overt acts, such travel or use shall be admissible proof to establish that such defendant traveled in or used such facility of interstate or foreign commerce.

(c) A judgment of conviction or acquittal on the merits under the laws of any State shall be a bar to any prosecution hereunder for the same act or acts.

(d) Whenever, in the opinion of the Attorney General or of the appropriate officer of the Department of Justice charged by law or under the instructions of the Attorney General with authority to act, any person shall have violated this chapter, the Department shall proceed as speedily as possible with a prosecution of such person hereunder and with any appeal which may lie from any decision adverse to the Government resulting from such prosecution.

The 2A folks make the same tired and faulty argument with the word 'infringed' in Amendment II as you make with 'abridged' in the prior amendment. You are in error on this point noted above, but since you will never admit your errors you will either ignore this post or try to lie your way out of it with you brand of ad hominem, boast and bluster, Cynthia/Chica.

1.A pity you don't reside in this country, America.
If you did, you might be aware of what is known as 'the law of the land.'

"The Constitution of a country (here, I'll just use the US as an example) is the highest law of the land; no law that is passed by the Federal government, or by a state under the government, may contravene the rights, privileges, and processes described in the Constitution."
Why is the constitution known as the supreme law of a Nation? - Quora

Hence, the import of the first amendment.



On second thought, you being the dunce that you are, you probably won't understand the supremacy of the Constitution, and the first amendment, even if you did live here.


2. "You cite Amendment I's speech clause exclaiming somehow Congress does not have the power to limit certain speech by asserting the government has no right to curb 'hate speech' even though that can disrupt good order inciting the darker passions and endangering life and property!"

I state exactly that....and, as always, I am correct.

a. There is no such thing as 'hate speech'....there is only 'speech.'

b. Here, let's advance your education:
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
Wikipedia


I'd define 'imminent' for you...but...you've already taken more of my time than you deserve.


3. Should your lack of education embarrass you, I suggest you purchase the following and have someone read it to you:

"Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate," Hardcover– August 21, 2007
by Steven G. Calabresi (Editor), Antonin Scalia (Foreword)

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

2. "You cite Amendment I's speech clause exclaiming somehow Congress does not have the power to limit certain speech by asserting the government has no right to curb 'hate speech' even though that can disrupt good order inciting the darker passions and endangering life and property!"

I state exactly that....and, as always, I am correct.

No you didn't liar, I wrote what you quoted! You wrote this in your OP to which I responded;

a. The first amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech,..."
Branding some speech as 'hate speech,' and thereby granting government the right to abridge same, is as anti-American as one can get. Yet, Obama put on the Supreme Court a women who claimed just such a right for government.

You don't know what you're talking about as usual, and I'm not baffled by your bullshit! Then you had the utter stupidity to try to counter and cover your perfidy by ignoring the Federal statute I cited re: incitement to riot at 18 U.S. Code § 2101 used to debunk your ignorant delusion that ALL speech was sacrosanct and you make the ignorant and foolish response of citing Brandenburg v. Ohio from BLOODY WIKIPEDIA! Stupid move, Cynthia/Chica! Here is what you C&P'ed from WIKI;

b. Here, let's advance your education:
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Wikipedia

By citing that SCOTUS case, you blew your own assertion that ALL SPEECH WAS INVIOLATE right out of the water. The bit you quoted from Wikipedia put the final nail in the coffin of that claptrap with this sentence which you were so bloody proud of; "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action."

Your claim in the OP that all speech was protected speech and covered by Amendment I as being written in stone and absolute is HOGWASH! And why would any REASONABLE person cite unreliable garbage from Wikipedia when one can read the ACTUAL DECISION which can be found here; Brandenburg v. Ohio

Here is the concluding paragraph in Brandenburg with a hint for you about what the bloody case was actually about;

Accordingly, we are here confronted with a statute which, by its own words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action. [n4] Such a statute falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The contrary teaching of Whitney v. California, supra, cannot be supported, and that decision is therefore overruled.
Reversed.

In contrast to the SCOTUS decision in Brandenburg is Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), which also dealt with the Constitutionality of a State statute. Below is the closing paragraph written of the Syllabus in the decision written by C.J. Rehnquist, which can be read here; Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 47 (1993).

(c) Because the statute has no "chilling effect" on free speech, it is not unconstitutionally overbroad. The prospect of a citizen suppressing his bigoted beliefs for fear that evidence of those beliefs will be introduced against him at trial if he commits a serious offense against person or property is too speculative a hypothesis to support this claim. Moreover, the First Amendment permits the admission of previous declarations or statements to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent, subject to evidentiary rules dealing with relevancy, reliability, and the like. Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631. Pp. 10-12.

169 Wis. 2d 153, 485 N. W. 2d 807, reversed and remanded.

And the final paragraph from the decision of the same case;

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Mitchell's First Amendment rights were not violated by the application of the Wisconsin penalty enhancement provision in sentencing him. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Conclusion; regardless of your erroneous and vapid thoughts of the unlimited boundaries of lawful and Constitutional speech, you really don't know what the Hell you're talking about, Cynthia/Chica!

So much for your understanding of the breadth and limitations of Amendment I speech!
Enjoy the crow...guts, feathers and all!