New York Democrats Argue Free Speech is a Privilege That Can be Revoked!

[JakeStarkey]

Speech freedom is not unlimited, guys. Williams found out the hard way.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Does it chap my ass? No.....it just demonstrates that you have no interest in dealing with reality. This nation is made up of people with differing opinions and ideas about things. Your unwillingness to consider the opinions and ideas of a huge segment of the population speaks more to your failings than the condition of my ass.

You mean like the lefts refusal to deal with or accept the rights views? Like the lefts refusal to even consider what the right wants? Like calling elderly protestors Astro Turf? Like calling Tea party members racist and anti American? You mean like that?

 

[Si modo]

Speech freedom is not unlimited, guys. Williams found out the hard way.

I don't think anyone is saying that, Jake - I hope. We recognize that there are very few and very specific times when speech is limited.

We want it to stay that way and for that standard for justifying speech limitations to be kept.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact is the Hard Right is in the small minority, and it's effectiveness wanes with every passing month. It's ineffectiveness to dictate a presidential candidate for the GOP clearly exposes its growing weakness. The Hard Right will simply not be permitted to dictate their world view must be imposed on the rest of America, which greatly outnumbers its followers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The fact is the Hard Right is in the small minority, and it's effectiveness wanes with every passing month. It's ineffectiveness to dictate a presidential candidate for the GOP clearly exposes its growing weakness. The Hard Right will simply not be permitted to dictate their world view must be imposed on the rest of America, which greatly outnumbers its followers.

Which has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with this thread. The LEFT wants to strip you of your freedom of Speech and leave it to the individual States to decide what, when and why you can say anything.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You were the one who brought up the other nonsense.

I agree a few Dems are out of their skulls in NY. I agree wholeheartedly with you that Free Speech is not an issue for states' rights.

 

[daveman]

Should we change the name of the country yet to something more fitting of the new regime?

The People's Democratic Republic of Amerika?

The Union of Soviet States of Amerika?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Should we change the name of the country yet to something more fitting of the new regime?

The People's Democratic Republic of Amerika?

The Union of Soviet States of Amerika?

OH! Ha Ha Ha! That's Really, Really Clever!

 

[daveman]

that's how it's being mischaracterized in the rightwingnut article which confirms the o/p's biases...

what he's really whining about is that they're trying to prevent cyber-bullying.

i mean, really?

surely you don't have a problem with trying to stop that.

there is no constitutional right to a facebook account

For christ sake, if you're "cyber bullied" - change your screen name, stop posting, get out of the web site. if it's Facebook, cancel the account, fix it so noone can see what you post. I don't need the government to do that for me. use common sense!

That woudl be too easy. It would demand the individual took action on his own for his own welfare. We can't have that. Who knows where that kind of independence could lead? We need Big Government to craft a global solution to the scourge of cyber-bullying. For the children.

When fascism comes to America, it will be carrying a protest sign and screeching, "It's for the children!!"

 

[daveman]

Does it chap my ass? No.....it just demonstrates that you have no interest in dealing with reality. This nation is made up of people with differing opinions and ideas about things. Your unwillingness to consider the opinions and ideas of a huge segment of the population speaks more to your failings than the condition of my ass.

You mean like the lefts refusal to deal with or accept the rights views? Like the lefts refusal to even consider what the right wants? Like calling elderly protestors Astro Turf? Like calling Tea party members racist and anti American? You mean like that?

 

[flacaltenn]

Free speech a privilege?

that's how it's being mischaracterized in the rightwingnut article which confirms the o/p's biases...

what he's really whining about is that they're trying to prevent cyber-bullying.

i mean, really?

surely you don't have a problem with trying to stop that.

there is no constitutional right to a facebook account

WHOOA!!!! I'm trying to decide whether to comment on this thread and I see ::

there is no constitutional right to a facebook account

The Jillian just upped the ante and became the thread!!!! Really Jillian? Want to edit that? Maybe a couple glasses of wine. Could have been distracted by your lava lamp.. Who KNOWS... Go edit that --- before we have to fight over that as our new "tag line" in our footers..

 

[daveman]

Should we change the name of the country yet to something more fitting of the new regime?

The People's Democratic Republic of Amerika?

The Union of Soviet States of Amerika?

OH! Ha Ha Ha! That's Really, Really Clever!

Hey, dumbass, if you don't like being called a communist, quit acting like one. Moron.

 

[uscitizen]

I'll happily fight to the death to protect the right to free speech.

Because it's a fucking right.

Pornography is free speech.

 

[FactFinder]

Sounded like Bloomberg was all about bank's rights only. Yeah , the Yankees lost!

 

[ladyliberal]

People here seem to be almost universally condemning the phrase in the report:

PROPONENTS OF A MORE REFINED FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUE THAT THIS
FREEDOM SHOULD BE TREATED NOT AS A RIGHT BUT AS A PRIVILEGE – A SPECIAL
ENTITLEMENT GRANTED BY THE STATE ON A CONDITIONAL BASIS THAT CAN BE REVOKED
IF IT IS EVER ABUSED OR MALTREATED.

I certainly agree that free speech is a "right" and not a "privilege" as we understand the terms. However, the report never claims otherwise. The report attributes this view to unnamed persons (IE, the proponents). It is in that sense that many of the posters in this thread, and the articles they cite, mischaracterize the report. They characterize a view that is described by the report as one that is held by the authors of the report. Those authors also give equal weight to the conflicting view

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers."

from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The distinction between those things described and those endorsed is important, because the report does make endorsements, not only of viewpoints, but of new laws. In particular the authors propose the new law:

CYBERBULLYING: §120.50 STALKING IN THE THIRD DEGREE (A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR)
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF STALKING IN THE THIRD DEGREE WHEN HE OR SHE
INTENTIONALLY, AND FOR NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, ENGAGES IN A COURSE OF
CONDUCT USING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DIRECTED AT A CHILD UNDER THE AGE
OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, AND KNOWS OR REASONABLY KNOW THAT SUCH CONDUCT:
A) IS LIKELY TO CAUSE REASONABLE FEAR OF MATERIAL HARM TO THE PHYSICAL
HEALTH, SAFETY OR PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD; OR
B) CAUSES MATERIAL HARM TO THE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY OR
PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD .

I'm not an expert on New York law, but the author's contention seems to be that this has the primary effect of extending laws that protect against stalking via older forms of communication (in person, over the phone, etc.) to electronic communications. That is hardly a major shift. As people have noted, there are already limitations on free speech, and this is a misdemeanor statute which only limits speech to children (and 18-20 year olds).

I'm not entirely sure that the I like the report, but it is not how it is being characterized.

 

[FactFinder]

People here seem to be almost universally condemning the phrase in the report:

PROPONENTS OF A MORE REFINED FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUE THAT THIS
FREEDOM SHOULD BE TREATED NOT AS A RIGHT BUT AS A PRIVILEGE – A SPECIAL
ENTITLEMENT GRANTED BY THE STATE ON A CONDITIONAL BASIS THAT CAN BE REVOKED
IF IT IS EVER ABUSED OR MALTREATED.

I certainly agree that free speech is a "right" and not a "privilege" as we understand the terms. However, the report never claims otherwise. The report attributes this view to unnamed persons (IE, the proponents). It is in that sense that many of the posters in this thread, and the articles they cite, mischaracterize the report. They characterize a view that is described by the report as one that is held by the authors of the report. They also give equal weight to the conflicting view

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers."

from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The distinction is important, because the report does make endorsements, not only of viewpoints, but of new laws. In particular the authors propose:

CYBERBULLYING: §120.50 STALKING IN THE THIRD DEGREE (A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR)
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF STALKING IN THE THIRD DEGREE WHEN HE OR SHE
INTENTIONALLY, AND FOR NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, ENGAGES IN A COURSE OF
CONDUCT USING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DIRECTED AT A CHILD UNDER THE AGE
OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, AND KNOWS OR REASONABLY KNOW THAT SUCH CONDUCT:
A) IS LIKELY TO CAUSE REASONABLE FEAR OF MATERIAL HARM TO THE PHYSICAL
HEALTH, SAFETY OR PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD; OR
B) CAUSES MATERIAL HARM TO THE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY OR
PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD .

I'm not an expert on New York law, but the author's contention seems to be that this has the primary effect of extending laws that protect against stalking via older forms of communication (in person, over the phone, etc.) to electronic communications. That is hardly a major shift.

I'm not entirely sure that the I like the report, but it is not how it is being characterized.

Y'all can be as philosophical as you like. Endlessly battering with your chatter, but free speech is a matter of the soul. Try shuttin' me up! It is not your decision. You have no greater rights than myself or anyone.

 

[flacaltenn]

I'll happily fight to the death to protect the right to free speech.

Because it's a fucking right.

Pornography is free speech.

..... and...... so what? I don't have to condone it to swear my life to protect it...

 

[FactFinder]

People here seem to be almost universally condemning the phrase in the report:

PROPONENTS OF A MORE REFINED FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUE THAT THIS
FREEDOM SHOULD BE TREATED NOT AS A RIGHT BUT AS A PRIVILEGE – A SPECIAL
ENTITLEMENT GRANTED BY THE STATE ON A CONDITIONAL BASIS THAT CAN BE REVOKED
IF IT IS EVER ABUSED OR MALTREATED.

I certainly agree that free speech is a "right" and not a "privilege" as we understand the terms. However, the report never claims otherwise. The report attributes this view to unnamed persons (IE, the proponents). It is in that sense that many of the posters in this thread, and the articles they cite, mischaracterize the report. They characterize a view that is described by the report as one that is held by the authors of the report. They also give equal weight to the conflicting view

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers."

from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The distinction is important, because the report does make endorsements, not only of viewpoints, but of new laws. In particular the authors propose:

CYBERBULLYING: §120.50 STALKING IN THE THIRD DEGREE (A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR)
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF STALKING IN THE THIRD DEGREE WHEN HE OR SHE
INTENTIONALLY, AND FOR NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, ENGAGES IN A COURSE OF
CONDUCT USING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DIRECTED AT A CHILD UNDER THE AGE
OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, AND KNOWS OR REASONABLY KNOW THAT SUCH CONDUCT:
A) IS LIKELY TO CAUSE REASONABLE FEAR OF MATERIAL HARM TO THE PHYSICAL
HEALTH, SAFETY OR PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD; OR
B) CAUSES MATERIAL HARM TO THE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY OR
PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD .

I'm not an expert on New York law, but the author's contention seems to be that this has the primary effect of extending laws that protect against stalking via older forms of communication (in person, over the phone, etc.) to electronic communications. That is hardly a major shift.

I'm not entirely sure that the I like the report, but it is not how it is being characterized.

Y'all can be as philosophical as you like. Endlessly battering with your chatter, but free speech is a matter of the soul. Try shuttin' me up! It is not your decision. You have no greater rights than myself or anyone.

To clarify: It escapes my imagination why the right of free speech would even have any single question mark around it. Say what you will. Let those who disagree do so, but say what you will....PERIOD.

 

[daveman]

People here seem to be almost universally condemning the phrase in the report:

PROPONENTS OF A MORE REFINED FIRST AMENDMENT ARGUE THAT THIS
FREEDOM SHOULD BE TREATED NOT AS A RIGHT BUT AS A PRIVILEGE – A SPECIAL
ENTITLEMENT GRANTED BY THE STATE ON A CONDITIONAL BASIS THAT CAN BE REVOKED
IF IT IS EVER ABUSED OR MALTREATED.

I certainly agree that free speech is a "right" and not a "privilege" as we understand the terms. However, the report never claims otherwise. The report attributes this view to unnamed persons (IE, the proponents). It is in that sense that many of the posters in this thread, and the articles they cite, mischaracterize the report. They characterize a view that is described by the report as one that is held by the authors of the report. They also give equal weight to the conflicting view

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold
opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any
media and regardless of frontiers."

from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The distinction is important, because the report does make endorsements, not only of viewpoints, but of new laws. In particular the authors propose:

CYBERBULLYING: §120.50 STALKING IN THE THIRD DEGREE (A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR)
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF STALKING IN THE THIRD DEGREE WHEN HE OR SHE
INTENTIONALLY, AND FOR NO LEGITIMATE PURPOSE, ENGAGES IN A COURSE OF
CONDUCT USING ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION DIRECTED AT A CHILD UNDER THE AGE
OF TWENTY-ONE YEARS, AND KNOWS OR REASONABLY KNOW THAT SUCH CONDUCT:
A) IS LIKELY TO CAUSE REASONABLE FEAR OF MATERIAL HARM TO THE PHYSICAL
HEALTH, SAFETY OR PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD; OR
B) CAUSES MATERIAL HARM TO THE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL HEALTH, SAFETY OR
PROPERTY OF SUCH CHILD .

I'm not an expert on New York law, but the author's contention seems to be that this has the primary effect of extending laws that protect against stalking via older forms of communication (in person, over the phone, etc.) to electronic communications. That is hardly a major shift.

I'm not entirely sure that the I like the report, but it is not how it is being characterized.

Y'all can be as philosophical as you like. Endlessly battering with your chatter, but free speech is a matter of the soul. Try shuttin' me up! It is not your decision. You have no greater rights than myself or anyone.

To clarify: It escapes my imagination why the right of free speech would even have any single question mark around it. Say what you will. Let those who disagree do so, but say what you will....PERIOD.

Some political philosophies can't survive the free exchange of ideas. That's why they seek to eliminate that freedom.

 

[flacaltenn]

Figured LadyLib would muscle in here and straighten us out..

I am not responsible for the emotional stability of posters on this board. Obviously, if it were required of me to evaluate possible mental harm to a particular poster, I'm not capable or qualified to perform that task. So it's NOT MY FAULT if i type a couple
"STFU or I'll kick your ass(es)" and THEN find out that LadyLib is a mental patient on lapsed medication with a self-abuse complex...

Am I?

And please --- if you want me to be serious -- Don't be relying on UN Declarations for definitions anyway...

(Clue -- Article 29.3 of the UN Declaration of Human RIghts). If you're interested in my complete dismissal of that POS -- I'll post you a link..