And now, for some actual government censorshop

[frigidweirdo]

People believe lots of things are harmful. Doesn’t give them a right to make it illegal.

They may be in charge but they can’t override the constitution.

Well, it does actually. The whole premise of rights is that you can do anything you like AS LONG AS it doesn't harm others.

If.... say... taking a case from Germany, you send a message out on the internet asking for someone who wants their penis chopped off and eaten, and then you're killed.... is that illegal or not?

Anyone who relies is clearly consenting to this harm. But then the law says you can't kill anyone or probably cut people's penises off. In Germany they locked the dude up who did it. I know they'd do the same in the US.

Religious ritual killings are illegal, the sun dance which harms people is illegal.

People do have THE POWER (rather than the right, though they're mostly the same thing) to do this.

 

[colfax_m]

Well, it does actually. The whole premise of rights is that you can do anything you like AS LONG AS it doesn't harm others.

If.... say... taking a case from Germany, you send a message out on the internet asking for someone who wants their penis chopped off and eaten, and then you're killed.... is that illegal or not?

Anyone who relies is clearly consenting to this harm. But then the law says you can't kill anyone or probably cut people's penises off. In Germany they locked the dude up who did it. I know they'd do the same in the US.

Religious ritual killings are illegal, the sun dance which harms people is illegal.

People do have THE POWER (rather than the right, though they're mostly the same thing) to do this.

Okay. Not sure what relevance is here but point is taken that speech is limited when it harms people.

No one is harmed by a sign that says Fuck Biden.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Okay. Not sure what relevance is here but point is taken that speech is limited when it harms people.

No one is harmed by a sign that says Fuck Biden.

Well, other people might disagree. People do think that swearing harms people. Certainly people need to know the difference between rude and not rude language and a lot of people try and keep their kids away from such language.

Having it right in someone's garden might, in actual fact, harm their way of bringing their kids up, and impact their family. You might not agree, I'm not sure I care whether you agree or not. It's just the way it is.

 

[colfax_m]

Well, other people might disagree. People do think that swearing harms people. Certainly people need to know the difference between rude and not rude language and a lot of people try and keep their kids away from such language.

Having it right in someone's garden might, in actual fact, harm their way of bringing their kids up, and impact their family. You might not agree, I'm not sure I care whether you agree or not. It's just the way it is.

If you want to deprive someone of a right to free speech, you’re going to have to do more than disagree. You’d need to prove harm before a court.

So far, no one has made any case that any actual harm is done. What impact is it going to have on your family?

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you want to deprive someone of a right to free speech, you’re going to have to do more than disagree. You’d need to prove harm before a court.

So far, no one has made any case that any actual harm is done. What impact is it going to have on your family?

Are you depriving them of free speech though?

Is it free speech? Free speech is limited.

 

[colfax_m]

Are you depriving them of free speech though?

Is it free speech? Free speech is limited.

Yes. You are. If you telling someone they cannot speak, you are depriving them of free speech. They are not “free” to “speak” in a way.

 

[SavannahMann]

They're wrong.

They may be. But that is the law of the land.

 

[Blues Man]

YES!!!! Those banners should be illegal There are kids about!

I bet most kids know more curse words than you

 

[MinTrut]

A charming New Jersey couple is quite displeased with the current administration and publicly expressed this displeasure.

An ordinance is fining them $250 a day due to its use of profanity and has lost in court to defend it.

This is unconstitutional and I hope they are able to appeal. Government cannot shut down speech simply for using a profanity.

N.J. woman must remove anti-Biden F-bomb signs or face $250-a-day fines, judge rules

The Roselle Park homeowner has a week to remove the three profane flags and may still appeal the decision to Superior Court. The signs remained on display Friday morning.

www.nj.com

The government has the right to demand that the signs be modified to remove obscene content.

 

[colfax_m]

The government has the right to demand that the signs be modified to remove obscene content.

This does not fit the definition of obscene.

Obscene material needs to be in some way sexual. This sign is not.

 

[MinTrut]

This does not fit the definition of obscene.

Obscene material needs to be in some way sexual. This sign is not.

The offensive signs need to be modified or removed; no 1st case here.

 

[marvin martian]

This thread brought out a lot of anti-civil rights lefties. Just like I knew it would.

 

[colfax_m]

The offensive signs need to be modified or removed; no 1st case here.

Disagree. There's a strong 1st amendment case.

Cohen v California was a very similar case where a man was arrested for wearing a jacket that said Fuck the Draft. This was determined by the Supreme Court to be protected speech. You may take offense to that word, but offense is not a reason to make it illegal.

 

[MinTrut]

This thread brought out a lot of anti-civil rights lefties. Just like I knew it would.

There are no lefties here, but Democrats do deeply despise free speech.

In this case, the obscene/vulgar language is the issue - nothing else.

If "Trump" were swapped in for Biden, the displayer would be facing the same issues - modify or remove the offending signs.

 

[MinTrut]

Disagree. There's a strong 1st amendment case.

Cohen v California was a very similar case where a man was arrested for wearing a jacket that said Fuck the Draft. This was determined by the Supreme Court to be protected speech. You may take offense to that word, but offense is not a reason to make it illegal.

Okay. 100% certain loser; the offending signs must be modified or removed, as they would if they referred to Trump and not Biden.

Good cite, but this situation would be a certain loser. Yes. The signs must be modified or removed, as they would if Trump were the target.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes. You are. If you telling someone they cannot speak, you are depriving them of free speech. They are not “free” to “speak” in a way.

So, what's treason? What's libel?

 

[colfax_m]

Good cite, but this situation would be a certain loser. Yes. The signs must be modified or removed, as they would if Trump were the target.

What’s the relevant difference between this situation and Cohen v California? They’re remarkably similar.

 

[MinTrut]

What’s the relevant difference between this situation and Cohen v California? They’re remarkably similar.

Many significant differences, including the makeup of the highest court.

This is a certain loser; the signs must be modified or removed.

 

[colfax_m]

Many significant differences, including the makeup of the highest court.

I think a conservative court is more likely to stand for freedom of speech but I could be wrong. No way a drunk fratboy like Kavanaugh gets anxious about a little f bomb.

 

[MinTrut]

I think a conservative court is more likely to stand for freedom of speech but I could be wrong. No way a drunk fratboy like Kavanaugh gets anxious about a little f bomb.

I think you're being reasonable, but Kavanaugh would follow the preponderance of law; I don't see the sign displayer winning this.