Ethical Dilemma

[frigidweirdo]

I look at it as they exercised their right to free speech, and your response was your right to free speech in commenting about their behavior.

They shut it down voluntarily. If you had beat the crap out of them to stop their loudmouth banter, then it would have been different.

Does free speech extend to insulting people?

Just because you can do something legally and not get locked up for it, doesn't mean it's your RIGHT to do so.

Of course it does.

It's not illegal to insult someone

Do you have a right to watch TV? No, you don't. That doesn't mean you can't do it.

 

[Vastator]

So we have a few of us out on a liquid night around town.

Its nudging midnight and the vote is for food rather than a club.

So we adjourn to our favourite curry house and settle in for a spicy feast.

Anyway there is another party on the next table.

Middle aged blokes not too dissimilar to us.

And they seem to be as drunk as we are.

We order our food and some drinks and are soon munching on popadoms.

But the Guys on the next table are a bit loud and are starting to be obnoxious.

They are abusing the staff. Not overmuch to their faces but very much so behind their backs.

And its nothing to do with the quality of the food or ambience or service.

Its straight on anti islamic crap.

"Oi Mo - more lager here mate. Step on it and theres a virgin in it for ya"

Bombing jokes get rolled out as well.

Anyway at some point during this one of our party gets up,walks over and tells these muppets that they are out of line and that we dont want to hear it anymore.

Obviously we are expecting a ruck so everyone is now standing up.

But it doesnt happen.

These gobshites seem a bit embarrassed and look at the table muttering:

"Yeah,yeah, no problem mate, sorry if we have upset ya. Just banter innit."

And that was the end of it. They behaved themselves for the rest of the time they were in there.

They paid and left before us. No idea who they were or even where they were from. I am guessing that they all had employers who would frown on employees getting involved in fights over racist abuse.

Now here is the question.

Did we stifle their right to "free speech" ?

What would you have done ?

Called BS, much like your story.

 

[Tilly]

There's a reason Tommy started this thread in the CZ.
Don't be entrapped people!

 

[rightwinger]

There's a reason Tommy started this thread in the CZ.
Don't be entrapped people!

He wanted to avoid the Muslim haters

 

[Skull Pilot]

I look at it as they exercised their right to free speech, and your response was your right to free speech in commenting about their behavior.

They shut it down voluntarily. If you had beat the crap out of them to stop their loudmouth banter, then it would have been different.

Does free speech extend to insulting people?

Just because you can do something legally and not get locked up for it, doesn't mean it's your RIGHT to do so.

Of course it does.

It's not illegal to insult someone

Do you have a right to watch TV? No, you don't. That doesn't mean you can't do it.

actually it can be argued that TV is a modern extension of the press so yes I do have a right to watch TV.

anyone has the right to insult anyone else. if it crosses the line of the legal definition of libel then that is a different matter.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I look at it as they exercised their right to free speech, and your response was your right to free speech in commenting about their behavior.

They shut it down voluntarily. If you had beat the crap out of them to stop their loudmouth banter, then it would have been different.

Does free speech extend to insulting people?

Just because you can do something legally and not get locked up for it, doesn't mean it's your RIGHT to do so.

Of course it does.

It's not illegal to insult someone

Do you have a right to watch TV? No, you don't. That doesn't mean you can't do it.

actually it can be argued that TV is a modern extension of the press so yes I do have a right to watch TV.

anyone has the right to insult anyone else. if it crosses the line of the legal definition of libel then that is a different matter.

But you can argue this, but then it's not a right to LISTEN to the press, the right is that the govt leaves the press alone and doesn't control it, so you'd lose again. What a shame.

You don't have the RIGHT to insult someone else. You have the ability to and it's not deemed bad enough for you to have broken the law. You seem to think anything that is legal must be protected by a right. You'd be wrong.

Take drinking alcohol. The Constitution banned drinking alcohol, then unbanned it. At no point did anyone say there was a right to drink alcohol, but now that you can drink alcohol, it doesn't make it a right to be doing so.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I look at it as they exercised their right to free speech, and your response was your right to free speech in commenting about their behavior.

They shut it down voluntarily. If you had beat the crap out of them to stop their loudmouth banter, then it would have been different.

Does free speech extend to insulting people?

Just because you can do something legally and not get locked up for it, doesn't mean it's your RIGHT to do so.

Of course it does.

It's not illegal to insult someone

Do you have a right to watch TV? No, you don't. That doesn't mean you can't do it.

actually it can be argued that TV is a modern extension of the press so yes I do have a right to watch TV.

anyone has the right to insult anyone else. if it crosses the line of the legal definition of libel then that is a different matter.

But you can argue this, but then it's not a right to LISTEN to the press, the right is that the govt leaves the press alone and doesn't control it, so you'd lose again. What a shame.

You don't have the RIGHT to insult someone else. You have the ability to and it's not deemed bad enough for you to have broken the law. You seem to think anything that is legal must be protected by a right. You'd be wrong.

Take drinking alcohol. The Constitution banned drinking alcohol, then unbanned it. At no point did anyone say there was a right to drink alcohol, but now that you can drink alcohol, it doesn't make it a right to be doing so.

So then you don't have a right to READ the press either if we follow that line of thinking. And you don't have the right to LISTEN to someone else give a speech either , right? The government will not interfere with the press but there is no express right for you to read what is printed. The governemnt will not interfere with speech but you have no right to listen.

Of course I have the right to insult anyone I want because I can say whatever I want as long as I don't cross the legal boundary of libel.

And the Constitution didn't ban alcohol the people banned alcohol and changed the constitution via the amendment process.

So if we take your line of thought farther there is no right to an abortion because it is not expressly stated. You don't have the right to eat junk food and get fat either right?

But I can argue that I have supreme authority over my person and that is how the Constitution is interpreted which is why abortion was deemed protected.

 

[danielpalos]

I look at it as they exercised their right to free speech, and your response was your right to free speech in commenting about their behavior.

They shut it down voluntarily. If you had beat the crap out of them to stop their loudmouth banter, then it would have been different.

But they only shut up because of the threat. Is there a difference between the threat and an action ?

The dynamics may be different in the US, due to gun lovers and our Second Amendment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Does free speech extend to insulting people?

Just because you can do something legally and not get locked up for it, doesn't mean it's your RIGHT to do so.

Of course it does.

It's not illegal to insult someone

Do you have a right to watch TV? No, you don't. That doesn't mean you can't do it.

actually it can be argued that TV is a modern extension of the press so yes I do have a right to watch TV.

anyone has the right to insult anyone else. if it crosses the line of the legal definition of libel then that is a different matter.

But you can argue this, but then it's not a right to LISTEN to the press, the right is that the govt leaves the press alone and doesn't control it, so you'd lose again. What a shame.

You don't have the RIGHT to insult someone else. You have the ability to and it's not deemed bad enough for you to have broken the law. You seem to think anything that is legal must be protected by a right. You'd be wrong.

Take drinking alcohol. The Constitution banned drinking alcohol, then unbanned it. At no point did anyone say there was a right to drink alcohol, but now that you can drink alcohol, it doesn't make it a right to be doing so.

So then you don't have a right to READ the press either if we follow that line of thinking. And you don't have the right to LISTEN to someone else give a speech either , right? The government will not interfere with the press but there is no express right for you to read what is printed. The governemnt will not interfere with speech but you have no right to listen.

Of course I have the right to insult anyone I want because I can say whatever I want as long as I don't cross the legal boundary of libel.

And the Constitution didn't ban alcohol the people banned alcohol and changed the constitution via the amendment process.

So if we take your line of thought farther there is no right to an abortion because it is not expressly stated. You don't have the right to eat junk food and get fat either right?

But I can argue that I have supreme authority over my person and that is how the Constitution is interpreted which is why abortion was deemed protected.

No, you still don't have the right to insult someone.

Whether there is a right to abortion or not is debated massively, some put it under the right to privacy.

No, you don't have the right to junk food. You can eat junk food legally. But there's nothing to stop the govt from banning junk food.

Your argument is that there are two things. Things you have a right to do, and things that are illegal. There's nothing in between.

But what happens when something is legal, and then is illegal the net day? Did you simply stop having the right simply because the govt makes it illegal? If the govt made writing news stories illegal, would you then say "oh, it's okay, because I don't have this right"?

 

[AVISSSER]

So we have a few of us out on a liquid night around town.

Its nudging midnight and the vote is for food rather than a club.

So we adjourn to our favourite curry house and settle in for a spicy feast.

Anyway there is another party on the next table.

Middle aged blokes not too dissimilar to us.

And they seem to be as drunk as we are.

We order our food and some drinks and are soon munching on popadoms.

But the Guys on the next table are a bit loud and are starting to be obnoxious.

They are abusing the staff. Not overmuch to their faces but very much so behind their backs.

And its nothing to do with the quality of the food or ambience or service.

Its straight on anti islamic crap.

"Oi Mo - more lager here mate. Step on it and theres a virgin in it for ya"

Bombing jokes get rolled out as well.

Anyway at some point during this one of our party gets up,walks over and tells these muppets that they are out of line and that we dont want to hear it anymore.

Obviously we are expecting a ruck so everyone is now standing up.

But it doesnt happen.

These gobshites seem a bit embarrassed and look at the table muttering:

"Yeah,yeah, no problem mate, sorry if we have upset ya. Just banter innit."

And that was the end of it. They behaved themselves for the rest of the time they were in there.

They paid and left before us. No idea who they were or even where they were from. I am guessing that they all had employers who would frown on employees getting involved in fights over racist abuse.

Now here is the question.

Did we stifle their right to "free speech" ?

What would you have done ?

When you exercise open speech in public then the public is open to discourse.

 

[MarathonMike]

This sounds like an episode of "What would you do?" I don't see it as an ethical dilemma.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of course it does.

It's not illegal to insult someone

Do you have a right to watch TV? No, you don't. That doesn't mean you can't do it.

actually it can be argued that TV is a modern extension of the press so yes I do have a right to watch TV.

anyone has the right to insult anyone else. if it crosses the line of the legal definition of libel then that is a different matter.

But you can argue this, but then it's not a right to LISTEN to the press, the right is that the govt leaves the press alone and doesn't control it, so you'd lose again. What a shame.

You don't have the RIGHT to insult someone else. You have the ability to and it's not deemed bad enough for you to have broken the law. You seem to think anything that is legal must be protected by a right. You'd be wrong.

Take drinking alcohol. The Constitution banned drinking alcohol, then unbanned it. At no point did anyone say there was a right to drink alcohol, but now that you can drink alcohol, it doesn't make it a right to be doing so.

So then you don't have a right to READ the press either if we follow that line of thinking. And you don't have the right to LISTEN to someone else give a speech either , right? The government will not interfere with the press but there is no express right for you to read what is printed. The governemnt will not interfere with speech but you have no right to listen.

Of course I have the right to insult anyone I want because I can say whatever I want as long as I don't cross the legal boundary of libel.

And the Constitution didn't ban alcohol the people banned alcohol and changed the constitution via the amendment process.

So if we take your line of thought farther there is no right to an abortion because it is not expressly stated. You don't have the right to eat junk food and get fat either right?

But I can argue that I have supreme authority over my person and that is how the Constitution is interpreted which is why abortion was deemed protected.

No, you still don't have the right to insult someone.

Whether there is a right to abortion or not is debated massively, some put it under the right to privacy.

No, you don't have the right to junk food. You can eat junk food legally. But there's nothing to stop the govt from banning junk food.

Your argument is that there are two things. Things you have a right to do, and things that are illegal. There's nothing in between.

But what happens when something is legal, and then is illegal the net day? Did you simply stop having the right simply because the govt makes it illegal? If the govt made writing news stories illegal, would you then say "oh, it's okay, because I don't have this right"?

So even though the first amendment protects freedom of speech you do not have the right to read or listen to anyone else's speech correct?

and I do have the right to eat whatever I want even if the sale of junk food is banned, which it never will be. I can bake my own cakes cookies pies etc and make my own ice cream unless of course you think we do not have a right to eat at all

The fact is I have the right to say whatever I want short if crossing the line of libel. I can call anyone I want an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot and I have the right to do so.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you have a right to watch TV? No, you don't. That doesn't mean you can't do it.

actually it can be argued that TV is a modern extension of the press so yes I do have a right to watch TV.

anyone has the right to insult anyone else. if it crosses the line of the legal definition of libel then that is a different matter.

But you can argue this, but then it's not a right to LISTEN to the press, the right is that the govt leaves the press alone and doesn't control it, so you'd lose again. What a shame.

You don't have the RIGHT to insult someone else. You have the ability to and it's not deemed bad enough for you to have broken the law. You seem to think anything that is legal must be protected by a right. You'd be wrong.

Take drinking alcohol. The Constitution banned drinking alcohol, then unbanned it. At no point did anyone say there was a right to drink alcohol, but now that you can drink alcohol, it doesn't make it a right to be doing so.

So then you don't have a right to READ the press either if we follow that line of thinking. And you don't have the right to LISTEN to someone else give a speech either , right? The government will not interfere with the press but there is no express right for you to read what is printed. The governemnt will not interfere with speech but you have no right to listen.

Of course I have the right to insult anyone I want because I can say whatever I want as long as I don't cross the legal boundary of libel.

And the Constitution didn't ban alcohol the people banned alcohol and changed the constitution via the amendment process.

So if we take your line of thought farther there is no right to an abortion because it is not expressly stated. You don't have the right to eat junk food and get fat either right?

But I can argue that I have supreme authority over my person and that is how the Constitution is interpreted which is why abortion was deemed protected.

No, you still don't have the right to insult someone.

Whether there is a right to abortion or not is debated massively, some put it under the right to privacy.

No, you don't have the right to junk food. You can eat junk food legally. But there's nothing to stop the govt from banning junk food.

Your argument is that there are two things. Things you have a right to do, and things that are illegal. There's nothing in between.

But what happens when something is legal, and then is illegal the net day? Did you simply stop having the right simply because the govt makes it illegal? If the govt made writing news stories illegal, would you then say "oh, it's okay, because I don't have this right"?

So even though the first amendment protects freedom of speech you do not have the right to read or listen to anyone else's speech correct?

and I do have the right to eat whatever I want even if the sale of junk food is banned, which it never will be. I can bake my own cakes cookies pies etc and make my own ice cream unless of course you think we do not have a right to eat at all

The fact is I have the right to say whatever I want short if crossing the line of libel. I can call anyone I want an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot and I have the right to do so.

The issue here is that the Constitution protects only the publishing of things. The assumption here is that if something is protected to publish it, then there's no need to make the reading of it protected by rights.

You can bake your own cakes, but you can't necessarily buy the cakes of other people. You don't have the RIGHT to at whatever you want, but you can legally do something.

Yes, you can call someone an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot if you like. But you DON'T have the right to do it. You can legally do it.

What is a right? A right is actually the taking away of power from a group. A right is stronger than a law. Laws can be changed easily, rights are harder to change. People think they have rights to just about everything, when the reality is they can just do them without breaking the law, or some times without getting caught.

 

[Skull Pilot]

actually it can be argued that TV is a modern extension of the press so yes I do have a right to watch TV.

anyone has the right to insult anyone else. if it crosses the line of the legal definition of libel then that is a different matter.

But you can argue this, but then it's not a right to LISTEN to the press, the right is that the govt leaves the press alone and doesn't control it, so you'd lose again. What a shame.

You don't have the RIGHT to insult someone else. You have the ability to and it's not deemed bad enough for you to have broken the law. You seem to think anything that is legal must be protected by a right. You'd be wrong.

Take drinking alcohol. The Constitution banned drinking alcohol, then unbanned it. At no point did anyone say there was a right to drink alcohol, but now that you can drink alcohol, it doesn't make it a right to be doing so.

So then you don't have a right to READ the press either if we follow that line of thinking. And you don't have the right to LISTEN to someone else give a speech either , right? The government will not interfere with the press but there is no express right for you to read what is printed. The governemnt will not interfere with speech but you have no right to listen.

Of course I have the right to insult anyone I want because I can say whatever I want as long as I don't cross the legal boundary of libel.

And the Constitution didn't ban alcohol the people banned alcohol and changed the constitution via the amendment process.

So if we take your line of thought farther there is no right to an abortion because it is not expressly stated. You don't have the right to eat junk food and get fat either right?

But I can argue that I have supreme authority over my person and that is how the Constitution is interpreted which is why abortion was deemed protected.

No, you still don't have the right to insult someone.

Whether there is a right to abortion or not is debated massively, some put it under the right to privacy.

No, you don't have the right to junk food. You can eat junk food legally. But there's nothing to stop the govt from banning junk food.

Your argument is that there are two things. Things you have a right to do, and things that are illegal. There's nothing in between.

But what happens when something is legal, and then is illegal the net day? Did you simply stop having the right simply because the govt makes it illegal? If the govt made writing news stories illegal, would you then say "oh, it's okay, because I don't have this right"?

So even though the first amendment protects freedom of speech you do not have the right to read or listen to anyone else's speech correct?

and I do have the right to eat whatever I want even if the sale of junk food is banned, which it never will be. I can bake my own cakes cookies pies etc and make my own ice cream unless of course you think we do not have a right to eat at all

The fact is I have the right to say whatever I want short if crossing the line of libel. I can call anyone I want an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot and I have the right to do so.

The issue here is that the Constitution protects only the publishing of things. The assumption here is that if something is protected to publish it, then there's no need to make the reading of it protected by rights.

You can bake your own cakes, but you can't necessarily buy the cakes of other people. You don't have the RIGHT to at whatever you want, but you can legally do something.

Yes, you can call someone an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot if you like. But you DON'T have the right to do it. You can legally do it.

What is a right? A right is actually the taking away of power from a group. A right is stronger than a law. Laws can be changed easily, rights are harder to change. People think they have rights to just about everything, when the reality is they can just do them without breaking the law, or some times without getting caught.

I do have the right to.
I have the right of free speech do I not?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So it seems I do have the right to insult anyone I want to.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But you can argue this, but then it's not a right to LISTEN to the press, the right is that the govt leaves the press alone and doesn't control it, so you'd lose again. What a shame.

You don't have the RIGHT to insult someone else. You have the ability to and it's not deemed bad enough for you to have broken the law. You seem to think anything that is legal must be protected by a right. You'd be wrong.

Take drinking alcohol. The Constitution banned drinking alcohol, then unbanned it. At no point did anyone say there was a right to drink alcohol, but now that you can drink alcohol, it doesn't make it a right to be doing so.

So then you don't have a right to READ the press either if we follow that line of thinking. And you don't have the right to LISTEN to someone else give a speech either , right? The government will not interfere with the press but there is no express right for you to read what is printed. The governemnt will not interfere with speech but you have no right to listen.

Of course I have the right to insult anyone I want because I can say whatever I want as long as I don't cross the legal boundary of libel.

And the Constitution didn't ban alcohol the people banned alcohol and changed the constitution via the amendment process.

So if we take your line of thought farther there is no right to an abortion because it is not expressly stated. You don't have the right to eat junk food and get fat either right?

But I can argue that I have supreme authority over my person and that is how the Constitution is interpreted which is why abortion was deemed protected.

No, you still don't have the right to insult someone.

Whether there is a right to abortion or not is debated massively, some put it under the right to privacy.

No, you don't have the right to junk food. You can eat junk food legally. But there's nothing to stop the govt from banning junk food.

Your argument is that there are two things. Things you have a right to do, and things that are illegal. There's nothing in between.

But what happens when something is legal, and then is illegal the net day? Did you simply stop having the right simply because the govt makes it illegal? If the govt made writing news stories illegal, would you then say "oh, it's okay, because I don't have this right"?

So even though the first amendment protects freedom of speech you do not have the right to read or listen to anyone else's speech correct?

and I do have the right to eat whatever I want even if the sale of junk food is banned, which it never will be. I can bake my own cakes cookies pies etc and make my own ice cream unless of course you think we do not have a right to eat at all

The fact is I have the right to say whatever I want short if crossing the line of libel. I can call anyone I want an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot and I have the right to do so.

The issue here is that the Constitution protects only the publishing of things. The assumption here is that if something is protected to publish it, then there's no need to make the reading of it protected by rights.

You can bake your own cakes, but you can't necessarily buy the cakes of other people. You don't have the RIGHT to at whatever you want, but you can legally do something.

Yes, you can call someone an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot if you like. But you DON'T have the right to do it. You can legally do it.

What is a right? A right is actually the taking away of power from a group. A right is stronger than a law. Laws can be changed easily, rights are harder to change. People think they have rights to just about everything, when the reality is they can just do them without breaking the law, or some times without getting caught.

I do have the right to.
I have the right of free speech do I not?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So it seems I do have the right to insult anyone I want to.

Let's simplify this, so we can get away from your favorite hobby of trying to make things as convoluted as possible.

Do you think that everything you can legally do is your right to do it?

If you answer yes, does this mean a govt can simply make any right illegal by passing a law?

 

[emilynghiem]

So we have a few of us out on a liquid night around town.

Its nudging midnight and the vote is for food rather than a club.

So we adjourn to our favourite curry house and settle in for a spicy feast.

Anyway there is another party on the next table.

Middle aged blokes not too dissimilar to us.

And they seem to be as drunk as we are.

We order our food and some drinks and are soon munching on popadoms.

But the Guys on the next table are a bit loud and are starting to be obnoxious.

They are abusing the staff. Not overmuch to their faces but very much so behind their backs.

And its nothing to do with the quality of the food or ambience or service.

Its straight on anti islamic crap.

"Oi Mo - more lager here mate. Step on it and theres a virgin in it for ya"

Bombing jokes get rolled out as well.

Anyway at some point during this one of our party gets up,walks over and tells these muppets that they are out of line and that we dont want to hear it anymore.

Obviously we are expecting a ruck so everyone is now standing up.

But it doesnt happen.

These gobshites seem a bit embarrassed and look at the table muttering:

"Yeah,yeah, no problem mate, sorry if we have upset ya. Just banter innit."

And that was the end of it. They behaved themselves for the rest of the time they were in there.

They paid and left before us. No idea who they were or even where they were from. I am guessing that they all had employers who would frown on employees getting involved in fights over racist abuse.

Now here is the question.

Did we stifle their right to "free speech" ?

What would you have done ?

You did the right thing Tommy Tainant
You politely petitioned them to tone down their speech that was becoming disorderly abusive and imposing on your equal right peaceably to assemble.

Just because we have free speech and free exercise, doesn't mean we have the right to abuse our freedom to diminish the right to peace and security of others by causing a nuisance, breach or disruption of the peace - this violates the rest of the context of the First Amendment and Bill of Rights which enumerates all individual rights the law is supposed to respect.

If we want to invoke our rights we must exercise them within the spirit of the laws, which includes equal protection of the same rights of others and the right to petition for redress of grievances in order to address abuses, restore justice and preserve the peace.

You demonstrated well how the Democratic process works. If we all respected this, we can resolve grievances efficiently without fighting. Congratulations on a winning example of self govt!

 

[emilynghiem]

But you can argue this, but then it's not a right to LISTEN to the press, the right is that the govt leaves the press alone and doesn't control it, so you'd lose again. What a shame.

You don't have the RIGHT to insult someone else. You have the ability to and it's not deemed bad enough for you to have broken the law. You seem to think anything that is legal must be protected by a right. You'd be wrong.

Take drinking alcohol. The Constitution banned drinking alcohol, then unbanned it. At no point did anyone say there was a right to drink alcohol, but now that you can drink alcohol, it doesn't make it a right to be doing so.

So then you don't have a right to READ the press either if we follow that line of thinking. And you don't have the right to LISTEN to someone else give a speech either , right? The government will not interfere with the press but there is no express right for you to read what is printed. The governemnt will not interfere with speech but you have no right to listen.

Of course I have the right to insult anyone I want because I can say whatever I want as long as I don't cross the legal boundary of libel.

And the Constitution didn't ban alcohol the people banned alcohol and changed the constitution via the amendment process.

So if we take your line of thought farther there is no right to an abortion because it is not expressly stated. You don't have the right to eat junk food and get fat either right?

But I can argue that I have supreme authority over my person and that is how the Constitution is interpreted which is why abortion was deemed protected.

No, you still don't have the right to insult someone.

Whether there is a right to abortion or not is debated massively, some put it under the right to privacy.

No, you don't have the right to junk food. You can eat junk food legally. But there's nothing to stop the govt from banning junk food.

Your argument is that there are two things. Things you have a right to do, and things that are illegal. There's nothing in between.

But what happens when something is legal, and then is illegal the net day? Did you simply stop having the right simply because the govt makes it illegal? If the govt made writing news stories illegal, would you then say "oh, it's okay, because I don't have this right"?

So even though the first amendment protects freedom of speech you do not have the right to read or listen to anyone else's speech correct?

and I do have the right to eat whatever I want even if the sale of junk food is banned, which it never will be. I can bake my own cakes cookies pies etc and make my own ice cream unless of course you think we do not have a right to eat at all

The fact is I have the right to say whatever I want short if crossing the line of libel. I can call anyone I want an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot and I have the right to do so.

The issue here is that the Constitution protects only the publishing of things. The assumption here is that if something is protected to publish it, then there's no need to make the reading of it protected by rights.

You can bake your own cakes, but you can't necessarily buy the cakes of other people. You don't have the RIGHT to at whatever you want, but you can legally do something.

Yes, you can call someone an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot if you like. But you DON'T have the right to do it. You can legally do it.

What is a right? A right is actually the taking away of power from a group. A right is stronger than a law. Laws can be changed easily, rights are harder to change. People think they have rights to just about everything, when the reality is they can just do them without breaking the law, or some times without getting caught.

I do have the right to.
I have the right of free speech do I not?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So it seems I do have the right to insult anyone I want to.

Dear Skull Pilot
The law works both ways because other ppl have rights too.

If you insult someone they can insult you back. If you are okay with that then you're equal under law.

If you insult someone with false statements causing damages such as slander libel defamation fraud harassment etc, then the person harmed can pursue actions against you depending on the case.

You get what you give Skull Pilot
If you respect ppl they tend to respect you.
If you respect their free speech they tend to respect yours

But if you insult and incite ppl by abusing free speech to express false misleading misrepresentation or fraud, then you might invoke similar reaction.

People are human and will reciprocate. So if you want your rights and freedoms respected for you, including due process of laws where you don't declare anyone guilty or at fault without first offering proof and defense to establish Truth and justice, then you practice the same for others as you want for yourself

If you don't appreciate being insulted by someone without proof you did something wrong to deserve criticism, then don't insult others that way. If you are okay being maligned or judged as negative by someone, without proof or defense through due process, then you can keep practicing insults this way and get the same in return done to you.

I personally discourage this, and prefer ppl respect the principle of due process of law, assuming ppl are right until a correction is proven, and working to resolve such conflicts without attacking or insulting anyone. Usually the corrections made are mutual so ppl come out even, with as much to share with others as they receive in return.

Thanks Skull Pilot. Enjoy and celebrate your free speech. Use it but don't abuse it or you lose it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So then you don't have a right to READ the press either if we follow that line of thinking. And you don't have the right to LISTEN to someone else give a speech either , right? The government will not interfere with the press but there is no express right for you to read what is printed. The governemnt will not interfere with speech but you have no right to listen.

Of course I have the right to insult anyone I want because I can say whatever I want as long as I don't cross the legal boundary of libel.

And the Constitution didn't ban alcohol the people banned alcohol and changed the constitution via the amendment process.

So if we take your line of thought farther there is no right to an abortion because it is not expressly stated. You don't have the right to eat junk food and get fat either right?

But I can argue that I have supreme authority over my person and that is how the Constitution is interpreted which is why abortion was deemed protected.

No, you still don't have the right to insult someone.

Whether there is a right to abortion or not is debated massively, some put it under the right to privacy.

No, you don't have the right to junk food. You can eat junk food legally. But there's nothing to stop the govt from banning junk food.

Your argument is that there are two things. Things you have a right to do, and things that are illegal. There's nothing in between.

But what happens when something is legal, and then is illegal the net day? Did you simply stop having the right simply because the govt makes it illegal? If the govt made writing news stories illegal, would you then say "oh, it's okay, because I don't have this right"?

So even though the first amendment protects freedom of speech you do not have the right to read or listen to anyone else's speech correct?

and I do have the right to eat whatever I want even if the sale of junk food is banned, which it never will be. I can bake my own cakes cookies pies etc and make my own ice cream unless of course you think we do not have a right to eat at all

The fact is I have the right to say whatever I want short if crossing the line of libel. I can call anyone I want an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot and I have the right to do so.

The issue here is that the Constitution protects only the publishing of things. The assumption here is that if something is protected to publish it, then there's no need to make the reading of it protected by rights.

You can bake your own cakes, but you can't necessarily buy the cakes of other people. You don't have the RIGHT to at whatever you want, but you can legally do something.

Yes, you can call someone an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot if you like. But you DON'T have the right to do it. You can legally do it.

What is a right? A right is actually the taking away of power from a group. A right is stronger than a law. Laws can be changed easily, rights are harder to change. People think they have rights to just about everything, when the reality is they can just do them without breaking the law, or some times without getting caught.

I do have the right to.
I have the right of free speech do I not?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So it seems I do have the right to insult anyone I want to.

Let's simplify this, so we can get away from your favorite hobby of trying to make things as convoluted as possible.

Do you think that everything you can legally do is your right to do it?

If you answer yes, does this mean a govt can simply make any right illegal by passing a law?

We are not talking about everything we are talking about speech. You say I have no right to insult a person. I do because the government cannot abridge free speech.

I can insult anyone as long as I do not cross the legal boundaries of libel and or slander.

Which basically stops me from broadcasting, printing or distribution to others by some means. I can say whatever I want to you be it insulting or complimentary.

You want to muddy the waters by equating protected rights with activities that are merely legal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So then you don't have a right to READ the press either if we follow that line of thinking. And you don't have the right to LISTEN to someone else give a speech either , right? The government will not interfere with the press but there is no express right for you to read what is printed. The governemnt will not interfere with speech but you have no right to listen.

Of course I have the right to insult anyone I want because I can say whatever I want as long as I don't cross the legal boundary of libel.

And the Constitution didn't ban alcohol the people banned alcohol and changed the constitution via the amendment process.

So if we take your line of thought farther there is no right to an abortion because it is not expressly stated. You don't have the right to eat junk food and get fat either right?

But I can argue that I have supreme authority over my person and that is how the Constitution is interpreted which is why abortion was deemed protected.

No, you still don't have the right to insult someone.

Whether there is a right to abortion or not is debated massively, some put it under the right to privacy.

No, you don't have the right to junk food. You can eat junk food legally. But there's nothing to stop the govt from banning junk food.

Your argument is that there are two things. Things you have a right to do, and things that are illegal. There's nothing in between.

But what happens when something is legal, and then is illegal the net day? Did you simply stop having the right simply because the govt makes it illegal? If the govt made writing news stories illegal, would you then say "oh, it's okay, because I don't have this right"?

So even though the first amendment protects freedom of speech you do not have the right to read or listen to anyone else's speech correct?

and I do have the right to eat whatever I want even if the sale of junk food is banned, which it never will be. I can bake my own cakes cookies pies etc and make my own ice cream unless of course you think we do not have a right to eat at all

The fact is I have the right to say whatever I want short if crossing the line of libel. I can call anyone I want an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot and I have the right to do so.

The issue here is that the Constitution protects only the publishing of things. The assumption here is that if something is protected to publish it, then there's no need to make the reading of it protected by rights.

You can bake your own cakes, but you can't necessarily buy the cakes of other people. You don't have the RIGHT to at whatever you want, but you can legally do something.

Yes, you can call someone an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot if you like. But you DON'T have the right to do it. You can legally do it.

What is a right? A right is actually the taking away of power from a group. A right is stronger than a law. Laws can be changed easily, rights are harder to change. People think they have rights to just about everything, when the reality is they can just do them without breaking the law, or some times without getting caught.

I do have the right to.
I have the right of free speech do I not?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So it seems I do have the right to insult anyone I want to.

Dear Skull Pilot
The law works both ways because other ppl have rights too.

If you insult someone they can insult you back. If you are okay with that then you're equal under law.

If you insult someone with false statements causing damages such as slander libel defamation fraud harassment etc, then the person harmed can pursue actions against you depending on the case.

You get what you give Skull Pilot
If you respect ppl they tend to respect you.
If you respect their free speech they tend to respect yours

But if you insult and incite ppl by abusing free speech to express false misleading misrepresentation or fraud, then you might invoke similar reaction.

People are human and will reciprocate. So if you want your rights and freedoms respected for you, including due process of laws where you don't declare anyone guilty or at fault without first offering proof and defense to establish Truth and justice, then you practice the same for others as you want for yourself

If you don't appreciate being insulted by someone without proof you did something wrong to deserve criticism, then don't insult others that way. If you are okay being maligned or judged as negative by someone, without proof or defense through due process, then you can keep practicing insults this way and get the same in return done to you.

I personally discourage this, and prefer ppl respect the principle of due process of law, assuming ppl are right until a correction is proven, and working to resolve such conflicts without attacking or insulting anyone. Usually the corrections made are mutual so ppl come out even, with as much to share with others as they receive in return.

Thanks Skull Pilot. Enjoy and celebrate your free speech. Use it but don't abuse it or you lose it.

I have repeatedly stated that the legal bounds of libel and or slander apply.
I have the right to insult a person. Any person has the right to insult me.

I really don't see why this is hard to understand

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you still don't have the right to insult someone.

Whether there is a right to abortion or not is debated massively, some put it under the right to privacy.

No, you don't have the right to junk food. You can eat junk food legally. But there's nothing to stop the govt from banning junk food.

Your argument is that there are two things. Things you have a right to do, and things that are illegal. There's nothing in between.

But what happens when something is legal, and then is illegal the net day? Did you simply stop having the right simply because the govt makes it illegal? If the govt made writing news stories illegal, would you then say "oh, it's okay, because I don't have this right"?

So even though the first amendment protects freedom of speech you do not have the right to read or listen to anyone else's speech correct?

and I do have the right to eat whatever I want even if the sale of junk food is banned, which it never will be. I can bake my own cakes cookies pies etc and make my own ice cream unless of course you think we do not have a right to eat at all

The fact is I have the right to say whatever I want short if crossing the line of libel. I can call anyone I want an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot and I have the right to do so.

The issue here is that the Constitution protects only the publishing of things. The assumption here is that if something is protected to publish it, then there's no need to make the reading of it protected by rights.

You can bake your own cakes, but you can't necessarily buy the cakes of other people. You don't have the RIGHT to at whatever you want, but you can legally do something.

Yes, you can call someone an ignorant mouth breathing knuckle dragging idiot if you like. But you DON'T have the right to do it. You can legally do it.

What is a right? A right is actually the taking away of power from a group. A right is stronger than a law. Laws can be changed easily, rights are harder to change. People think they have rights to just about everything, when the reality is they can just do them without breaking the law, or some times without getting caught.

I do have the right to.
I have the right of free speech do I not?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So it seems I do have the right to insult anyone I want to.

Let's simplify this, so we can get away from your favorite hobby of trying to make things as convoluted as possible.

Do you think that everything you can legally do is your right to do it?

If you answer yes, does this mean a govt can simply make any right illegal by passing a law?

We are not talking about everything we are talking about speech. You say I have no right to insult a person. I do because the government cannot abridge free speech.

I can insult anyone as long as I do not cross the legal boundaries of libel and or slander.

Which basically stops me from broadcasting, printing or distribution to others by some means. I can say whatever I want to you be it insulting or complimentary.

You want to muddy the waters by equating protected rights with activities that are merely legal.

So, instead of responding to what I wrote, you decided to go at it again, hammer and tongs, as if the post you're replying to never existed.

Great, nice one. Well two can play at that game, I'll just ignore everything you write until you can be bothered to reply to what I wrote.