Ethical Dilemma

[Skull Pilot]

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.

You're the one who is going off topic not me.

 

[Unkotare]

I agree with BikerSailor. This isn't a free speech or ethical issue at all. Some guys were rowdy, when asked to cool it, they did. My only issue with this whole affair is trying to imagine being threatened by Tommy and a guy similar to him.

It wasnt that they were rowdy.It was the specifics of what they were saying. And, make no mistake, I can be quite feisty when roused.

Oh yeah, you and swanker must be a couple of real tough hombres...

 

[danielpalos]

The ethical dilemma?

We have a Commerce Clause not a drug war or terror war or even crime war, clause.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

^ See, that's what I said also: as long as you respect other people's
Equal Right to insult you, then it's still equal.

What causes problems, Skull Pilot is when
* liberals demand 'separation of church and state' when it comes to removing Christian
references, but then attack anyone who tries to enforce this concept when it comes to LGBT beliefs that aren't proven either
* people demand Free speech but then complain when they get boycotted, protested or otherwise shut down by individuals choosing not to support them.

Now what you bring up is the DIFFERENCE
between GOVT banning or regulating free speech,
and PRIVATE persons shutting each other down by their own mechanisms.

What is unconstitutional is when the GOVT penalizes free speech.

So we pretty much agree on the limits of the law, and differ more in our philosophy.

I prefer to extend respect for and encourage freedom of speech by not judging or condemning/insulting others
which tends to shut down communications or divert it in destructive directions.

Just because we have the freedom to insult others
doesn't mean it necessarily works in our best interest.

so it doesn't need to be a matter of judgment if it's immoral or illegal to do,
but just for practical sake of communicating effectively it works better
to remain on the up and up, and maintain good faith relations with each other.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

^ See, that's what I said also: as long as you respect other people's
Equal Right to insult you, then it's still equal.

What causes problems, Skull Pilot is when
* liberals demand 'separation of church and state' when it comes to removing Christian
references, but then attack anyone who tries to enforce this concept when it comes to LGBT beliefs that aren't proven either
* people demand Free speech but then complain when they get boycotted, protested or otherwise shut down by individuals choosing not to support them.

Now what you bring up is the DIFFERENCE
between GOVT banning or regulating free speech,
and PRIVATE persons shutting each other down by their own mechanisms.

What is unconstitutional is when the GOVT penalizes free speech.

So we pretty much agree on the limits of the law, and differ more in our philosophy.

I prefer to extend respect for and encourage freedom of speech by not judging or condemning/insulting others
which tends to shut down communications or divert it in destructive directions.

Just because we have the freedom to insult others
doesn't mean it necessarily works in our best interest.

so it doesn't need to be a matter of judgment if it's immoral or illegal to do,
but just for practical sake of communicating effectively it works better
to remain on the up and up, and maintain good faith relations with each other.

Well the reason for rights is that different people have different views, and rights say "this is how we should live, these are the rules you should play by".

The problem here is that there are things which have been declared as rights, and things that haven't been declared as rights. There are things we think we should be able to do without the govt telling us we can't. Are they all rights, and what happens when the govt makes something illegal.

For example, a new drug comes out. It's legal. Is it my right to smoke this new drug? Then the govt makes it illegal. Is it no longer my right to smoke this drug?

If govts passing laws banning something changes something from a right to not a right, then what is the point of rights?

Rights are things the govt CANNOT ban. That's the whole point. But there are things the govt doesn't want to ban, but could ban. What are these things?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Can i get an English caption for the OP? Oi Mo? innit?

Never mind. He makes little enough sense when he's sober. Don't even try to make any sense of him when he's drunk.