Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
July 24, 2014, 06:49:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: and here go the jerking knees!!!!  (Read 6177 times)
Vetch
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 184

Location: NE Florida


« Reply #60 on: February 02, 2011, 12:31:50 PM »

Again, I don't understand. Freedom of speech does not entitle me to engage in con games or other fraud, to libel or slander others, to threaten people, to engage in conspiracies, to scream obscenities in a church service, or to yell 'fire' in a crowded theater (unless there really is a fire that threatens people's safety). Nor does the Second Amendment allow me to pull out a gun to settle business differences with someone I suspect is trying to short-change me, or to coerce an elected representative to see things my way.
Logged
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #61 on: February 02, 2011, 12:52:50 PM »

also correct; I guess you were talking specifically about a fruitcake committing murder on a crowd and not  some undefined group of citizens or most of the civilian citizens, having exhausted all reasonable channels of redress of greivances...
(even the NRA - the "foremost" defender of firearms rights concedes that felons and nutters shouldn't be allowed to go around packing heat - the failure - again was on the system, not on the existing laws) - Jared Loughner had already been seen to by the police, but somehow he didn't wind up in the system as an adjudicated nut-case. (by the same sheriff who in turn blamed Rush Limbaugh.)
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #62 on: February 02, 2011, 01:46:10 PM »

Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

language or symbols that could be PERCEIVED as threatening or inciting violence.........

by whom?  and you miss the relevant point that most libs miss about the 1st:

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 yes, there are laws that cover some behavior on private property (church, etc) and some behaviors that are a danger (fire in theater), but this is a specific prohibition against congress interfering in the free speech of the citizen.  do we really want congress determining that some of our speech is not acceptable?  i think not.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #63 on: February 02, 2011, 02:10:33 PM »

How funny, the school of thought I fell into (which is one you could only arrive on after a degree of consideration, because it contradicts the drumbeat of current thinking) is one that all people are born entitled to a certain number of rights. (mostly listed - enumerated - in the US constitution) The premise that all PEOPLE worldwide are born having rights also contradicts any pithy accusations of racism (which often come from people who like undermining the constitution), etc.  The conclusion on that is that if you are born with a right - you have that right regardless of someone writing a law claiming that they have taken it away from you - your rights are not someone else's to take away.  The catch being that they can still get away with all manners of coercion or duress to make you surrender that right.  But even being thrown in jail or worse for exercising a right that no one has the real authority to take from you - they still haven't taken the right itself, they've only succeeded in punishing you for exercising it.
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
Vetch
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 184

Location: NE Florida


« Reply #64 on: February 02, 2011, 02:35:34 PM »

It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Regardless of who is president, it has long been illegal to make a threat against them. Conservatives use this law when they are in office - nothing wrong with that, liberals do the same. It is perfectly harmonious with the original intent of the First Amendment. Threatening the president, or any elected representative is sedition, not protected speech.

The First Amendment was never intended to protect people who menace, intimidate or threaten others. Period. It certainly does protect our right to speak on political issues, to disagree with laws or policies, to propose changes, to list our grievances and protest. But to try to bend the system by implying violence? No.

Words can be rather abstract symbols, and when there is ambiguity, the test has been whether a reasonable person would perceive those words as a threat. So yes, perception and perceived are appropriate words.

Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #65 on: February 02, 2011, 02:50:12 PM »

so why do we need new laws against "perceived" threats? or worse, against symbols....

and it is a liberal/conservative thing.  not democrat or republican.  there are plenty of liberals in the republican party.  it is the reaction of liberals to legislate whenever something happens.  no amount of legislation protects from nuts.  any legislation infringes on the freedoms of all.  to some extent, we accept that.  at what point is enough, enough?

when you get into the subjective (perceived) you have gone to far.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #66 on: February 02, 2011, 02:56:17 PM »

The paradox in limiting speech in any way - including "threats" is that there are lines of distinction between credible threats and people blowing off steam.
If I had a nickel for every time I heard  "I oughta..." with no follow through I'd have a pretty healthy sum to manage.
The other side of the paradox is  - suppose a congress came along and began writing and enforcing laws that were flagrantly unconstitutional, the people protest (lets assume that all reasonable means of bringing the public servants back in line are near exhaustion) - There never ever comes a time when the people are reasonable in saying "we voted for you, you're breaking the laws of the land and calling us your servant subjects, but we have teeth and are prepared to use them unless you step down/repeal "X" law(s)  etc.?
I think there occasionally come times in history when the people have to stand up for themselves and threats are most certainly a means of warning tyrants and self-appointed masters.
Quibbling about when it's appropriate and whether it should be illegal now, only gives a would-be tyrant more control before "things get out of hand" later.
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
Vetch
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 184

Location: NE Florida


« Reply #67 on: February 02, 2011, 05:59:52 PM »

Quote
The paradox in limiting speech in any way - including "threats" is that there are lines of distinction between credible threats and people blowing off steam.

That isn't a paradox. I would agree that some statements are clearly threats, some are clearly not, but there are statements that are ambiguous, whose intent are not so easy to determine.  Determining if it is a real threat involves determining the state of mind of a person - and that is often going to be subjective. No way around it - that is simply the reality we live in. If someone chooses to interact with others in a way that comes across as threatening, they need to take responsibility for their choice of words.

so why do we need new laws against "perceived" threats? or worse, against symbols....

when you get into the subjective (perceived) you have gone to far.

All words are symbols - they are just vibrations of the air, or ink on paper. But they also carry meaning - that is where the problems arise, because language symbols are often imprecise. If someone says something that can reasonably be interpreted as a threat, it can be a problem, even if they are not seriously threatening someone. If someone says they are going to harm you, you might laugh it off if it is an old friend joking around or a comedian imitating a mobster.  On the other hand, if you perceive it as a real threat, you are justified in using force to protect yourself - up to the point of killing the other person in some cases. And how you react may be judged by a jury - if they think your perception is valid, you will not suffer any penalty, but if they believe that your perceptions leading to self defense were irrational, you might lose your freedom and possessions.

A classic case is the guy who shot a trick-or-treater who was cutting through his yard. Said he told the kid to leave, the kid was wearing a pumpkin on his head, the kid didn't speak much English, it was dark. The kid kept walking, the man shot, and the jury found him not-guilty. Tragic loss of life? Yes. But the man had a right to protect himself, he said he perceived a threat, the jury agreed with him. Other juries have dealt with similar cases in different ways, finding that the homeowner was too quick to shoot, didn't have enough of a basis to act. Would hate to be on such a jury - its all about the subjective mind of the shooter, what he really knew, what he felt, and what he should have felt.

And are you suggesting that we should not take military action against perceived threats? That the police should not un-holster and possibly use their weapons when they perceive a threat against them? Really?? Very few military or police responses can be said to be objective. Yet we still have a military, we still have police, and they interact with people every day in a subjective fashion. Most of the time there is no problem, but someone who jokes about grabbing a policeman's gun or having a bomb on an airplane might not get the laff they expected.  Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction, but wanted Iran and other countries to think he did ... that bluff cost him after 9-11, even though he never directly threatened the United States. He was perceived as a threat.

no amount of legislation protects from nuts. 

Not sure about that. A relative has food allergies, and her safety has been noticeably enhanced by laws that require food products to indicate when they may contain traces of nuts.  evil

You are right that no one can abolish violence with a stroke of the legislative pen. But legislation can facilitate the investigation of people who really are threatening people who work for the government, and encourage other people to choose their words more carefully so they aren't wrongfully perceived as threats. I've heard it said that "An armed populace is perforce a polite one." Guess what? The government is made of people and they are armed too, government people are being shot by nuts, and anyone who makes a statement that might be perceived as a threat is going to get some special attention - regardless of whether this law passes or not, regardless of who controls the White House or Congress. It isn't about liberal or conservative, it is about responsible behavior and the consequences of making threats.

Logged
Bee Happy
Super Bee
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1656


Location: Between Panama city, Florida and Dothan Al.

that's me - setting a phoenix free


« Reply #68 on: February 02, 2011, 06:18:37 PM »

No, in limiting speech when the founders cared enough about it to make it clearly off limits to the government as the first in the list,  the paradox is in claiming that the right to speak freely is intact (except for a vague subjective jailing of someone annoying). For the Gov't writing any such law is a paradox, for the owners of the country it's rightly seen as hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, no, "subjective" is not good enough to jail someone on. the difference between a credible threat and someone letting off steam is a trail of evidence linking a credible threat to his intent - evidence - not subjectivity.
Logged

be happy and make others happy.
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #69 on: February 02, 2011, 06:39:25 PM »

you are confusing things and rather than quote your whole post, i'll just say that most of what is in your post has nothing to do with the point of mine.

mine was that congress is prohibited by the constitution from limiting free speech.  that is not the same as the police, individual, etc. evaluating a threat.  the constitution is the law.  the constitution was written and the bill of rights added, to limit the power of the federal government over the individual.

if someone says something that appears to be a threat, there is nothing that keeps the police from evaluating the threat.  if someone behaves in a threatening way, there is nothing that keeps the police from arresting that person.  a law was passed to make it illegal to threaten the president.  i submit that absent actions by the threatener, this law is illegal.  it is a limit on free speech, passed by the feds.  the exception would be your yelling fire example because the immediate effect of the words can put lives in danger. 

Canada and Europe have passed laws against "hate speech".  these laws have had a chilling effect on speech.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
buzzbee
Ken
Administrator
Galactic Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 5423


Location: North Central PA


WWW
« Reply #70 on: February 02, 2011, 06:54:11 PM »

And let us not forget,the bill of rights was to limit the powers of the federal government. Any power not given specifically to the federal governmment was reserved to the states and the people.
 If we allow our representatives to limit what they perceive as threats, and grant them special protections not given to the people,we start that slide toward royal aristocracy.
  If I remember correctly,there was a parade line where someone in the crowd hollered"you suck' at President Clinton and was promptly arrested. Is this the kind of limits we would like to see on free speech? I think not.
http://www.justicejunction.com/government_clinton_rejects_freedom_of_speech.htm


Logged
Vetch
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 184

Location: NE Florida


« Reply #71 on: February 03, 2011, 09:07:05 AM »


mine was that congress is prohibited by the constitution from limiting free speech.  that is not the same as the police, individual, etc. evaluating a threat. 

Threats are speech. Threats are not protected speech. The First Amendment has never protected threats. 

Your interpretation of the Constitution is very different from what was intended, and how the Constitution has been interpreted from the beginning. The First Amendment was a reaction against the British tradition of requiring texts to be licensed and approved by the Crown before they could be published. It is clear that anyone can say or print anything in the United States without government pre-approval. But if they violate other laws relating to obscenity, national security, libel/slander or fraud, harassment, or if they threaten the safety of others, they can and should be held accountable for their speech.
Logged
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #72 on: February 03, 2011, 09:55:49 AM »

So if I say, "I am going to kill you because of what you just wrote", I should spend a few years in jail?
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 15027


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #73 on: February 03, 2011, 10:26:00 AM »

Quote
But if they violate other laws relating to obscenity, national security, libel/slander or fraud, harassment, or if they threaten the safety of others, they can and should be held accountable for their speech

remember that we are only talking about feds/congress.  states may do different thing.

i can be as obscene as i want to and not be arrested for what i say.  i might be arrested for disturbing th peace, but not for my words.  in fact, i might get my art hung in a government subsidized museum!
  papers like the NYT's have used the 1st to cover their publishing of classified info that many have argued have done great harm to the US.  Ellsberg also.  i realize that sometimes freedom of the press is used, but if that is unlimited, it follows that freedom of speech would be also?
  libel slander or fraud are not crimes because of the words used.  you have to prove that you have been damaged because of the words used.  i would put harassment by words in that gray area.  who defines it?  this falls under state and local laws anyway.
 
if you take your examples at face value, then we have protections from irresponsible speech.  why would you want congress to (illegally) make new laws to limit speech even more?  that was my only point and I'm not sure why you miss it.  perhaps i am not expressing my point well..... 

Quote
they can and should be held accountable for their speech

by whom?

when the government and courts begin to pick away at our protections "for our own good", we end with idiot rulings like the separation decision.  nothing is gained, but much is lost.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Jerrymac
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 6047


Location: Wolfforth Texas


« Reply #74 on: February 03, 2011, 10:37:16 AM »

when the government and courts begin to pick away at our protections "for our own good", we end with idiot rulings like the separation decision.  nothing is gained, but much is lost.

When you said that the movie "Demolition Man" popped into my mind. Anyone that hasn't seen it should watch it and ask themselves if they want to live in a safe world like that.
Logged

rainbow sunflower  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.   rainbow sunflower

 Jerry

My pictures.Type in password;  youview
     http://photobucket.com/albums/v225/Jerry-mac/
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.577 seconds with 21 queries.

Google visited last this page July 21, 2014, 07:28:47 AM
anything