being used as an excuse to tolerate things that the government should be slamming it's foot down on
This is the source of our fundamental disagreement. I do not think the purpose of the government is to "slam its foot down" on anything you personally -- or any other one person or small group -- happens to disapprove of.
being used as an excuse to tolerate things that the government should be slamming it's foot down onThis is the source of our fundamental disagreement. I do not think the purpose of the government is to "slam its foot down" on anything you personally -- or any other one person or small group -- happens to disapprove of.
I disagree. Tolerating criticism of the government is one thing. Tolerating purposely incendiary public demonstrations is quite another, and I'm completely against it.
I'd like to say that I walked away from this conversation because I realized it was about to devolve into typical Citizen Duck inanity.
But it's not true--I had to go to the credit union and do some Xmas shopping.
Alright, I'm game, Citizen Duck, what was the impact of Woodstock? Because I thought it was pretty much just a concert that got filmed and made a bunch of stoned hippies feel good about themselves. Not that I have any problem with any of that, mind you...
Also, Woodstock did block access of emergency and other kinds of vehicles, which is why most of the acts got helicoptered in. Also, somebody died.
Tolerating purposely incendiary public demonstrations is quite another, and I'm completely against it.
You're allowed to be against it, but that doesn't mean you automatically get to decide. And, luckily (from my standpoint), I'm allowed to disagree with you.
Furthermore, the first amendment was one of the founding fathers' more boneheaded decisions.If you're serious about that -- not just playing devil's advocate or whatever -- then there's no middle ground possible here, and absolutely zero room for discussion.Oh, and why is that? Just because I recognize that a blanket guarantee was a stupid idea doesn't mean I don't think people should be able to say what they wish.
Not having a fist amendment doesn't mean no freedom of speech. Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, and the like all do just fine without a guaranteed freedom of speech, and so could America. The first amendment makes unrealistic promises the the government cannot, should not, and does not attempt to adhere to. This whole occupy business is an example. We'd be better off if we acted like Britain or Canada and allowed people to say what they want, but didn't actually write it in our constitution.
That's b~&$%+*#. It DOES exist in the french constitution. And I'm pretty sure that it is in the german one too.
Yours sincerely,
what was the impact of Woodstock? Because I thought it was pretty much just a concert that got filmed and made a bunch of stoned hippies feel good about themselves.
At the time, I think that's all it was. By 20 years later, however, it had come to symbolize the whole Zeitgeist of the era.
Tolerating purposely incendiary public demonstrations is quite another, and I'm completely against it.You're allowed to be against it, but that doesn't mean you automatically get to decide. And, luckily (from my standpoint), I'm allowed to disagree with you.
And in the countries lacking a first amendment that I mentioned, you'd still be allowed to disagree, even publicly. What you wouldn't be able to do is stand outside my funeral with a crowd screaming about what a loudmouthed jackboot c$~* I was and call it your right.
Furthermore, the first amendment was one of the founding fathers' more boneheaded decisions.If you're serious about that -- not just playing devil's advocate or whatever -- then there's no middle ground possible here, and absolutely zero room for discussion.Oh, and why is that? Just because I recognize that a blanket guarantee was a stupid idea doesn't mean I don't think people should be able to say what they wish.
Not having a fist amendment doesn't mean no freedom of speech. Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, and the like all do just fine without a guaranteed freedom of speech, and so could America. The first amendment makes unrealistic promises the the government cannot, should not, and does not attempt to adhere to. This whole occupy business is an example. We'd be better off if we acted like Britain or Canada and allowed people to say what they want, but didn't actually write it in our constitution.
That's b%#&#!!&. It DOES exist in the french constitution. And I'm pretty sure that it is in the german one too.
Yours sincerely,
Go wave around a swastika in Germany. See what happens.
What you wouldn't be able to do is stand outside my funeral with a crowd screaming about what a loudmouthed jackboot c+!! I was and call it your right.
I choose to live in places where you don't get to decide what's OK.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you.
I can't agree with you as I feel that deliberately preventing the free flow of emergency vehicles is a VERY BAD THING (in part because of the potential loss of life). But, I do thank you for making your position clear.
See, this is the crap I'm talking about. "Public nuisance" doesn't equal "deliberately preventing the free flow of emergency vehicles" which was what I was trying to say before.
Do I think the protestors should be able to get away with allowing cardiac arrest patients in ambulance to die? Frankly I'm insulted I have to even answer this question, but, no, I don't think they should.
Do I think the protestors should be able to gather despite the fact that they're violating noise ordinances, distributing unlicensed food and putting up tents and running extension cords from generators (which were the reasons Occupy NH got ousted)? Yes, I do.
[Edited slightly]
Go wave around a swastika in Germany. See what happens.That's b%#&#!!&. It DOES exist in the french constitution. And I'm pretty sure that it is in the german one too.
Yours sincerely,
AnD? What's the point? The exception doesn't invalidate the rule (as any law shool freshman can tell you).
In France, you can't slander someone and get away with it. Or publicly deny that there was an holocaust. So, we have exceptions too.
But the rule is still here, written down in the constitution, DESPITE YOUR PREVIOUS CLAIM.
Furthermore, the first amendment was one of the founding fathers' more boneheaded decisions.If you're serious about that -- not just playing devil's advocate or whatever -- then there's no middle ground possible here, and absolutely zero room for discussion.Oh, and why is that? Just because I recognize that a blanket guarantee was a stupid idea doesn't mean I don't think people should be able to say what they wish.
Not having a fist amendment doesn't mean no freedom of speech. Britain, Canada, Australia, France, Germany, and the like all do just fine without a guaranteed freedom of speech, and so could America. The first amendment makes unrealistic promises the the government cannot, should not, and does not attempt to adhere to. This whole occupy business is an example. We'd be better off if we acted like Britain or Canada and allowed people to say what they want, but didn't actually write it in our constitution.
That's b%$#&!$~. It DOES exist in the french constitution. And I'm pretty sure that it is in the german one too.
Yours sincerely,
Also, the French constitution states:
"Statutes shall guarantee the expression of diverse opinions and the equitable participation of political parties and groups in the democratic life of the Nation."
That is not the same as America's first amendment, and it's what the constitution should have had instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what does hurt people, is hurting people? Having our livelihoods and right to pursue happiness stolen away so the 1% can rule over us like slave owners.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that no one should deliberately block emergency vehicles that are on their way to save lives. Can we also agree that every person willing and able to work should be able to do so, for a wage that allows them to feed, house and clothe themselves and their family? Because that is not what we have right now.
Ya’ll are so worried about the risk of someone getting hurt, but what about the millions that are hurting right now.
There are soooo many intelligent, hardworking, ethical people now that can’t afford the ambulance ride to the hospital. I personally know 2 people who called friends to come get them and take them to the hospital, literally risking their lives, because the ~$6,000 bill (just for the ambulance ride) represents almost half of their annual earnings before taxes. Both work full time jobs.
Public safety is an important concern, but you are not looking at the risk in context. How many people die, get sicker, go hungery, turn to crime, commit suicide, ect ect ect as a direct result of our systems staggering inequalities. And for what? So the 1% can add another zero to their personal wealth!
Setting fires and blocking roads carries a public safety risk, but the economic and political system as it is now creates and exponentially greater risk to more people.
Go wave around a swastika in Germany. See what happens.That's b%#&#!!&. It DOES exist in the french constitution. And I'm pretty sure that it is in the german one too.
Yours sincerely,
AnD? What's the point? The exception doesn't invalidate the rule (as any law shool freshman can tell you).
In France, you can't slander someone and get away with it. Or publicly deny that there was an holocaust. So, we have exceptions too.
But the rule is still here, written down in the constitution, DESPITE YOUR PREVIOUS CLAIM.
The French constitution does not out and out state that free speech shall not be infringed, it states that the state shall guarantee the expression of diverse opinions. That's not the same as guaranteeing that you can say whatever you want.
What you wouldn't be able to do is stand outside my funeral with a crowd screaming about what a loudmouthed jackboot c+!! I was and call it your right.I choose to live in places where you don't get to decide what's OK.
Who said I get to decide what's okay? I don't. The officials you elected do.
What I said is that Woodstock didn't deliberately block the free flow of emergency vehicles.
So if Occupy doesn't deliberately block emergency vehicles, but only does it accidentally, then you're fine with that? Cool.
I disagree. Tolerating criticism of the government is one thing. Tolerating purposely incendiary public demonstrations is quite another, and I'm completely against it.being used as an excuse to tolerate things that the government should be slamming it's foot down onThis is the source of our fundamental disagreement. I do not think the purpose of the government is to "slam its foot down" on anything you personally -- or any other one person or small group -- happens to disapprove of.Purposely incendiary public demonstrations are a valid tool of protest. Ask the Egyptians in Tehrir Square.
Ask Martin Luther King. Many Civil Rights era marches and demonstrations were met by police with billy clubs and dogs. The Selma bridge was one example.I assume you think they should have dispersed quietly or never marched at all since they violated local laws. Or is it those were in a good cause and you don't approve of OWS?
The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.
I'm still waiting for the evidence I'm wrong so you can prove it to me. Give me a situation where OWS is causing the blockage of roads like you've been harping on. And show me how it is different from any other demonstration.
The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.
Wow. I think I've read somewhere, Citizen A.P.P.L.E., that you're pretty young, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't know what you're talking about.
Please, quit. You are wrong.
Full disclosure : I'm a french lawyer. The damn thing is hanged on my wall.
Article 9: "Nobody must be worried about his opinions, even religious ones, provided their demonstration does not disturb the law and order established by the law."
Article 10 : "The free communication of the thoughts and the opinions is one of the most precious rights of the man; every citizen can thus speak, write, print freely, so as to answer of the abuse of this freedom in the cases determined by the law."
Don't kid yourself. OWS will, at its best, achieve the same [as Woodstock], but it won't achieve anything more.
Just for context of where you are coming from, Baby Boomer?
|
I'm still waiting for the evidence I'm wrong so you can prove it to me. Give me a situation where OWS is causing the blockage of roads like you've been harping on. And show me how it is different from any other demonstration.Wasn't this a situation that arose pretty early on?
And I can see that being broken up for public safety. A park encampment? Not so much.
Blocking a bridge doesn't really accomplish much but inconvenience the average joe as well.
Please, quit. You are wrong.
Full disclosure : I'm a french lawyer. The damn thing is hanged on my wall.
Article 9: "Nobody must be worried about his opinions, even religious ones, provided their demonstration does not disturb the law and order established by the law."
Article 10 : "The free communication of the thoughts and the opinions is one of the most precious rights of the man; every citizen can thus speak, write, print freely, so as to answer of the abuse of this freedom in the cases determined by the law."
Except neither of those say that the right to free speech shall not be infringed. There is still wiggle room to say "You can't do that in public". Your aforementioned example of holocaust denial in public not being tolerated proves it. In America, banning that would never happen. France's free speech protections are not as absolute as America's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who said I get to decide what's okay? I don't. The officials you elected do.
If those officials, by deciding that, are violating the very document they've sworn under oath to uphold (regardless of whether you, or they disagree with it), then they are no longer acting as rightful elected officials, but rather as self-proclaimed tyrants.
Who said I get to decide what's okay? I don't. The officials you elected do.If those officials, by deciding that, are violating the very document they've sworn under oath to uphold (regardless of whether you, or they disagree with it), then they are no longer acting as rightful elected officials, but rather as self-proclaimed tyrants.
Well, if I had my way, it wouldn't be in the document, or it'd be in the document in a looser form.
The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.
Anyone who upholds an unjust law is as much a part of the problem as those who created it and benefit from the enforcement thereof.
Well, if I had my way, it wouldn't be in the document, or it'd be in the document in a looser form.
And as I said before, you're welcome to that opinion... but no one else is under any obligation to agree with it. And that opinion cannot rightfully be used by anyone else as an excuse to violate the actual Constitution.
The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.
Personally I have no respect for the likes of Bull Connor.
Frankly, that's a politician's answer. Sounds pretty. Says nothing.
If you condemn OWS for illegal (unpermitted) protests, then how can you not do the same for other protest movements?
If you don't, then it's the goals of the movement that are the issue. That's a discussion worth having.
This discussion, the one about protests being bad, not because of what they're protesting for, but because they block traffic or are unsanitary or whatever the latest trumped up nonsense is, is nothing but a way to condemn OWS without having to confront what they're saying.
I don't have a problem with anything OWS is saying, or even that they I protesting. My problem is their refusal to get a permit and act civilly. I happen to agree with much, if not all, of what they espouse. What I don't like is how they go about it. At least the civil rights movement had some respect. They'd have never pulled that vigil s+%&.
Haven't really looked at it, have you?
The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.Anyone who upholds an unjust law is as much a part of the problem as those who created it and benefit from the enforcement thereof.
I have three letters for you.
L.
B.
J.
The civil rights movement wasn't cops against protesters. It was far, far more complicated than that, and the law stepped in on both sides of the issue.
Well, if I had my way, it wouldn't be in the document, or it'd be in the document in a looser form.And as I said before, you're welcome to that opinion... but no one else is under any obligation to agree with it. And that opinion cannot rightfully be used by anyone else as an excuse to violate the actual Constitution.
I never said you had to agree with it. I'm not against open and free speech, I'm against a blanket guarantee of it. I could easily get behind something like what France has, where you have the right to publicly criticize the government, but public incendiary protest, such as holocaust denial, won't be tolerated.
Yep, it's not a carbon copy, but in practice it comes VERY, VERY close.
Our freedom of speech right CAN ONLY be infringed in some very limited cases, when it goes in the way of other major rights for instance (causing people harm, as in slander laws, or propagating antidemocratic ideologies, as in denial of holocaust laws).
Article 4 = Freedom consists in being able to make all that does not harm other people: so, the exercice of his natural rights by every man has no other limits than those who assure other society's members the exercise of these same rights. These demarcations can be determined only by law.
The point is, it's false to say that there is no freedom of speech right in our constitution. But, quite obviously, it's not exactly spelled the same as in the USA (ours was written down in 1789).
Touche.
First, the civil rights movement wasn't illegal. Some of the things that it did might have been "illegal", but others, such as helping blacks register, weren't.
Second, the collusion between southern law-enforcement and the Ku Klux Klan was pretty infamous. Look up Cheney, Shwerner and Goodman for just one example.
Thirdly, even if it was illegal, the mass head-busting that the freedom riders and the bus boycotters suffered at the hands of those attempting to uphold the law was so disgusting that you might as well be expressing respect for the Nazi cops who were upholding the Nuremberg laws or the Soviet cops collectivizing agriculture. Yeah, it's a Godwin, but in this case it's appropriate.
EDIT: Pre-emptively editing my comment so it won't get erased.
Yep, it's not a carbon copy, but in practice it comes VERY, VERY close.
Our freedom of speech right CAN ONLY be infringed in some very limited cases, when it goes in the way of other major rights for instance (causing people harm, as in slander laws, or propagating antidemocratic ideologies, as in denial of holocaust laws).
Article 4 = Freedom consists in being able to make all that does not harm other people: so, the exercice of his natural rights by every man has no other limits than those who assure other society's members the exercise of these same rights. These demarcations can be determined only by law.
The point, it's false to say that there is no freedom of speech right in our constitution. But, quite obviously, it's not exactly spelled the same as in the USA (ours was written down in 1789).
I miscommunicated. I meant to say that France does not have an absolute right to free speech guaranteed like America does, not to say that free speech isn't in the French constitution. For example, you mentioned France can forbid antidemocratic ideology being thrown about in public. America cannot. That's what I was getting at.
The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.Anyone who upholds an unjust law is as much a part of the problem as those who created it and benefit from the enforcement thereof.I have three letters for you.
L.
B.
J.The civil rights movement wasn't cops against protesters. It was far, far more complicated than that, and the law stepped in on both sides of the issue.
Time and again, when the feds intervened, or sent in the troops, it was because blacks had fought back.
Eventually, the whole situation got so out of hand that there was no possible way the US was going to win the hearts and minds of possible Soviet client states with blacks getting mauled by police dogs and hosed down on the nightly news. Ergo, the Civil Rights Act. Imho.
I read you are a communist, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are developmentally disabled.The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.Wow. I think I've read somewhere, Citizen A.P.P.L.E., that you're pretty young, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you don't know what you're talking about.
Touche.
First, the civil rights movement wasn't illegal. Some of the things that it did might have been "illegal", but others, such as helping blacks register, weren't.
Second, the collusion between southern law-enforcement and the Ku Klux Klan was pretty infamous. Look up Cheney, Shwerner and Goodman for just one example.
Thirdly, even if it was illegal, the mass head-busting that the freedom riders and the bus boycotters suffered at the hands of those attempting to uphold the law was so disgusting that you might as well be expressing respect for the Nazi cops who were upholding the Nuremberg laws or the Soviet cops collectivizing agriculture. Yeah, it's a Godwin, but in this case it's appropriate.
I said I support those who uphold the law. Headbusting is police brutality, which is illegal. Also, as I pointed out above, the law stepped in on both sides of the issue, not just one.
The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.Anyone who upholds an unjust law is as much a part of the problem as those who created it and benefit from the enforcement thereof.I have three letters for you.
L.
B.
J.The civil rights movement wasn't cops against protesters. It was far, far more complicated than that, and the law stepped in on both sides of the issue.
Time and again, when the feds intervened, or sent in the troops, it was because blacks had fought back.
Eventually, the whole situation got so out of hand that there was no possible way the US was going to win the hearts and minds of possible Soviet client states with blacks getting mauled by police dogs and hosed down on the nightly news. Ergo, the Civil Rights Act. Imho.
That's pretty revisionist. Did the police go way overboard in their actions against civil rights protesters? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that the law didn't support both sides. The national guard acted in support of the protesters after school desegregation, remember?
That's pretty revisionist. Did the police go way overboard in their actions against civil rights protesters? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that the law didn't support both sides. The national guard acted in support of the protesters after school desegregation, remember?The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.Anyone who upholds an unjust law is as much a part of the problem as those who created it and benefit from the enforcement thereof.I have three letters for you.
L.
B.
J.The civil rights movement wasn't cops against protesters. It was far, far more complicated than that, and the law stepped in on both sides of the issue.
Time and again, when the feds intervened, or sent in the troops, it was because blacks had fought back.
Eventually, the whole situation got so out of hand that there was no possible way the US was going to win the hearts and minds of possible Soviet client states with blacks getting mauled by police dogs and hosed down on the nightly news. Ergo, the Civil Rights Act. Imho.
In Little Rock, right?
After local blacks had begun fighting back, right?
That's pretty revisionist. Did the police go way overboard in their actions against civil rights protesters? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that the law didn't support both sides. The national guard acted in support of the protesters after school desegregation, remember?The civil rights movement was illegal, and it's participants accepted this and the risk it carried. I have utmost respect for it's members and what they fought for. I also have utmost respect for those who attempted to uphold the law.Anyone who upholds an unjust law is as much a part of the problem as those who created it and benefit from the enforcement thereof.I have three letters for you.
L.
B.
J.The civil rights movement wasn't cops against protesters. It was far, far more complicated than that, and the law stepped in on both sides of the issue.
Time and again, when the feds intervened, or sent in the troops, it was because blacks had fought back.
Eventually, the whole situation got so out of hand that there was no possible way the US was going to win the hearts and minds of possible Soviet client states with blacks getting mauled by police dogs and hosed down on the nightly news. Ergo, the Civil Rights Act. Imho.
In Little Rock, right?
After local blacks had begun fighting back, right?
Yes. Things got so heated the national guard was called out to protect the black schoolchildren.
|
Canada has constitutionalized rights in the form of the charter of rights and freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.