One of the articles speaks about a guy who spoke at Defconf and promoted giving those attending the Republicats convention a hard time.
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected for his own speech?
when the government, specifically the supreme court, is the sole arbiter of where freedom of speech ends, you've already found yourself in a hell of a mess. (most people use the shouting fire example, but there are reasons you should restrain your freedom of speech even if entitled to it) The act of governing others needs to grow out of governing oneself, because until you can control yourself you're not capable of laying down the law for anyone else.
I might break the law by soap-boxing violent revolutio
Having the wrong opinion and voicing it is generally okay.
Yup, first amendment, right?
Free speech ends when you're inciting violence.
....but, I thought that was the second amendment? I mean, how can a well-organized milita exist without someone inciting violence?
Note that I'm not American and I'm a pacifist. I think inciting violence is wrong, and that change is not a matter of arms, but a matter of people getting off their fat asses. I'm just trying to understand some aspects of American cult
....but, I thought that was the second amendment? I mean, how can a well-organized milita exist without someone inciting violence?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. How does the existence of a 'well organized militia' require the constitution to allow someone to incite violence? IMHO militia's don't even require any violence, only the threat of violence from people you have no control over. (None of this is meant to justify any current US foreign policy).
I can't imagine a one-man-militia, so necessarily, someone has to band together and say: "The government is no so corrupt, good men must band together and overthrow it by violent means if necessary." That's an incitement to violence AFAICU.... A threat of violence is also incitement.
I can't imagine a one-man-militia, so necessarily, someone has to band together and say: "The government is no so corrupt, good men must band together and overthrow it by violent means if necessary." That's an incitement to violence AFAICU.... A threat of violence is also incitement.
That is a little to simplistic, this is George Washington's view on the militia:
"The well informed members of the community, actuated by the highest motives of self-love, would form the real defense of the country. Rebellion
Goering's observation could undermine Washington's view, if it was correct. And frankly, I think it is.
I actually believe that too (current events support it), I was giving the reasoning for the framing of the 2nd Amendment, not my modern views. The authors of the constitution had no idea how the technology of violence and communication would advance and how it would affect the future society - at the time they thought they had the best solution.
About one of the articles posted... (Score:1, Interesting)
What surprised me is that the journalist did not have any problems with having the guy thrown out simply because the guy's speech was controversial. They justified censorship by stating that they had to stop him for his protection. Since when does a person in America have to abdicate his own personal responsibility and be protected for his own speech?
As far as I can tell f
Wrong opinions (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech ends when you're inciting violence.
so how would you revolt? (Score:1, Insightful)
I might break the law by soap-boxing violent revolutio
Justice and equality (Score:2)
Some people are just better/more capable/ more deserving of certain limited resources.
It isn't just money or power, it's Friday night at the local bar, some guys get the hot chicks, and others don't.
Re:Wrong opinions (Score:1)
Yup, first amendment, right?
Free speech ends when you're inciting violence.
Note that I'm not American and I'm a pacifist. I think inciting violence is wrong, and that change is not a matter of arms, but a matter of people getting off their fat asses. I'm just trying to understand some aspects of American cult
Re:Wrong opinions (Score:2)
....but, I thought that was the second amendment? I mean, how can a well-organized milita exist without someone inciting violence?
I'm not sure what you mean by this. How does the existence of a 'well organized militia' require the constitution to allow someone to incite violence? IMHO militia's don't even require any violence, only the threat of violence from people you have no control over. (None of this is meant to justify any current US foreign policy).
Re:Wrong opinions (Score:1)
Re:Wrong opinions (Score:2)
That is a little to simplistic, this is George Washington's view on the militia:
Re:Wrong opinions (Score:1)
The problem is with carismatic mad-men, they are known to exist, and it has happened more than once in history that they can get masses moving, compare this with Herman Goerings famous quote: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. [google.com] (check the link for the rest).
Goering's observation could undermine Washington's view, if it was correct. And frankly, I think it is.
Re:Wrong opinions (Score:2)
I actually believe that too (current events support it), I was giving the reasoning for the framing of the 2nd Amendment, not my modern views. The authors of the constitution had no idea how the technology of violence and communication would advance and how it would affect the future society - at the time they thought they had the best solution.