The Borg Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 There is no such thing as Freedom of Speech. Not even in America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Do not allow: -"Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" in the most literal interpretation. Because that line, clever as it was, was originally used to justify punishing a man protesting a war. -Speech that threatens someone's life, or anything along those lines. -Screaming, screeching that "disturbs the peace" or hinders everyday life. Allow: -Vulgar speech -Lambasting of individuals -Generally anything else Honestly, striving to make something free to an extent that it's having bad effects on the people is bad. To me, at least in this time, ideal freedom is "we're making it as free as possible because any more freedom and societal degenerates would abuse and ruin things". For instance, the right to bear arms. I can see some of it's uses, but the "freedom" given to an inbred radicalist Southerner is kind of scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Issun Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Freedom of Speech is abused the CRAP out of in my school, but it never works EX: Some random Bully: Pfft, you actually still play yugioh and pokemon, your such a dumbass nerd, f***ing geek Me: Would you say that if the princaple was around? Same random Bully: Hell yeah, Its called F***ing Freedom of Speech Principle: *Who was walking through the lunch room when this happened* Which doesn't apply IN school, or when you're 13 years old! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 Poor random bully, not allowed to speak his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 [quote name='Lance Corporal Atlas' timestamp='1293936658' post='4904851'] -Screaming, screeching that "disturbs the peace" or hinders everyday life. [/quote] IDK about that one... almost all large protests would be banned if we took that as a precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 2, 2011 Report Share Posted January 2, 2011 [quote name='GenzoTheHarpist' timestamp='1293957751' post='4905489'] IDK about that one... almost all large protests would be banned if we took that as a precedent. [/quote] Yeah, that one requires clarification like shouting fire in a crowded theatre does. I guess what I mean is when the noise is, quite literally, at dangerously loud and disruptive levels. You could still protest, but not to extreme degrees. I think an example would be anti-abortionists protesting at a hospital that practiced it. The noise they make, at levels high enough, could cause serious damage to the patients in it. At any rate, protests aren't the way a society should go about making change IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='Lance Corporal Atlas' timestamp='1293994998' post='4906645'] Yeah, that one requires clarification like shouting fire in a crowded theatre does. I guess what I mean is when the noise is, quite literally, at dangerously loud and disruptive levels. You could still protest, but not to extreme degrees. I think an example would be anti-abortionists protesting at a hospital that practiced it. The noise they make, at levels high enough, could cause serious damage to the patients in it. At any rate, protests aren't the way a society should go about making change IMO. [/quote] So, like, you would suggest a decibel limit for a protest? That seems terribly hard to enforce. Like, who's at fault when someone breaches it? All 100,000? The person who got the permit? Protests are a great way to help produce change. Not because they change anyone's mind, but they promote solidarity within the group that's holding them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Cakey Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 [quote name='GenzoTheHarpist' timestamp='1294020257' post='4907913'] So, like, you would suggest a decibel limit for a protest? That seems terribly hard to enforce. Like, who's at fault when someone breaches it? All 100,000? The person who got the permit? Protests are a great way to help produce change. Not because they change anyone's mind, but they promote solidarity within the group that's holding them. [/quote] Actually, the thing protests are best for is riling up the local police, causing them to send dogs and feral lions in to brutally slaughter the dissenters. By which I mean, the protesters often gain sympathy when their actions make the object of their protests show more totalitarian colors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 3, 2011 Report Share Posted January 3, 2011 I'd prefer well thought-out speeches in large public areas to people yelling and holding up signs of superficial value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='Lance Corporal Atlas' timestamp='1294097608' post='4909831'] I'd prefer well thought-out speeches in large public areas to people yelling and holding up signs of superficial value. [/quote] People aren't going to sit through the whole speech unless they already agreed with it and came to hear it. For everyone else, the 1-2 sentences they hear are no more meaningful than the quips on a sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Then speeches, at worst, are as effective as a protest. I see the point of them, but they just shouldn't be brought to dangerous levels of sound and obstruct traffic and whatnot. It's a hard thing to punish, but hopefully protesters would come to moderate it on their own and punishments wouldn't be required. And I guess some sort of restriction should be placed on noticeably aggressive "bullying" too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 [quote name='Lance Corporal Atlas' timestamp='1294106546' post='4910247'] Then speeches, at worst, are as effective as a protest. I see the point of them, but they just shouldn't be brought to dangerous levels of sound and obstruct traffic and whatnot. It's a hard thing to punish, but hopefully protesters would come to moderate it on their own and punishments wouldn't be required. And I guess some sort of restriction should be placed on noticeably aggressive "bullying" too. [/quote] Nah, protests draw more people than speeches (generally), so they are more effective. I understand your point about not obstructing traffic, but I think that really sets a bad precedent. I don't even agree with the fact that people have to get permits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 4, 2011 Report Share Posted January 4, 2011 Speeches and protesting would appeal to different groups of people, I suppose. How regulated would you have them be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 To be honest, I don't think they should be regulated at all. If it gets out of hand and people get violent, you can regulate THAT (under whatever laws prohibit assault, etc), but I don't think there should be any regulations of people assembling on public property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan of the Sith Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 There really shouldnt be any limitations because it is in the *I think* the constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 [quote name='tonymann' timestamp='1294193903' post='4912490'] There really shouldnt be any limitations because it is in the *I think* the constitution. [/quote] Sort of. Just because something is mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean it can't have reasonable limits. For instance, there have been limits on free speech since [i]very[/i] early in US history, and it was pretty likely that the framers intended it that way. Not to mention, just because something's in the constitution doesn't mean its a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 [quote name='GenzoTheHarpist' timestamp='1294185875' post='4912027'] To be honest, I don't think they should be regulated at all. If it gets out of hand and people get violent, you can regulate THAT (under whatever laws prohibit assault, etc), but I don't think there should be any regulations of people assembling on public property. [/quote] Really? I think the obstruction and volume should be regulated somehow. And the doesn't technically inhibit what they can say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 [quote name='Lance Corporal Atlas' timestamp='1294198981' post='4912683'] Really? I think the obstruction and volume should be regulated somehow. And the doesn't technically inhibit what they can say. [/quote] Well it sort of does. For instance, in Haight Ashbury in the 60s, the people living there would wind meaninglessly through the streets to inconvenience the tour buses that drove through; it obstructed traffic, but the point was to stop them from being treated like animals or a freak show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 When the public as a whole, especially when they aren't originally involved, suffer on account of any sort of protesting, I think some sort of restriction should be placed. You can make an impact with minor limitations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 5, 2011 Report Share Posted January 5, 2011 Well what's "the public as a whole"? Do the people on the tour buses count? Can you tie yourself to a tree to protest it being cut down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 When your protest impedes upon the activities of those your aren't protesting I'd say something should be done. As for impeding the people you're protesting, I need to think about that one. It can still be done effectively with some limitations, it's just a detrimental act more than it is a revolutionary without protesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 What if you're protesting a group and some unrelated person strolls over and is inconvenienced, accidentally? Should the whole protest end then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 6, 2011 Report Share Posted January 6, 2011 Individual protestors can be monitored in protests, the group shouldn't suffer. In what way is the individual being inconvenienced, since you said "accidentally". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GenzoTheHarpist Posted January 7, 2011 Report Share Posted January 7, 2011 They're blocking a garbage dumping truck. Some poor sap gets stuck behind it going to his job. Who should be blamed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted January 8, 2011 Report Share Posted January 8, 2011 I think irrelevant hinderance shouldn't be allowed, but relevant hinderance seems like something that's pretty debatable. I'd ultimately say it shouldn't be allowed, and I suppose even hindering the person you're protesting shouldn't be allowed. This is assuming that there is an alternative means to settle the dispute. Protesting should be restricted to the swaying of public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.