+ Reply to Thread
Results 91 to 105 of 125
Discussion: General Forums / The Sandbox - Islam - I've been following a conservative comic on Facebook. On very rare occasions I agree with
-
09-03-2010, 05:20 AM #91
Re: Islam
I've been following a conservative comic on Facebook. On very rare occasions I agree with one. This one not so much:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...78843&commentsDude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?
snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."
Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."
-
09-03-2010, 10:25 AM #92
Re: Islam
If unpopular speech is not protected, why have "free" speech at all? If words/ideas don't get anyone mad, then no one's going to bother with them anyway.
There's a concept called - "content-based restriction of speech." That's what we can't have in a free nation. If an area is open to the public (as a section marked off for a street fair would be - no cars, but pedestrians are allowed entrance) then the umbrella of the first amendment still covers individuals.
People with non-religious or approved-religious topics were allowed to express their opinions and hand out literature, according to the ministry's account. If this holds up in the pending court proceedings, I'm pretty sure they'll win. The video showing the cameras and individuals being slapped around repeatedly will not lend any character credit to the "security's" story of it.
Ah, but if it was not a public place, then why were the police there to "provide public safety?" Officials don't patrol inside homes or places of business unless requested to or with a specific reason.
Originally Posted by Sirusblk
On the city's website they link to two court decisions that they think bear on the subject. The first specifically says the ruling does not curtail the freedom of individuals or representatives of organizations from discussing face-to-face about what they want, when on fairgrounds, as the city is claiming the street became. - In the video we see people being escorted to "free speech zones" who were not handing out literature. The second link is about having open burning in a public thoroughfare. It was held that a city should not be required to hand out such permissions for such action.
"The true genius shudders at incompleteness - and usually prefers silence to saying
something which is not everything it should be." — Edgar Allan Poe
-
09-03-2010, 10:03 PM #93
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- Kansas - armpit of the USA
- Age
- 34
- Posts
- 4,801
Re: Islam
Since you are still apparently under the impression that handing out fliers had anything to do with the group being removed it is clear that you haven't read any of the links or ignored the text.
This had nothing to do with stifling speech, it was about a group that was deliberately trying to cause conflict for someone else being removed because it was infringing on the other group's right to assemble.Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.
-
09-03-2010, 10:33 PM #94
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- Placentia, California, United States
- Age
- 22
- Posts
- 2,248
Re: Islam
Ah I don't think you understand our Bill of Rights. All it does is protect you from the government by giving you some rights. It does not stop 3rd parties from taking away your right to free speech, assembly, practicing religion, press or more. Originally Posted by SilentSunshine
It still does not make it a public place. If a domestic fight breaks out in your house the police still respond don't they? Regardless of whether it is private or public, they are keepers of the peace. They're wherever the city wishes them to be. For instance our city, like many other cities, has a farmer's market, which is paid through a state grant. We've hired a third party to actually organize vendors on a street corner in a normally very public place. However it is not a public venue anymore it is private. It doesn't matter that I as a city worker still am there with coworkers helping facilitate the event. It does not matter that we have police come by and check in. Originally Posted by SilentSunshine
Also it's worth noting that that video had private security guards, police were only there on call. Also the fact that there are many many limitations on freedom of speech. A major factor being public safety in which really police or security are the judges of which. One should not simply quote 'freedom of speech' without understanding exactly what it entails.
-
09-04-2010, 12:52 AM #95
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Camp Hill, Pennsylvania
- Posts
- 998
Re: Islam
Furthermore, unpopular speech is protected. What is not protected is the consequences of your actions for unpopular speech.
<04:11:24> *** You are now talking in channel: "TFP - Task Force Proteus"
<04:16:25> "|TG-XV| Tralic": this channel is so gay
-
09-04-2010, 01:26 AM #96
Re: Islam
On the surface what you said sounds pretty close to the truth. I've thoroughly studied the federal constitution including the amendments. You are correct to say it limits what the government can do. But - the reason we have a government is to limit what people can do, basically. The actions of the private security guards appeared to be assault. They were forcibly/terroristic-ly imposing their view. Under the rule of law (ok - excepting extraordinary circumstances like citizen's arrests or home defense), third parties cannot physically force you to do or refrain from anything. Originally Posted by Sirusblk
One of the things I took away from the video was a snapshot of how the peaceful, non-news-making Muslims live their lives when someone wishes to ask them about their beliefs and tape the conversation. While at least one of the Islamic men said something to the effect he didn't mind the camera, I didn't notice any Muslims doing much to try stopping the assault.
"The true genius shudders at incompleteness - and usually prefers silence to saying
something which is not everything it should be." — Edgar Allan Poe
-
09-04-2010, 03:16 AM #97
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- Kansas - armpit of the USA
- Age
- 34
- Posts
- 4,801
Re: Islam
We have a government to facilitate society, in the case of the US it was a structure that was intended to be weak in power compared to the populace and to do so they limited government powers. People were not limited by the government under the Constitutional design, although it did address some possible situations were someone would be likely to infringe on the rights of someone else so they listed those rights (bear arms, freedom of speech and assembly) due to current events at the time. Originally Posted by SilentSunshine
There are certain rights, which may not step on the rights of someone else. There will be areas where this is unclear, and that is what laws are for. Unfortunately when people don't understand these concepts they screw up the system.Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.
-
09-04-2010, 06:03 AM #98
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Palo Alto, CA
- Posts
- 1,932
Re: Islam
Wat? Originally Posted by SilentSunshine
Do or do not, there is no try....
-- Yoda, Dagobah
-
09-04-2010, 10:04 AM #99
Re: Islam
^It's very far on the lighter side on the same principle scale, but what they did - threatening, using force outside the realm of legitimacy, had a purpose. You might want to check the definition of terrorism: it doesn't say there needs to be thousands of deaths. I think the purpose was to create fear in the opponents and to influence the governance of the area. I can tell you with certainty that the type of behavior they participated in would not be tolerated in my locality, nor, I would presume, in much of the U.S./free world.
How can justice be established, or domestic tranquility, if the government does not limit what individuals may do against other individuals? "Securing the blessings of liberty" must invoke protection not only against governmental or international threats, but most often to private, domestic transgressions. Originally Posted by snooggums
"The true genius shudders at incompleteness - and usually prefers silence to saying
something which is not everything it should be." — Edgar Allan Poe
-
09-04-2010, 10:41 AM #100
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- Kansas - armpit of the USA
- Age
- 34
- Posts
- 4,801
Re: Islam
So breaking up a disturbance by a group who has a purpose to disrupt is terrorism? That doesn't make any sense. Originally Posted by SilentSunshine
Read the whole post, not just the first sentence:How can justice be established, or domestic tranquility, if the government does not limit what individuals may do against other individuals? "Securing the blessings of liberty" must invoke protection not only against governmental or international threats, but most often to private, domestic transgressions. Originally Posted by snooggums
Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.
-
09-04-2010, 12:35 PM #101
Re: Islam
How does all this interact with the limitations placed on property owners when they operate a "public place"? For example, I recall that malls and shopping centers have to allow certain kinds of "free speech" in their public areas (such as ballot initiative petitioning).
Dude, seriously, WHAT handkerchief?
snooggums' density principal: "The more dense a population, the more dense a population."
Iliana: "You're a great friend but if we're ever chased by zombies I'm tripping you."
-
09-04-2010, 12:37 PM #102
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- Kansas - armpit of the USA
- Age
- 34
- Posts
- 4,801
Re: Islam
A publicly accessible location on private land is not the same thing as being a public space, like a public park or sidewalk. You never have a right to free speech on private land, such as in a shopping center, it is allowed at their discretion.
Just because everyone does something does not mean that it is right to do.
-
09-04-2010, 03:49 PM #103
Re: Islam
Threatening to break cameras, actually shoving and slapping people (and their property) around are all ways to provoke disturbance. Legitimate security / police would have handled any attempted disturbance in a reasonable manner. Originally Posted by snooggums
Edit: I wanted to add a link to an interesting take on the constitutionality of making "zones" for free speech by a Findlaw associate. CNN, which I'll say might have a democratic slant, seems to think it's not right.Last edited by SilentSunshine; 09-04-2010 at 03:54 PM. Reason: more
"The true genius shudders at incompleteness - and usually prefers silence to saying
something which is not everything it should be." — Edgar Allan Poe
-
09-04-2010, 10:03 PM #104
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Palo Alto, CA
- Posts
- 1,932
Re: Islam
So would, off the top of my head, nightsticking/tasering pregnant women, wiretapping your own citizens, running military "exercises" on domestic soil, invading countries to give rebuilding contracts to shadowy multinationals, removing political opponents from rallies/etc. Do we really want to go down this rabbit-hole? Originally Posted by SilentSunshine
Do or do not, there is no try....
-- Yoda, Dagobah
-
09-04-2010, 11:20 PM #105
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- Placentia, California, United States
- Age
- 22
- Posts
- 2,248
Re: Islam
First of all, they didn't threaten to break the camera, they broke the lens cap. Someone stepped on my shoelace once and I tripped. They didn't shove or slap people but they did respond as a security force to what they believed constituted an immediate danger. Really if this guy had any legitimate claim he would have pressed charges instead of crying to the internet just because he was butt hurt. Originally Posted by SilentSunshine
Look at that article closer. Who wrote it? Julie Hilden, a 'columnist' hired by the company FindLaw. That's right not an actual reporter or political analyst. Just a buisness person. Yes she practiced law for the firm Williams and Associates but we're not certain if she was actually a partner or associate (my money is on associate). Besides she only practiced law for 3 years which is abysmally low. In short her word does not carry that much weight with me. Interesting opinion but grossly misinformed. She didn't even mention the precedence established by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. stating that the first amendment does not protect a person "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." The police are tasked with keeping the peace, how they keep peace, sectioning you off whatever does not stifle your speech at all. Originally Posted by SilentSunshine
Reply With Quote
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks