<!--QuoteBegin--AU-Scorpion+Dec 18 2003, 10:37 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AU-Scorpion @ Dec 18 2003, 10:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A very wise man, my favorite teacher, once told me:
"My right to swing my fist ends at your nose."
Forlorn, in your opinion, at what point does the right to free speech end?
Just curious. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> which he plaigerised directly from Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
A few other "housecleaning" tidbits.
1) Ryo, the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the <i>formulation or passing</i> of law, but rather theirs is to <i>review</i> its constitutionality. Secondly, how is an Austrailian going to attempt to justify the constitutionality of the abridgements of <i>American</i> civil liberties? Not trying to be snide, but we tend to have a firmer grasp of the intricacies of our own nations documents, just as you would have a firmer grasp of Austrailian statutes.
2) The USA PATRIOT Act is the single largest abridgement of American rights in this century. The disregard for the "search and seizure" clause, the blatant use of prior restraint rhetoric, and the lack of need to have a warrant to execute searches is heinous to say the least. I think even the men who passed the law are coming to understand it was a mistake.
3) It is commonly understood that the only time there should be restraint upon someone's rights is when they violate another's. I can drive freely without restriction, but if I drive drunk and kill a family, they'll send me to jail, fine me and revoke my drivers liscense. I can write anything I care to unless it is a blatant lie with maliscious intent behind it, which is known as libel. Just as Chief Justice Holmes stated, one's rights end where another's begin. However, removing any specific entity's rights in such a manner that they are not guaranteed equal access to their rights is a blatant violation of constitutional law.
4) I guess I'm a rather strong advocate of individual entity rights (both personal and corporate), and as Benjamin Franklin once stated: "Those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I'd rather live precariously free, with each man given his just due, than live safely chained--which exactly what the USA PATRIOT Act and McCain-Feingold bill are, chains.
<!--QuoteBegin--Rat+Dec 23 2003, 03:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rat @ Dec 23 2003, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> which he plaigerised directly from Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I thank you for bringing this knowlege to light.
To further assist in your housecleaning, that is "plagiarized."
My question towards the topic, as it relates largely to the 1st admendment, is that isn't the nature of law dynamic?
While I agree that limits on free speech infringe on rights of every individual, and any encroaching limits should be examined closely and carefully, campaign finance is an problem that our forefathers may not have predicted, and therefore, not prepared for in the writing of the constitution.
You quoted Benjamin Franklin, and I'm probably misquoting, but I believe it was he who said (about the Constitution) " ...that it isn't a perfect document, but as close to one as we'll come"? Which is why we have the ability to modify it to reflect the current state of the country, as well as guide it along those principles that sparked the formation of our great country.
Previously it was stated that government funding of schools is unconstituional, yet, who would argue against it? How can you deny, in this modern age, a child a right to an education?
And as far as free speech goes, shouldn't I have the right to state my religeous beliefs in a building I helped pay for with my own money through taxes? Heck, shouldn't I be able to have my own ten personal beliefs be carved in stone and represented in a judicial courthouse? Does freedom of expression allow this? What if I was Muslim, I should be able to display my five pillars, shouldn't I?
Yet I can't. And for good reason.
There is a known difference between government and citizenships. As a citizen I pay to have my rights guarded. I work to support those who help insure my freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. As a government official your duty would be to protect those who elected you. To represent them in that government which they help fight, fund and feed.
When government fails to do these things, they fail their duty. They fail people who elected them. They fail those supported them. And most importantly, they fail the system that gave them the right to such an honored duty in the first place.
This reform was passed not because of liberals. Not because of corporations. It was passed because those put in power, abused that power. I live in Illinois. If your familar at all with politics, then my state is a prime example of why the system passed this law.
This law wasn't against citizens. It was against those who abused the citizens. It was against those who abused the first admendment. It was against those who took an enlightened idea and abused it and now forces us to come to this.
I don't like it either. But there are a lot of laws that I don't like. But that's the beauty of law. Its there to set you straight whether you like it or not. And I think few would argue that when it comes to campaigning, there is a need for a few laws.
All laws are dynamic, in that the ways they are interpreted vary to some extent with public sentiment. The high courts often take into consideration these sentiments when making their interpretation of the constitution. Evidence: every once in a while the high courts will overturn a previous decision or go against old precedents in newer cases.
However, that is not really the issue here. Some parts of the Patriot act are extremely unconstitutional (they should be ammendments, but those would never pass due to much stronger constraints), and I'm pretty confident that the BCRA is easily within bounds of constitutional precedent, and that the high courts would rule that the BCRA does not violate free speech rights. That does not mean, however, that the BCRA is good or needed (that's not even the court's decision).
Actually, I'm in favor of cutting back on the beaurocracy on most fronts (it's horrible wasteful and often enough corrupt, states' rights, etc.) and giving government greater control over vital needs (health care, auto insurance (amusing as it is to consider it "vital"), utilities, etc.) because a market capitalistic system isn't very good at providing for the needs of all the citizens (just people who are good at the system).
<!--QuoteBegin--Fat Man/ Little Coat+Dec 27 2003, 06:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fat Man/ Little Coat @ Dec 27 2003, 06:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Interesting posts on both sides.
My question towards the topic, as it relates largely to the 1st admendment, is that isn't the nature of law dynamic?
While I agree that limits on free speech infringe on rights of every individual, and any encroaching limits should be examined closely and carefully, campaign finance is an problem that our forefathers may not have predicted, and therefore, not prepared for in the writing of the constitution.
You quoted Benjamin Franklin, and I'm probably misquoting, but I believe it was he who said (about the Constitution) " ...that it isn't a perfect document, but as close to one as we'll come"? Which is why we have the ability to modify it to reflect the current state of the country, as well as guide it along those principles that sparked the formation of our great country.
Previously it was stated that government funding of schools is unconstituional, yet, who would argue against it? How can you deny, in this modern age, a child a right to an education?
And as far as free speech goes, shouldn't I have the right to state my religeous beliefs in a building I helped pay for with my own money through taxes? Heck, shouldn't I be able to have my own ten personal beliefs be carved in stone and represented in a judicial courthouse? Does freedom of expression allow this? What if I was Muslim, I should be able to display my five pillars, shouldn't I?
Yet I can't. And for good reason.
There is a known difference between government and citizenships. As a citizen I pay to have my rights guarded. I work to support those who help insure my freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. As a government official your duty would be to protect those who elected you. To represent them in that government which they help fight, fund and feed.
When government fails to do these things, they fail their duty. They fail people who elected them. They fail those supported them. And most importantly, they fail the system that gave them the right to such an honored duty in the first place.
This reform was passed not because of liberals. Not because of corporations. It was passed because those put in power, abused that power. I live in Illinois. If your familar at all with politics, then my state is a prime example of why the system passed this law.
This law wasn't against citizens. It was against those who abused the citizens. It was against those who abused the first admendment. It was against those who took an enlightened idea and abused it and now forces us to come to this.
I don't like it either. But there are a lot of laws that I don't like. But that's the beauty of law. Its there to set you straight whether you like it or not. And I think few would argue that when it comes to campaigning, there is a need for a few laws. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dude.
Did you notice how I said limiting campign funds WAS NOT THE FREAKING ISSUE?
I'm talking about the fact that people are limited in when they can advirtise. Now that is just wrong.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited December 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 28 2003, 11:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 28 2003, 11:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Did you notice how I said limiting campign funds WAS NOT THE FREAKING ISSUE?
I'm talking about the fact that people are limited in when they can advirtise. Now that is just wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How else do you propose that campaign funds be limited? Remember that the corporation doesn't need to give the money to the candidate to run an ad supporting the candidate. Any other law would be circumvented by taking the politician's campaign out of the chain of money and making the ad directly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Did you notice how I said limiting campign funds WAS NOT THE FREAKING ISSUE? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you fail to realize is, despite your beliefs, it is the issue.
The purpose of the bill and the reason it exists is to deal with campaign finance.
The first admendment is the one that is most effected by it, but again, the reason the law exists is to deal with campaign finance.
I also noticed you never answered the question about libel and slander, and how it violates our rights to free speech, in the loose definition you use.
Edit: What about tobacco commercials? Shouldn't they be allowed to advertise again? Or what about condom commercials? Perhaps ads for pornography should be allowed as well during daytime television?
Comments
"My right to swing my fist ends at your nose."
Forlorn, in your opinion, at what point does the right to free speech end?
Just curious. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
which he plaigerised directly from Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.
A few other "housecleaning" tidbits.
1) Ryo, the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the <i>formulation or passing</i> of law, but rather theirs is to <i>review</i> its constitutionality. Secondly, how is an Austrailian going to attempt to justify the constitutionality of the abridgements of <i>American</i> civil liberties? Not trying to be snide, but we tend to have a firmer grasp of the intricacies of our own nations documents, just as you would have a firmer grasp of Austrailian statutes.
2) The USA PATRIOT Act is the single largest abridgement of American rights in this century. The disregard for the "search and seizure" clause, the blatant use of prior restraint rhetoric, and the lack of need to have a warrant to execute searches is heinous to say the least. I think even the men who passed the law are coming to understand it was a mistake.
3) It is commonly understood that the only time there should be restraint upon someone's rights is when they violate another's. I can drive freely without restriction, but if I drive drunk and kill a family, they'll send me to jail, fine me and revoke my drivers liscense. I can write anything I care to unless it is a blatant lie with maliscious intent behind it, which is known as libel. Just as Chief Justice Holmes stated, one's rights end where another's begin. However, removing any specific entity's rights in such a manner that they are not guaranteed equal access to their rights is a blatant violation of constitutional law.
4) I guess I'm a rather strong advocate of individual entity rights (both personal and corporate), and as Benjamin Franklin once stated: "Those who are willing to sacrifice essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I'd rather live precariously free, with each man given his just due, than live safely chained--which exactly what the USA PATRIOT Act and McCain-Feingold bill are, chains.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I thank you for bringing this knowlege to light.
To further assist in your housecleaning, that is "plagiarized."
My question towards the topic, as it relates largely to the 1st admendment, is that isn't the nature of law dynamic?
While I agree that limits on free speech infringe on rights of every individual, and any encroaching limits should be examined closely and carefully, campaign finance is an problem that our forefathers may not have predicted, and therefore, not prepared for in the writing of the constitution.
You quoted Benjamin Franklin, and I'm probably misquoting, but I believe it was he who said (about the Constitution) " ...that it isn't a perfect document, but as close to one as we'll come"? Which is why we have the ability to modify it to reflect the current state of the country, as well as guide it along those principles that sparked the formation of our great country.
Previously it was stated that government funding of schools is unconstituional, yet, who would argue against it? How can you deny, in this modern age, a child a right to an education?
And as far as free speech goes, shouldn't I have the right to state my religeous beliefs in a building I helped pay for with my own money through taxes? Heck, shouldn't I be able to have my own ten personal beliefs be carved in stone and represented in a judicial courthouse? Does freedom of expression allow this? What if I was Muslim, I should be able to display my five pillars, shouldn't I?
Yet I can't. And for good reason.
There is a known difference between government and citizenships. As a citizen I pay to have my rights guarded. I work to support those who help insure my freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. As a government official your duty would be to protect those who elected you. To represent them in that government which they help fight, fund and feed.
When government fails to do these things, they fail their duty.
They fail people who elected them.
They fail those supported them.
And most importantly, they fail the system that gave them the right to such an honored duty in the first place.
This reform was passed not because of liberals. Not because of corporations. It was passed because those put in power, abused that power. I live in Illinois. If your familar at all with politics, then my state is a prime example of why the system passed this law.
This law wasn't against citizens. It was against those who abused the citizens. It was against those who abused the first admendment. It was against those who took an enlightened idea and abused it and now forces us to come to this.
I don't like it either. But there are a lot of laws that I don't like. But that's the beauty of law. Its there to set you straight whether you like it or not. And I think few would argue that when it comes to campaigning, there is a need for a few laws.
However, that is not really the issue here. Some parts of the Patriot act are extremely unconstitutional (they should be ammendments, but those would never pass due to much stronger constraints), and I'm pretty confident that the BCRA is easily within bounds of constitutional precedent, and that the high courts would rule that the BCRA does not violate free speech rights. That does not mean, however, that the BCRA is good or needed (that's not even the court's decision).
Actually, I'm in favor of cutting back on the beaurocracy on most fronts (it's horrible wasteful and often enough corrupt, states' rights, etc.) and giving government greater control over vital needs (health care, auto insurance (amusing as it is to consider it "vital"), utilities, etc.) because a market capitalistic system isn't very good at providing for the needs of all the citizens (just people who are good at the system).
My question towards the topic, as it relates largely to the 1st admendment, is that isn't the nature of law dynamic?
While I agree that limits on free speech infringe on rights of every individual, and any encroaching limits should be examined closely and carefully, campaign finance is an problem that our forefathers may not have predicted, and therefore, not prepared for in the writing of the constitution.
You quoted Benjamin Franklin, and I'm probably misquoting, but I believe it was he who said (about the Constitution) " ...that it isn't a perfect document, but as close to one as we'll come"? Which is why we have the ability to modify it to reflect the current state of the country, as well as guide it along those principles that sparked the formation of our great country.
Previously it was stated that government funding of schools is unconstituional, yet, who would argue against it? How can you deny, in this modern age, a child a right to an education?
And as far as free speech goes, shouldn't I have the right to state my religeous beliefs in a building I helped pay for with my own money through taxes? Heck, shouldn't I be able to have my own ten personal beliefs be carved in stone and represented in a judicial courthouse? Does freedom of expression allow this? What if I was Muslim, I should be able to display my five pillars, shouldn't I?
Yet I can't. And for good reason.
There is a known difference between government and citizenships. As a citizen I pay to have my rights guarded. I work to support those who help insure my freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness. As a government official your duty would be to protect those who elected you. To represent them in that government which they help fight, fund and feed.
When government fails to do these things, they fail their duty.
They fail people who elected them.
They fail those supported them.
And most importantly, they fail the system that gave them the right to such an honored duty in the first place.
This reform was passed not because of liberals. Not because of corporations. It was passed because those put in power, abused that power. I live in Illinois. If your familar at all with politics, then my state is a prime example of why the system passed this law.
This law wasn't against citizens. It was against those who abused the citizens. It was against those who abused the first admendment. It was against those who took an enlightened idea and abused it and now forces us to come to this.
I don't like it either. But there are a lot of laws that I don't like. But that's the beauty of law. Its there to set you straight whether you like it or not. And I think few would argue that when it comes to campaigning, there is a need for a few laws. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude.
Did you notice how I said limiting campign funds WAS NOT THE FREAKING ISSUE?
I'm talking about the fact that people are limited in when they can advirtise. Now that is just wrong.
I'm talking about the fact that people are limited in when they can advirtise. Now that is just wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How else do you propose that campaign funds be limited? Remember that the corporation doesn't need to give the money to the candidate to run an ad supporting the candidate. Any other law would be circumvented by taking the politician's campaign out of the chain of money and making the ad directly.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you fail to realize is, despite your beliefs, it is the issue.
The purpose of the bill and the reason it exists is to deal with campaign finance.
The first admendment is the one that is most effected by it, but again, the reason the law exists is to deal with campaign finance.
I also noticed you never answered the question about libel and slander, and how it violates our rights to free speech, in the loose definition you use.
Edit: What about tobacco commercials? Shouldn't they be allowed to advertise again? Or what about condom commercials? Perhaps ads for pornography should be allowed as well during daytime television?