NationStates Jolt Archive

*Bloomberg the nanny state facist is trying to redefine our Bill of Rights--he should be impeached for this statement

Bloomberg: Free Speech & Assembly is a “Privilege”
In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, yesterday suggested that the First Amendment rights of free speech and free assembly are "privileges" that could be lost if abused. This according to a report in Newsday. Bloomberg said "People who avail themselves of the opportunity to express themselves ... they will not abuse that privilege. Because if we start to abuse our privileges, then we lose them, and nobody wants that."

www.newsday.com

*Bloomberg the nanny state facist is trying to redefine our Bill of Rights--he should be impeached for this statement

Bloomberg: Free Speech & Assembly is a “Privilege”
In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, yesterday suggested that the First Amendment rights of free speech and free assembly are "privileges" that could be lost if abused. This according to a report in Newsday. Bloomberg said "People who avail themselves of the opportunity to express themselves ... they will not abuse that privilege. Because if we start to abuse our privileges, then we lose them, and nobody wants that."

www.newsday.com

He's just still miffed because 'High Times' magazine printed that full page ad with his quote when asked if he ever smoked pot; "I smoked it. And I enjoyed it."

Sounds like SOMEBODY needs a hug!

"YOUR freedom ends where MY nose begins."

Free speech and so on are not absolute...when they encroach on the rights of others you've got a problem because you're violating someone else's freedoms. Examples would be incitement to violence--your incitement to violence threatens someone else's inalienable right to personal security. There do have to be limits somewhere, and this may be what he's getting at. I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) this is a Lockean standpoint on freedoms. Could you please show me the exact article so I can see what context this comment was in?

He's just still miffed because 'High Times' magazine printed that full page ad with his quote when asked if he ever smoked pot; "I smoked it. And I enjoyed it."
apparently he never exhaled cause he doesnt understand democracy--he thinks hes everyones nanny

Once again, the glorious American rights that our founders tried to protect are being attacked. And guess what! Its not by some leftist 'commie' or the ACLU. Shocking.

Sounds like SOMEBODY needs a hug!
Gloomberg is toast in 05

Once again, the glorious American rights that our founders tried to protect are being attacked. And guess what! Its not by some leftist 'commie' or the ACLU. Shocking.

I do not know that the Founding Fathers stood for absence of ALL limits (which would amount to anarchy). I will have to check further into the philosophies of Locke and Montesquieu, who heavily influenced the framers of the Constitution, but I think, as said above, that when one person's "freedom" encroaches on somebody else's, that's where a natural limit occurs.

"YOUR freedom ends where MY nose begins."

Free speech and so on are not absolute...when they encroach on the rights of others you've got a problem because you're violating someone else's freedoms. Examples would be incitement to violence--your incitement to violence threatens someone else's inalienable right to personal security. There do have to be limits somewhere, and this may be what he's getting at. I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) this is a Lockean standpoint on freedoms. Could you please show me the exact article so I can see what context this comment was in?
its on newsday I think --I didnt see the original article but the context was on the people protesting the republican convention in nyc--Bloomberg used the excuse that he didnt want them in central park cause he was afraid theyd trample the grass when the real reason is hes just being a control freak ninny

*Bloomberg the nanny state facist is trying to redefine our Bill of Rights--he should be impeached for this statement

Bloomberg: Free Speech & Assembly is a “Privilege”
In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, yesterday suggested that the First Amendment rights of free speech and free assembly are "privileges" that could be lost if abused. This according to a report in Newsday. Bloomberg said "People who avail themselves of the opportunity to express themselves ... they will not abuse that privilege. Because if we start to abuse our privileges, then we lose them, and nobody wants that."

www.newsday.com

in a sense he's right, but not under the ideology he claims to hold. rights really amount to privileges, in that the government has all the weapons and can do whatever it pleases. especially in the short-term.

i kinda like it how republicans have given up even the pretense of representative democracy and just openly acknowledge their authoritarian ideal of the relation between the rulers and the ruled. makes pointing it out all the easier.

now if only more people cared...

its on newsday I think --I didnt see the original article but the context was on the people protesting the republican convention in nyc

If anyone could find the article that would be very helpful to me to see where he was coming from. Thanks.

If anyone could find the article that would be very helpful to me to see where he was coming from. Thanks.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/newyork/politics/nyc-nyprot173932333aug17,0,6736593.story?coll=nyc-manheadlines-politics

in a sense he's right, but not under the ideology he claims to hold. rights really amount to privileges, in that the government has all the weapons and can do whatever it pleases. especially in the short-term.

i kinda like it how republicans have given up even the pretense of representative democracy and just openly acknowledge their authoritarian ideal of the relation between the rulers and the ruled. makes pointing it out all the easier.

now if only more people cared...
more people are caring--I see many daily signs of dissent all over even anti-Bush stickers on the bathroom stalls at cyrils in montauk

Thanks for the article link.

The trouble with interpreting this is that there's no definition of "abuse" of the privilege. If "abuse" referred to violence against people or property, I would definitely accept that on grounds that if it got violent it would encroach on others' rights to both physical and property safety. Without his defining "abuse", I can't make a decision on this. I see that barricades have been used to keep the protestors back. I can see where, having a crowd like that, there would be safety concerns. However, I DON'T see them banned from speaking their minds or getting media attention.

Main point: let's not rush to judgment on this. Let's watch and see what he does.

Thanks for the article link.

The trouble with interpreting this is that there's no definition of "abuse" of the privilege. If "abuse" referred to violence against people or property, I would definitely accept that on grounds that if it got violent it would encroach on others' rights to both physical and property safety. Without his defining "abuse", I can't make a decision on this. I see that barricades have been used to keep the protestors back. I can see where, having a crowd like that, there would be safety concerns. However, I DON'T see them banned from speaking their minds or getting media attention.

Main point: let's not rush to judgment on this. Let's watch and see what he does.
hes limiting peoples rights by trapping them in free speech zones--freedom of expression is legal EVERYWHERE--the parks belong to the people not the grass

. . . .anti-Bush stickers on the bathroom stalls . . .
I thank you MKULTRA, you have just made me laugh like someone who was laughing, fear my 1337 4N4L0GY SK1LLZ.
Just proves, all wwaste gravitates towards the same place. Take that sentence how you will.

I think part of the fuel for the controversy is WHERE Bloomberg wants to place the protestors who wished to stage a demonstration in Central Park. As an alternative to Central Park, Bloomberg suggested a site along the West Side Highway. A site which is far to small for that group's...group, is unprotected by any kind of shade or shelter, and is right smack next to a major highway. No matter WHO'S protesting, I can definitely see why they'd be pissed.

I think, as said above, that when one person's "freedom" encroaches on somebody else's, that's where a natural limit occurs.

I agree, and even up to that limit you still retain a tremedous amound of personal freedoms

hes limiting peoples rights by trapping them in free speech zones--freedom of expression is legal EVERYWHERE--the parks belong to the people not the grass

NOT TRUE!!! The same thing happened in BOSTON during the DNC Convention. The Mayor of Boston tried to get the Protestors into free-speech zones that really weren't close to the site of the DNC! The Republican National Convention is doing the samething with Free Speech Zones. The DNC did it and I didn't here you complain MKULTRA! One might think you hate Republicans (which you do)

NOT TRUE!!! The same thing happened in BOSTON during the DNC Convention. The Mayor of Boston tried to get the Protestors into free-speech zones that really weren't close to the site of the DNC! The Republican National Convention is doing the samething with Free Speech Zones. The DNC did it and I didn't here you complain MKULTRA! One might think you hate Republicans (which you do)

can't speak for mkultra, but i did complain. as did my comrades with the bl(a)ck tea society. and the aclu.

i will grant you that its becoming a bigger issue in new york due to democrat hypocrisy. but that doesn't change the fact that these things are blatantly unconstitutional, as well as unjust and illegitimate in general. always have been, even under clinton. tu quoque is not a defense.

can't speak for mkultra, but i did complain. as did my comrades with the bl(a)ck tea society. and the aclu.

i will grant you that its becoming a bigger issue in new york due to democrat hypocrisy. but that doesn't change the fact that these things are blatantly unconstitutional, as well as unjust and illegitimate in general. always have been, even under clinton. tu quoque is not a defense.

Though I can agree with you, I believe it is the law in this country. Unless the law gets challenged and won, it won't get overturned.

Sounds like SOMEBODY needs a hug!


Eww Group hug group hug!!

:fluffle:

*Bloomberg the nanny state facist is trying to redefine our Bill of Rights--he should be impeached for this statement

Bloomberg: Free Speech & Assembly is a “Privilege”
In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, yesterday suggested that the First Amendment rights of free speech and free assembly are "privileges" that could be lost if abused. This according to a report in Newsday. Bloomberg said "People who avail themselves of the opportunity to express themselves ... they will not abuse that privilege. Because if we start to abuse our privileges, then we lose them, and nobody wants that."

www.newsday.com The fucker has also said that the health of poor people was less important than that of rich people. This is his justification for concentrating dangerous coal-burning plants and incinerators in the city's most impoverished area.

"YOUR freedom ends where MY nose begins."

Free speech and so on are not absolute...when they encroach on the rights of others you've got a problem because you're violating someone else's freedoms. Examples would be incitement to violence--your incitement to violence threatens someone else's inalienable right to personal security. There do have to be limits somewhere, and this may be what he's getting at. I believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) this is a Lockean standpoint on freedoms. Could you please show me the exact article so I can see what context this comment was in?

Ahhh but you can't have Freedom of Speech if you don't have to listen to somebody screaming at the top of their lungs against something you have spent a life time screaming for.....

Becareful when you use the 'encroach" argument. It is one thing for somebody to screaming beat that SOB up vs "I don't like it because it makes me uncomfortable."

There are "logical" limits to free speech. Example: Declared war. National secrets. My freedom of speech does not override the clearences I have held.

I don't know of too many judges that would dismiss a case against somebody describing the designs to our missiles under the argument of freedom of expression. ;)

The fucker has also said that the health of poor people was less important than that of rich people. This is his justification for concentrating dangerous coal-burning plants and incinerators in the city's most impoverished area.

Why are you surprised? He doesn't want to piss off Dick cheney.

The fucker has also said that the health of poor people was less important than that of rich people. This is his justification for concentrating dangerous coal-burning plants and incinerators in the city's most impoverished area.
Or maybe only poor people work in coal-burning plants, and its convenient for their work to be close to them?

The thread starter has subconsciously helped prove my point in my thread regarding free speech.
Everyone seems to have forgotten Bloomberg's jewishness....

NOT TRUE!!! The same thing happened in BOSTON during the DNC Convention. The Mayor of Boston tried to get the Protestors into free-speech zones that really weren't close to the site of the DNC! The Republican National Convention is doing the samething with Free Speech Zones. The DNC did it and I didn't here you complain MKULTRA! One might think you hate Republicans (which you do)

So both parties are full of assholes who don't understand the Constitution. What else is new? Although I haven't heard o fany Democrats requiring loyalty oaths to peacefully get into their speeches, so I'd say the Republicans are still ahead on the hypocrisy train right now.

Ahhh but you can't have Freedom of Speech if you don't have to listen to somebody screaming at the top of their lungs against something you have spent a life time screaming for.....

Becareful when you use the 'encroach" argument. It is one thing for somebody to screaming beat that SOB up vs "I don't like it because it makes me uncomfortable."

I was thinking of physical violence and property destruction, both of which are risks when you get an extremely large, emotionally-riled crowd together. They have a right to speak their mind, but I DON'T think they have the right to destructive conduct (as described earlier). I imagine that is a reason behind the free-speech-zones in both cities: to prevent destructive behavior while still giving them a chance to express their opinions. It's not like they'll go unheard, either. You can bet there will be quite a bit of media coverage in that area, too...demonstrations of that magnitude at an event like this are certain to make the news.

There are "logical" limits to free speech. Example: Declared war. National secrets. My freedom of speech does not override the clearences I have held.

I don't know of too many judges that would dismiss a case against somebody describing the designs to our missiles under the argument of freedom of expression. ;)

You'd have to wonder what that judge was on. ;-)

Free speech is a privledge if you get out and protest and interfere with daily proceedings you sould lose your privliedge.

Free speech is a privledge if you get out and protest and interfere with daily proceedings you sould lose your privliedge.

Correct Comrade!

Free speech is a privledge if you get out and protest and interfere with daily proceedings you sould lose your privliedge.

we already knew that you were a fascist. the point is that under the ideology democrats and republicans are supposed to hold, free speech is a right which may only be abridged in very limited circumstances (fire in a crowded theater, etc). it is absolutely not a privilege to be taken away when it pleases the state. any public official who says otherwise is violating their oath to uphold the constitution.

freedom of speech is a protected RIGHT in hte constitution, there are circumstances in which that freedom is unprotected: libel, fire in a crowded theatre (purposeful endangerment), or any other way as to insite violence. HOWEVER it cannot be given or taken away as the bloody government sees fit