NationStates Jolt Archive

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government. This was put in because at one point in colonial America a certain newspaperman disagreed with the govenor of new York and was jailed for it. The founding fathers did not want situations like this so they put that in. However, the founding fathers did not want this line to be used to protect evil. The founding fathers did not want free speech to be twisted and misinterpreted so it could protect evil groups like NAMBLA, the KKK(and all other hate groups), Playboy and other pornography, Feminazis, and these liberal traitors like Ted Rall. Yes, people do have the right to say what they want. But each of these own groups goes way over the top. NAMBLA has a freaking boy rape website. The KKK parades around burning crosses and threatening to kill about 90% of the country. Pornography is disgusting, immoral, and is a disgrace to this nation. Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder. And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy). Each of these groups, and probably several others, endanger the country in some way and should not have to be put up with. Speech is fine but this so called speech protecting these groups is dangerous.

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government. This was put in because at one point in colonial America a certain newspaperman disagreed with the govenor of new York and was jailed for it. The founding fathers did not want situations like this so they put that in. However, the founding fathers did not want this line to be used to protect evil. The founding fathers did not want free speech to be twisted and misinterpreted so it could protect evil groups like NAMBLA, the KKK(and all other hate groups), Playboy and other pornography, Feminazis, and these liberal traitors like Ted Rall. Yes, people do have the right to say what they want. But each of these own groups goes way over the top. NAMBLA has a freaking boy rape website. The KKK parades around burning crosses and threatening to kill about 90% of the country. Pornography is disgusting, immoral, and is a disgrace to this nation. Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder. And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy). Each of these groups, and probably several others, endanger the country in some way and should not have to be put up with. Speech is fine but this so called speech protecting these groups is dangerous.

Oh okay I get it. Freedom of speech unless it goes against your interests. Nice freedom.

Isn’t it wonderful, Commando2, that you too have the same First Amendment right to offer criticism and comments as everyone else in the nation. The great thing about freedom of speech is that even the most idiotic ideas (such as yours) are brought into the light of day for all to hear and judge.

that rant, commando, made me laugh quite hard. thank you!

I hate this abuse of "freedom of speech" too, but we're powerless to silence them

The founding fathers did not want free speech to be twisted and misinterpreted so it could protect evil groups ... (and all other hate groups), ... Feminazis... Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder.

Explain to me how someone describing their fellow human beings as 'feminazis' and thus attempting to stir up hatred against them doesn't fall into the same category as the hate groups you describe?

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government. This was put in because at one point in colonial America a certain newspaperman disagreed with the govenor of new York and was jailed for it. The founding fathers did not want situations like this so they put that in. However, the founding fathers did not want this line to be used to protect evil. The founding fathers did not want free speech to be twisted and misinterpreted so it could protect evil groups like NAMBLA, the KKK(and all other hate groups), Playboy and other pornography, Feminazis, and these liberal traitors like Ted Rall. Yes, people do have the right to say what they want. But each of these own groups goes way over the top. NAMBLA has a freaking boy rape website. The KKK parades around burning crosses and threatening to kill about 90% of the country. Pornography is disgusting, immoral, and is a disgrace to this nation. Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder. And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy). Each of these groups, and probably several others, endanger the country in some way and should not have to be put up with. Speech is fine but this so called speech protecting these groups is dangerous.
nice hate speech, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars

Freedom of speech is only intended to protect a certain code of morality? Wow. I was unaware. Damn.

:rolleyes:

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government.

Can I just point out that as the right to freedom of speech in the US is given by the first amendment, the founding fathers, as such, had no hand in it, instead it was proposed by congress.

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government. This was put in because at one point in colonial America a certain newspaperman disagreed with the govenor of new York and was jailed for it. The founding fathers did not want situations like this so they put that in. However, the founding fathers did not want this line to be used to protect evil. The founding fathers did not want free speech to be twisted and misinterpreted so it could protect evil groups like NAMBLA, the KKK(and all other hate groups), Playboy and other pornography, Feminazis, and these liberal traitors like Ted Rall. Yes, people do have the right to say what they want. But each of these own groups goes way over the top. NAMBLA has a freaking boy rape website. The KKK parades around burning crosses and threatening to kill about 90% of the country. Pornography is disgusting, immoral, and is a disgrace to this nation. Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder. And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy). Each of these groups, and probably several others, endanger the country in some way and should not have to be put up with. Speech is fine but this so called speech protecting these groups is dangerous.

Since when is the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association in any way similar to the Ku Klux Klan? As strange as NAMBLA is, and as much as I disagree with their viewpoints, I would (and I mean this) willingly die for their right to express themselves freely. As for so-called "feminazis," as flawed as the feminist movement is, they're just asking for the same power over themselves that men have had over them for thousands of years. I don't see how that's unreasonable. And if you're so anti-killing, then go join an antiwar protest, and become vegetarian.
Finally, how are NAMBLA, the KKK, or the feminist movement in any way connected with Al Qaeda? I just don't see the connection.

Funny how you didn't mention Ann Coulter talking about executing liberals. Or is that not hate speech?

But, I digress

Point in being: You want freedom of speech restricted for those you don't like listening to.

Freedom of speech protects your right to express yourself and not be thrown in jail for it. However, some speech is not protected -- speech which presents a clear and present danger (for instance, causing a panic or inciting a riot are not protected forms of speech.)

You still may bear the consequences for what you say (if you libel or slander someone, for instance, you are held accountable for it).

As free as people are to say what they believe, the rest of us are just as free to disagree -- or in some cases laugh loud and long at their silliness.

Eh Nambla may be distasteful but different states have different age of consent laws and reasonable people can disagree about the effectiveness and the apporiateness of age limits

The government probably is not the best arbitrator of when and what you can do with your body. I deffinitely think pre pubescent sex should probably be outlawed, for the saftey of children, but I don't think it should be against the law for 15 or 16 year olds to do what ever they want. Most teenagers do it anyway, education would do a lot more good then senseless repression.

Freedom of speech protects your right to express yourself and not be thrown in jail for it. However, some speech is not protected -- speech which presents a clear and present danger (for instance, causing a panic or inciting a riot are not protected forms of speech.)

Indeed, in the US it is legal to shout "FUCK!" in a crowded theatre, but not to shout "FIRE!".*







* assuming that there is, in fact, no fire.

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government. This was put in because at one point in colonial America a certain newspaperman disagreed with the govenor of new York and was jailed for it. The founding fathers did not want situations like this so they put that in. However, the founding fathers did not want this line to be used to protect evil. The founding fathers did not want free speech to be twisted and misinterpreted so it could protect evil groups like NAMBLA, the KKK(and all other hate groups), Playboy and other pornography, Feminazis, and these liberal traitors like Ted Rall. Yes, people do have the right to say what they want. But each of these own groups goes way over the top. NAMBLA has a freaking boy rape website. The KKK parades around burning crosses and threatening to kill about 90% of the country. Pornography is disgusting, immoral, and is a disgrace to this nation. Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder. And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy). Each of these groups, and probably several others, endanger the country in some way and should not have to be put up with. Speech is fine but this so called speech protecting these groups is dangerous.

hypocrite

Since when is the North American Man-Boy Lovers Association in any way similar to the Ku Klux Klan? As strange as NAMBLA is, and as much as I disagree with their viewpoints, I would (and I mean this) willingly die for their right to express themselves freely. As for so-called "feminazis," as flawed as the feminist movement is, they're just asking for the same power over themselves that men have had over them for thousands of years. I don't see how that's unreasonable. And if you're so anti-killing, then go join an antiwar protest, and become vegetarian.
Finally, how are NAMBLA, the KKK, or the feminist movement in any way connected with Al Qaeda? I just don't see the connection.

If you huff a lot of air freshener they become related.*

*Note: I'm not saying the original poster huffed air freshener. I just tried it and suddenly they all became related. I think the KKK and Al-Qaeda were second cousins once removed...

The KKK and Al Quieda are very similiar, both discourage independant thinking of any sort in its members and urges senseless violence against people. The KKK hate anyone who isn't a White Protestant, and Al Quieda hate anyone who falls into the infidel category, i.e. non-muslims, and some instances, non-arabic muslims.

It's just the KKK can't get anything done effectively as Al Quieda.

I may not agree with what someone has to say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it.

I may not agree with what someone has to say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it.

...and when was the last time that you actually did so?

So what makes you think you've got freedom of speech? You got an opinion to offer, keep it to yourself.

Commando2, I have to agree that the founding fathers of your nation did Not intend much of the free speech that goes on.

What is most important to consider is that these intents were created Hundreds of years ago. (1776? - I apologize if my dates are wrong). The situations that have evolved since then are hopelessly beyond the reckoning of the times.

The average North American high school student is better educated now than nearly all university students of that time. Moral and Ethical issues, whether we like it or not, Have twisted and mutated. They are more complex and involved. There is more history to consider.

It seems that a lot of people jumped all over you, but you must recognize what underlies their ire. You have used modern examples to defend principles long out of date.

The Up side is readily obvious though. Countries strive to keep up with the times. They adapt to adress the new landscape. This has only been possible because of the abilty to discuss things (free speech). It is precisely this parlance that has kept your country great over the years.

I am not out to attack you or your beliefs Commando. In the very least, You have made some of us consider a very important issue.

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government. This was put in because at one point in colonial America a certain newspaperman disagreed with the govenor of new York and was jailed for it. The founding fathers did not want situations like this so they put that in. However, the founding fathers did not want this line to be used to protect evil. The founding fathers did not want free speech to be twisted and misinterpreted so it could protect evil groups like NAMBLA, the KKK(and all other hate groups), Playboy and other pornography, Feminazis, and these liberal traitors like Ted Rall. Yes, people do have the right to say what they want. But each of these own groups goes way over the top. NAMBLA has a freaking boy rape website. The KKK parades around burning crosses and threatening to kill about 90% of the country. Pornography is disgusting, immoral, and is a disgrace to this nation. Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder. And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy). Each of these groups, and probably several others, endanger the country in some way and should not have to be put up with. Speech is fine but this so called speech protecting these groups is dangerous.


Yeah!

Damn those people for insisting on the right to spew unfair hateful crap....

oh wait.

Nevermind.

It seems that a lot of people jumped all over you, but you must recognize what underlies their ire. You have used modern examples to defend principles long out of date.


The day the principle of freedom of speech goes "out of date", so do the concepts of freedom and democracy.

Freedom of Speech is for everyone, and everything, you cant say, well I like your views you can defenitely speak, and I dont like your views you can not talk.

The founding fathers intended everyone to voice opinions on anything.

w00t censorship

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government..........And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy).
So you insult Ted Rall for doing what the founding fathers specifically gave him the right to do? That is, criticising his government and country.

Also, the founding fathers were smart men. If they wanted to ban "evil" speech, they would have put in a universal definition of what "evil speech" is.

Folks lets be honest, there were speech limitations in the Founding Father's idea of government. Why do you think people were imprisioned during several wars for issuing anti-US sentiment. It is only recently that this true "free speech" has been granted. He is correct in stating that the free speech we have now is different from the free speech that was allowed in 1790. Now which is better, is up for debating.

I could be wrong on this one, but if we are going to be talking about the founders, I don't think the very earliest Original intent of the founders was to protect freedom of Speach. Thats why the first amendment was an amendment, not an article. The bill of rights were I believe a concession to the anti federalists to get them to sign on to to the new constitution.

That being said I think the first amendment is by deffinitely one of the best amendements right up there with 5 an 14, without it we would probably be a theocracy, however, the founders were not one uniform monolithic body in total agreement on everything.

Freedom of Speech... or any Freedom is wasted if it does not come with some restraint. Now, FoS protects everyone's right to say anything they want. However, there are exceptions. National Secrets are one. and another thing, You may have the right to say anything, but be warned, the public has a right to respond to what you say. The Dixie Chicks learned this the hard way. They can say what they said... and I'll defend their right to say it. but if I find what they say offensive, and so do thousands of others, then they cannot blame us when their record sales fall. Sanied O'Conner also learned this truth when she tore the picture of the Pope and delcared that we should "fight the real enemy." Her singing career was over. Say what you want, but take the reprocussions that come with saying what you want. Wheather that be Jail time, or being turned into a Piarah.

All of you saying you would die for the right of NAMBLA to get free speech, I ask you, why would you die for a bunch of immoral boy loving sinful pedophiles?

All of you saying you would die for the right of NAMBLA to get free speech, I ask you, why would you die for a bunch of immoral boy loving sinful pedophiles?


Exactly! That's exactly what they meant, and on your part, that's a perfectly relevant and complete way of looking at freedom of speech!

All of you saying you would die for the right of NAMBLA to get free speech, I ask you, why would you die for a bunch of immoral boy loving sinful pedophiles?


There is no need for NAMBLA to 'get' free speech in the US - they already have it. Would you prefer it if the entire populace of the country were unable to discuss sexual issues?

a bunch of immoral boy loving sinful pedophiles?

The way that you call them 'immoral boy loving sinful pedophiles' implies that either it is possible to be 'moral boy loving sinless pedophiles', or you are getting carried away with trying to ram your values down other peoples throats... hey, isn't that just what you were complaining about in the original post?

There is no need for NAMBLA to 'get' free speech in the US - they already have it. Would you prefer it if the entire populace of the country were unable to discuss sexual issues?

I think that's where they're headed...

I am against gay marriage/civil unions because allowing the sodomites to act in their immoral ways symbolizes the destruction of our country. First we allow gays to marry, next we'll be allowing polygamy. Its sickening. I personally think sodomy should be made a crime.

Actually, I would like that. Only a married man and women should be able to have sex. Anything else is immoral IMO.

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government. This was put in because at one point in colonial America a certain newspaperman disagreed with the govenor of new York and was jailed for it. The founding fathers did not want situations like this so they put that in. However, the founding fathers did not want this line to be used to protect evil. The founding fathers did not want free speech to be twisted and misinterpreted so it could protect evil groups like NAMBLA, the KKK(and all other hate groups), Playboy and other pornography, Feminazis, and these liberal traitors like Ted Rall. Yes, people do have the right to say what they want. But each of these own groups goes way over the top. NAMBLA has a freaking boy rape website. The KKK parades around burning crosses and threatening to kill about 90% of the country. Pornography is disgusting, immoral, and is a disgrace to this nation. Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder. And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy). Each of these groups, and probably several others, endanger the country in some way and should not have to be put up with. Speech is fine but this so called speech protecting these groups is dangerous.

NAMBLA, KKK and pornography, you might have a point with. But as you say, abortion is legal, so how can you say that the founding fathers would wish to supress the political speach of "feminazis" who simply wish to keep it legal? You would first have to assume that they would agree with your position on abortion, and then you would have to assume that they would supress the speach of those who disagree with their views, even when their views are not expressed in the law. As for "liberal traitors" like Ted Ral, what has he said that is actually treasonous? Has he, like the traitor Novak, revealed the name of undercover US operatives? Has he, like the buffoon Rivera, broadcast troop movements on live tv? Or has he simply expressed views that you, and the current administration, disagree with?

The founding fathers also did not define what is "evil", as that is a religious/spiritual issue. They were concerned with creating a secularist government that took no positions on religious/spiritual issues, only on the Rule of Law.

Lastly, you and those like you are a disgrace to this nation, for seeking to supress the political dissent of feminists and other liberals. Dont like it? Move to Iran.

In fact, let's just go outright and ban sex altogether. And love. People might express themselves a bit too much. Hell, let's get rid of human instincts altogether.

I think that's where they're headed...

Dateline: USA 2010

... huddled perverted wretches meet in their squalid hovels to pass around dog-eared samizdat copies of the Song of Solomon, fearful lest their deviant ways come to the attention of the guardians of purity and the true intentions of the founding fathers*...




* despite the fact that it wasn't the founding fathers that drafted the first amendment, but why let the facts get in the way of a good argument?

All of you saying you would die for the right of NAMBLA to get free speech, I ask you, why would you die for a bunch of immoral boy loving sinful pedophiles?

another interesting point is that even with free speech, it isn't automatically propelling NAMBLA to fame and power. As if giving them freedom of speech alone would be enough to make that happen.

Actually, I would like that. Only a married man and women should be able to have sex. Anything else is immoral IMO.

A singular 'married man' and plural 'women'?

I agree with the thread author that freedom of speech has been twisted (same as freedom of the press), but not with him in specific.
I find it rather annoying that you can practically get away with murder if you scream 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH!' loud enough. Like the 'protestors' against the Afghanistan war, who chained themselves up in the streets of several cities, blocked traffic, and screwed peoples day up, because they didnt like what the govornment did.
I rather like the phrase "Freedom of speech ends at my nose.", though this doesnt seem to apply anymore.

I may not agree with what someone has to say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it.

Shutup. That's clearly Voltaire or someone (forgot who). Even if its relevant it sounds more like you wanted to say something cool than contribute to the thread.

A singular 'married man' and plural 'women'?

Commando2 is condoning male masturbation and lesbianism...but nothing else.

Commando2 is condoning male masturbation and lesbianism...but nothing else.

Ah, I thought he was advocating polygamous sexual activity.

Ah, I thought he was advocating polygamous sexual activity.

I'm hoping for legal polygamy in the UK by 2007.

All of you saying you would die for the right of NAMBLA to get free speech, I ask you, why would you die for a bunch of immoral boy loving sinful pedophiles?That's not the point... They can proclaim their mandate, declare their love for little boys... however, should they become outcasts of society BECAUSE of their declared mandate... then they cannot blame anyone but themselves. When everyone looks at them as sick and deseased puppies that should be drowned, then that is everyone's right to do so. Should the government crack down on those sick puppies looking for Child Porn on their computers, and arresting them for Child Porn, I say go for it, because they made themselves targets by forming and declairing themselvs as sick, perverted F**kers. After all, being a member of NAMBLA is (in my eyes anyway) justified cause to search their homes for Child Pornography and slinging their butts into jail.

And that is me Exersicing my Rights of Free Speech.

Ah, I thought he was advocating polygamous sexual activity.

I doubt it, aren't most people who want to ban sexual activity on this forum insanely frustrated virgins?

I doubt it, aren't most people who want to ban sexual activity on this forum insanely frustrated virgins?

"If I can't have any - no-one can!" :D

A singular 'married man' and plural 'women'?

Yup: biblical polygamy only. Surprised?

Ah, the irony. This kind of political dissent would be the very FIRST kind of speech censored by a government that does not grant the freedom of speech.

I doubt it, aren't most people who want to ban sexual activity on this forum insanely frustrated virgins?

Well, personally, I'm all for banning sexual activity on this forum, but...

...as to whether most people on this forum who want to ban sexual activity are insanely frustrated virgins, that is a different matter.

Commando, why do you have to be so anti-american?

Yup: biblical polygamy only. Surprised?

Nope.


_________


Commando2, I have a reading suggestion for you - Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale... I think it would be right up your alley.

D'Oh! I meant woman sorry for the mistake. And like I said earlier, only a man and a woman in holy matrimony should be allowed to have sex. All the people who have sex before marriage are acting immoral IMO.

D'Oh! I meant woman sorry for the mistake. And like I said earlier, only a man and a woman in holy matrimony should be allowed to have sex. All the people who have sex before marriage are acting immoral IMO.

They're acting immoral? So they aren't actually immoral (by your definitons), they are merely pretending?

D'Oh! I meant woman sorry for the mistake. And like I said earlier, only a man and a woman in holy matrimony should be allowed to have sex. All the people who have sex before marriage are acting immoral IMO.

Just curious, are you a peeping tom? I can't really fathom why'd you care if someone was having premarital sex.

Against my religion.

Against my religion.

So then YOU don't do it!

Well, personally, I'm all for banning sexual activity on this forum, but...

...as to whether most people on this forum who want to ban sexual activity are insanely frustrated virgins, that is a different matter.

Touché Bodies without organs you have bested me in grammatical combat… But actually I can sympathize with the plight of the poor poster driven to insanity from a total deprivation of sexual experience. Two weeks without getting some and my head is spinning and I start speaking in tongues. Perhaps we should start a collection and call an escort service to send a girl to poor Mr Commando to cure him of his curse? Shall I get things started with a pledge of $5?

Against my religion.

Having the number 2 in a username is against my religion. Please start using another name without this satanic number in it, you immoral heathen!

All the people who have sex before marriage are acting immoral IMO.

I can't really fathom why'd you care if someone was having premarital sex.

Against my religion.

So you readily admit that your religion is just a matter of opinion?

So then YOU don't do it!

Don't you realize that it is his moral duty to impose his religious views upon everybody? It's the christian path and it's the american way!

Don't you realize that it is his moral duty to impose his religious views upon everybody? It's the christian path and it's the american way!

Sarcasm is against my religion. Stop that! :D

Sarcasm is against my religion. Stop that! :D

I don't have to because the FF (Founding Fathers, not Fantastic Four) enshrined the freedom of sarcasm in th Ten Commandments, as well as the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Plus, you probably don't realize this but the entire US Constitution was just congrefs being sarcastic. ;) Especially the part about keeping and baring arms. Wotta larf!

...you didn't think it was serious, did you?

I don't have to because the FF (Founding Fathers, not Fantastic Four) enshrined the freedom of sarcasm in th Ten Commandments, as well as the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. Plus, you probably don't realize this but the entire US Constitution was just congrefs being sarcastic. ;) Especially the part about keeping and baring arms. Wotta larf!

...you didn't think it was serious, did you?
Saying stuff is against your religion is afainst my religion as is sarcasm :)

...you didn't think it was serious, did you?

Of course not. The whole concept of the "United States of America" is laughable. I'd never believe that something so absurd could actually exist.

I think the word you are looking for is "sedition." That "some guy" you conjure in New York was jailed for. Realizing that the U.S. was a British colony, and that this "some guy," was most likely jailed for, as Webster's puts it, "stirring up rebellion against the government," and was a British citizen, you have a small point. Benjamin Franklin was very aware of the tradition of a government with hereditary succession abusing both freedoms of speech and press. He often chastised other printers and writers for spurious attacks and unfounded grandstanding. While this may not be what our "founding fathers," may have envisioned, I don't think the microchip has done much to improve or alter the trend that Franklin abhorred. In fact, it seems to exist today in growing numbers of bloggers and pos[t]ers. And, as far as traitorous behavior, the founders you so quaintly and inaccuractly give credit too, most always had their own shortcomings, most commonly adultery and alchoholism. Since it was technically a British colony, that makes them all traitors, too. Things are rarely that simple, simpleton.

I think the word you are looking for is "sedition." That "some guy" you conjure in New York was jailed for. Realizing that the U.S. was a British colony, and that this "some guy," was most likely jailed for, as Webster's puts it, "stirring up rebellion against the government," and was a British citizen, you have a small point. Benjamin Franklin was very aware of the tradition of a government with hereditary succession abusing both freedoms of speech and press. He often chastised other printers and writers for spurious attacks and unfounded grandstanding. While this may not be what our "founding fathers," may have envisioned, I don't think the microchip has done much to improve or alter the trend that Franklin abhorred. In fact, it seems to exist today in growing numbers of bloggers and pos[t]ers. And, as far as traitorous behavior, the founders you so quaintly and inaccuractly give credit too, most always had their own shortcomings, most commonly adultery and alchoholism. Since it was technically a British colony, that makes them all traitors, too. Things are rarely that simple, simpleton.

Did you actually create a puppet just to call him a simpleton?

Talking on a message board is against my religion...oh, shit, I'm going to hell. AHHHHH!!! OH NOOOOOO!!!

And for the record, I like lesbians, gays, pedophiles, women who have unmarital sex, men who have unmarital sex, athiests, agnosts, pornography, Jews, big big titties, and anything else Commando2 would hate.
And I hate God, religion, and any halfwit who tries to spew the pablum of the doped masses.

But in all seriousness, one must argue semantics of such words as "immoral" and "pornography" as what are they? One could take the Nietzschean approach to "immorality" and say that anything which is "moral" became so as a result of an "immoral" act, or that in essence, as I've read Nietzsche, there is nothing inherently "immoral" but instead man has created such. Then one must fathom ideas about pornography. As some might describe it, Michealangelo's "David" would be pornography because you can (using the vocabulary most attuned to those who would take offence to the sculpture) "see his pee pee" and that nudity just shouldn't be acceptable. I mean, hey, it's not like we're born naked or anything, right? *last comment laden with heavy sarcasm*

In the words of one of the most famous pictures ever to be tossed around the internet, "Get a brain, MORANS!" (sic).

Of course not. The whole concept of the "United State of America" is laughable. I'd never believe that something so absurd could actually exist.

Aha! You are quite correct.

It SHOULD be the Combined Nation of the Empire of Republica and the Rogue Nation of Democratia.

!!LIBERAL WEBSITE WARNING!!
http://www.retrovsmetro.com/book/chapter_1.html?c=1&p=1

Edit: Oh, and if you come to an online forum to push your morals around, please spare us and go home...

Unless you want us to have fun...

First of all, if you are going to argue for freedom of speech, use facts, not opinions. Abortion, which I find inherently wrong, does not have a clear standing as to what determines murder vs. safety. Until at such a time that you are able to have a court ruling on a national level stating what abortion should be defined as, then you cannot in clear conscience state that abortion is leglized murder. Secondly, it's the very principles that you are fighting against that you are using. The right to protest someones use of speech is as you put it, not defined in the Constitution or its ammendments as being protected. So remember, get the facts.

Glenorand :sniper:

Perhaps not a puppet. (/smirk). Just a good example. Been reading Ben's writing, and am ripping off the style.

Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's TaleWhen I first read that book five years ago in high school, before having discussed much with US citizens outside of RPG forums, I thought it was horribly exaggerated and could never really happen. Looking at all the crap being spouted on this forum, and considering the US education system and political arena, it seems more and more likely that that particular dystopia will come true.

When I first read that book five years ago in high school, before having discussed much with US citizens outside of RPG forums, I thought it was horribly exaggerated and could never really happen. Looking at all the crap being spouted on this forum, and considering the US education system and political arena, it seems more and more likely that that particular dystopia will come true.

This is the beauty in it all. From all the mash, we may distill something quite warming and comforting, though I hope we never reach that level of intoxication. I'm just gonna ride the bus, in the back, wherever the road leads. If it gets bumpy, it just means interesting countryside, usually.

Looking at all the crap being spouted on this forum, and considering the US education system and political arena, it seems more and more likely that that particular dystopia will come true.

I think it unliklely that a word as cumbersome as 'econowives' will ever come into common usage, but the point to remember here is that like all science-fiction* The Handmaid's Tale isn't about the future, its about the past.




* Despite Atwood's claims that her novels aren't sci-fi because they don't feature 'talking squids in space'. Yeah, right.

I think it unliklely that a word as cumbersome as 'econowives' will ever come into common usage, but the point to remember here is that like all science-fiction* The Handmaid's Tale isn't about the future, its about the past.I read the book in Finnish, so I don't concern myself with the language -- but I'm sure you realized that.

I'll stop being scared shitless about the relationship between church and state in the US once 10 years have passed without any real attempt to get fundamentalist christian style creationism into biology classes in public schools in any school district.

Why shouldn't creationism be taught in schools? Its not a belief that is exclusive to one religion, as many share it. And evolution should be taught too. Then students can make up their mind about which theory they will follow, instead of being only taught evolution.

Why shouldn't creationism be taught in schools? Its not a belief that is exclusive to one religion, as many share it. And evolution should be taught too. Then students can make up their mind about which theory they will follow, instead of being only taught evolution.

So, you advocate that the system of beliefs wherein Atem masturbated the world into existence should also be taught: after all, then students can make up their mind about which theory they will follow, yes?

Why shouldn't creationism be taught in schools? Its not a belief that is exclusive to one religion, as many share it. And evolution should be taught too. Then students can make up their mind about which theory they will follow, instead of being only taught evolution.

Evolution is more scientifically backed (yes, that matters) because it can be tested, and although we can't prove it to be true, the level at which we assume it's true (scientific method... duhh) requires soooooooo much less of a *leap* than creationism, so much so that it is wholly unfair to place them on the same level as side-by-side, valid assumptions.

Some kids beleive that storks deliver babies to their parents. Maybe there is something we don't know... maybe there are storks involved somehow, but we sure as hell can't teach that to our kids until there is something to back it up.

Perhaps we should start a collection and call an escort service to send a girl to poor Mr Commando to cure him of his curse? Shall I get things started with a pledge of $5?

I shall add 5 Dollarfrancmarkpesetas to just such a fund, in order to shut him up! :D

Why shouldn't creationism be taught in schools? Its not a belief that is exclusive to one religion, as many share it. And evolution should be taught too. Then students can make up their mind about which theory they will follow, instead of being only taught evolution.

Creation myths, even if true, are not theories but dogmas. Thus they have no place in science classes.

Can somebody explain to me what the theory of creationism is beyond "There is a greater divine power, known as a God to most religions, that created the world?"

Seriously, what else is there to the theory of creationism?

By the way, Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a religious/philosophical theory. So teach creationism in a philosophy or religion class, not in a science class.

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government. This was put in because at one point in colonial America a certain newspaperman disagreed with the govenor of new York and was jailed for it. The founding fathers did not want situations like this so they put that in. However, the founding fathers did not want this line to be used to protect evil. The founding fathers did not want free speech to be twisted and misinterpreted so it could protect evil groups like NAMBLA, the KKK(and all other hate groups), Playboy and other pornography, Feminazis, and these liberal traitors like Ted Rall. Yes, people do have the right to say what they want. But each of these own groups goes way over the top. NAMBLA has a freaking boy rape website. The KKK parades around burning crosses and threatening to kill about 90% of the country. Pornography is disgusting, immoral, and is a disgrace to this nation. Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder. And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy). Each of these groups, and probably several others, endanger the country in some way and should not have to be put up with. Speech is fine but this so called speech protecting these groups is dangerous.I have to ask this. Are you of the opinion that the founding fathers were morons? I mean, really, do you not think that they thought of stuff like this? If you do, then I beg of you, pick up a history book and look at what they say, outside of the constuition, on the role of government. It has nothing to do with the circumstances they envisioned in the future, it's about what a powers a democratically elected assembly should have over their people. I have no doubt that Jefferson, Franklin and the like would have objected to the KKK, NAMBLA and the rest, but I still think they would have seen, as every other sane person does, that there is no way to protect freedom only to a certain degree.

Can somebody explain to me what the theory of creationism is beyond "There is a greater divine power, known as a God to most religions, that created the world?"

Seriously, what else is there to the theory of creationism?

By the way, Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is a religious/philosophical theory. So teach creationism in a philosophy or religion class, not in a science class.
Check this out (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7519617&posted=1#post7519617)

I have to ask this. Are you of the opinion that the founding fathers were morons? I mean, really, do you not think that they thought of stuff like this? If you do, then I beg of you, pick up a history book and look at what they say, outside of the constuition, on the role of government. It has nothing to do with the circumstances they envisioned in the future, it's about what a powers a democratically elected assembly should have over their people. I have no doubt that Jefferson, Franklin and the like would have objected to the KKK, NAMBLA and the rest, but I still think they would have seen, as every other sane person does, that there is no way to protect freedom only to a certain degree.

Well said, Spoffin. In fact, you've reminded me of something that my former US Constitutional History professor once said: "Freedom of speech protects the speech you hate as well as the speech you love." As you said, there is no way to protect freedom only to a certain degree. Either you protect the freedom of all groups to speak as they wish, or you protect none of them. By limiting one group's right to free speech based upon a leader's subjective biases and whims, a government subjects all other groups to just such a potential limitation, which will mean that many other groups will be self-censoring whether or not the government has censorship in mind for them. In effect, a psychological barrier against freedom of speech will be put in place even if a legal barrier doesn't exist, which a corrupt government can obviously use to its advantage.

Spoffin, you got my hopes up... :sniper:

I think I'm going to make a post actually...

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government. This was put in because at one point in colonial America a certain newspaperman disagreed with the govenor of new York and was jailed for it.

Commando2 actually made a vague reference to a German printer living in colonial America named John Peter Zenger, who decided to publicly print criticism of New York Province's then-governor William Cosby. Instead of explaining the wherefores and whys of the John Peter Zenger case, I shall refer you all to a website that explains it far better than I can:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zengeraccount.html

Well said, Spoffin. In fact, you've reminded me of something that my former US Constitutional History professor once said: "Freedom of speech protects the speech you hate as well as the speech you love." As you said, there is no way to protect freedom only to a certain degree. Either you protect the freedom of all groups to speak as they wish, or you protect none of them. By limiting one group's right to free speech based upon a leader's subjective biases and whims, a government subjects all other groups to just such a potential limitation, which will mean that many other groups will be self-censoring whether or not the government has censorship in mind for them. In effect, a psychological barrier against freedom of speech will be put in place even if a legal barrier doesn't exist, which a corrupt government can obviously use to its advantage.
Exactly. There is no freedom if its just the speech that's agreed on, it becomes just touting the government's line. Any limit undermines the whole thing, because it establishes the precedent of limits to freedom.

Commando2 actually made a vague reference to a German printer living in colonial America named John Peter Zenger, who decided to publicly print criticism of New York Province's then-governor William Cosby. Instead of explaining the wherefores and whys of the John Peter Zenger case, I shall refer you all to a website that explains it far better than I can:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/zengeraccount.html
Incidentally, freedom of the press came from the Zenger case. Freedom of speech came from somewhere else.

I love this thread.

I love it because in it is the true feelings of the Bush Administration and its supporters to dissent; "It must be silenced, not just ignored".

We see this in the detention of anyone who protests the President, the defamation of anyone who disagrees with Bush. Usually conservatives will go to great lengths to deny this is the case.

The government has specific rights to limit free speech at a time of war. One of the reasons we had The House Committee On Un-American Activity during the Cold War was to limit free speech with no officially declared war. We are in a similar situation today. Congress had not Officially declared war on anyone. Like Vietnam, the war on terrorism and Iraq are Presidential Police Actions.

You can call a Police Action a "War", but constitutionally it's not. When a war is declared it becomes the patriotic duty of every American to do everything in their power to see that war to a successful conclusion. A Police Action on the other hand is subject to the same political rules as any other Presidential Policy.

What HAS Bush done to get rid of free speech? Honestly, you saw the protests, right?

Exactly. There is no freedom if its just the speech that's agreed on, it becomes just touting the government's line. Any limit undermines the whole thing, because it establishes the precedent of limits to freedom.

Generally speaking I agree with you. However, I just thought of a possible exception to what you're saying:

Take the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in New York Times v. United States, for example. Despite the fact that the document published by the New York Times and the Washington Post, entitled "History of U.S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy," was originally a classified document, the Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 majority vote that suppressing its publication was a clear violation of the First Amendment. Ever since this ruling, meticulous details of subsequent American wars have been publicised for the American public to digest at their leisure. Many would argue that because of extensive war coverage allowed indirectly by the Supreme Court ruling, the US military is no longer able to perform its tasks correctly for extensive security risks.

What say you to this argument (bear in mind I don't necessarily agree with it, merely that I submit it for your consideration)?

What HAS Bush done to get rid of free speech? Honestly, you saw the protests, right?

Yes, and the holding pens, as well as the "Free Speach Zones."

...and as has been said before: I thought the whole country was supposed to be a "Free Speach Zone."

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government. This was put in because at one point in colonial America a certain newspaperman disagreed with the govenor of new York and was jailed for it. The founding fathers did not want situations like this so they put that in. However, the founding fathers did not want this line to be used to protect evil. The founding fathers did not want free speech to be twisted and misinterpreted so it could protect evil groups like NAMBLA, the KKK(and all other hate groups), Playboy and other pornography, Feminazis, and these liberal traitors like Ted Rall. Yes, people do have the right to say what they want. But each of these own groups goes way over the top. NAMBLA has a freaking boy rape website. The KKK parades around burning crosses and threatening to kill about 90% of the country. Pornography is disgusting, immoral, and is a disgrace to this nation. Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder. And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy). Each of these groups, and probably several others, endanger the country in some way and should not have to be put up with. Speech is fine but this so called speech protecting these groups is dangerous.

And that's why we have the 1st Amendment, my friend, to both protect your right to offend people... while you're bitching about offensive speech, and my right to disagree with you.

None of us can know what the American founding fathers intended... unless, is that you BEN FRANKLIN!?! Wait, no, nevermind. All we know is what was written, which protects ALL speech. As it is, our free speech rights are being infringed apon, but that's another thread for another time.

But, for argument's sake, lets look at this fairly. First of all, you label these things evil - "NAMBLA, the KKK(and all other hate groups), Playboy and other pornography, Feminazis, and these liberal traitors like Ted Rall." Evil is a subjective term. What is evil to you may not be evil to me. For example, Playboy isn't evil to me, neither is Ted Rall. He's actually kinda funny and enjoyable. Granted, NAMBLA and the KKK both promote actions illegal under U.S. law, but that's just it... if anyone acts on Nambla's or the KKK's messages, they go to jail. And the groups themselves can be held liable if thier speech directly incited the incident. Free speech is not allowed to cause harm to people, i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

"Pornography is disgusting, immoral, and is a disgrace to this nation. Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder. And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy)."

K, next statement. Once again, to you, Porn is disgusting, immoral and a disgrace. Though many may agree with you, many disagree, and no one forces you to buy a playboy, or order the channel. By my logic, no one should conversely force me not to buy a playboy. To abortion, it is legal. That is the law, regardless of my or your opinion. It is not murder under the law. Barring these people's free speech doesn't change the law. On to Ted Rall. You are making serious accusations. If you do have proof of Mr. Rall offering aid to Al-Quaida, and you feel you need to act, tell the government. But just boosting the enemy's confidence is not aiding the enemy. Aiding them would be either offering supplies or intelligence. Just disagreeing with the government or not supporting the military considered as "aiding the enemy" would mean that 49% of America would fit under your definition.

"Each of these groups, and probably several others, endanger the country in some way and should not have to be put up with."

Some of the KKK does endanger the country. That I agree with. However, like I said, laws are in place to protect people should rascists try to harm people. It is interesting to note that the mainstream KKK, a political party called the White Knights party, doesn't support murder or violence. They claim they are a white rights group. Nambla doesn't endanger the country, it only endangers individuals. Once again, statutory rape and pedophilia laws are there to stop them should they act. As to Feminazis, they don't endanger anyone. They are pro-women's rights. The small group that does want to take away men's rights are stopped by the U.S. constitution, and various equal rights laws.
Simply speaking out for one's belief doesn't harm anyone.

"Speech is fine but this so called speech protecting these groups is dangerous."

I'd have to disagree. First, arguments against groups are subjective and opinions vary widely. Secondly, there is no danger to anyone from words. If the action those words support is illegal, then there are laws that make the action illegal.

In conclusion, I'd say thank god for the ACLU!

I agree with...the overwhelming majority of posters here. Commando2, you're being a hypocrite in the purest sense of the word. You claim that we should limit/ban speech that is offensive or hateful in you opinion...by ranting in a manner that is offensive and hateful to many on this forum. We have a 1st amendment for a reason.



In conclusion, I'd say thank god for the ACLU!
You mean, "thank [insert deity of choice, or leave blank] for the ACLU!" ;)

Yes, and the holding pens, as well as the "Free Speach Zones."

...and as has been said before: I thought the whole country was supposed to be a "Free Speach Zone."

Exactly.

You mean, "thank [insert deity of choice, or leave blank] for the ACLU!" ;)

:p

I love this thread.

I love it because in it is the true feelings of the Bush Administration and its supporters to dissent; "It must be silenced, not just ignored".

Don't you love the type of people who claim to be for fairness and judging people as individuals, all against any form of discrimination except when it comes to "conservatives" or "Bush supporters" or "rednecks"?

(And yes, I am aware you did not state how awesomely fair you were. Your post just reminded me of a lot of people like that)

The great thing about freedom of the press is that it is reserved for those who own one. If you don't like what the KKK, NAMBLA, and Playboy put on their websites just buy their ISPs and hosting services and shut them down.

Hmm... Amall Madnar?
You make similar topic choices and have a similar style.

DNFTT

...but if I find what they say offensive, and so do thousands of others, then they cannot blame us when their record sales fall. .
tell that to Eminem....he is gonna tell you to fuck-off

Of course not. The whole concept of the "United States of America" is laughable. I'd never believe that something so absurd could actually exist.

hey! i seem to recall seeing that phrase before...

Hmm... Amall Madnar?
You make similar topic choices and have a similar style.

DNFTT

Was this question directed at me?
If so, no. I'm an Actual Honest to Tao Newbie TM
If not, I never made this post.

Was this question directed at me?

Nope, it was directed to the OP.

If so, no. I'm an Actual Honest to Tao Newbie TM
If not, I never made this post.

:::waves hand mysteriously at Karas, a la Obi-wan Kenobi:::

This isn't the post you're looking for.
You never posted it.

;)

(And welcome on board. :))

Edit: Oh, and just to note, I totally agree with you about freedom of the press.

hey! i seem to recall seeing that phrase before...

Recollections are against my religion...as is creationism.

Against my religion.
But, I don't give a flying fsck about your religion, nor any other religion. Why on earth should I have to follow what you do? That is dictatorship at it's worst.

I will defend your right to think whatever you want as long as you don't try to push your insane ideas on me or would you accept let's say NAMBLA's ideas pushed onto you? Different name, same concept.

<extreme sarcasm on>
I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice for all....unless they're mouthy wimmin who won't stay home and mind my kids and make my dinner or some damn ferriner pinko commie homo basterds tryin to make me sterile with their evuhl penile-2-penile rays and steal my job goddammit.
<extreme sarcasm off>

To the original poster: Uhm... your stupid is showing, honey. Just thought I should let you know.

LMFAO!

Booslandia, that was brilliant! You just imitated Commando2 AND Eric Cartman in one post!

LMFAO!

Booslandia, that was brilliant! You just imitated Commando2 AND Eric Cartman in one post!

<curtsies> Thank you, thank you. Hee hee hee, every once in a while I manage to puke up something funny intentionally. Most of the time it's just an accident. She shoots! She scores! Woooo!

And am I the only one who notices distinct similarities between Comm and Cartman?

Don't you love the type of people who claim to be for fairness and judging people as individuals, all against any form of discrimination except when it comes to "conservatives" or "Bush supporters" or "rednecks"?

(And yes, I am aware you did not state how awesomely fair you were. Your post just reminded me of a lot of people like that)


Case in point with this Bush Supporter. Notice that defamation is utilized when no argument can be made. Also notice that the person adopts a liberal persona of "Anti Discrimination" to make a right wing attack.

This is the text of my post on the current climate of free speech in America:



I love this thread.

I love it because in it is the true feelings of the Bush Administration and its supporters to dissent; "It must be silenced, not just ignored".

We see this in the detention of anyone who protests the President, the defamation of anyone who disagrees with Bush. Usually conservatives will go to great lengths to deny this is the case.

The government has specific rights to limit free speech at a time of war. One of the reasons we had The House Committee On Un-American Activity during the Cold War was to limit free speech with no officially declared war. We are in a similar situation today. Congress had not Officially declared war on anyone. Like Vietnam, the war on terrorism and Iraq are Presidential Police Actions.

You can call a Police Action a "War", but constitutionally it's not. When a war is declared it becomes the patriotic duty of every American to do everything in their power to see that war to a successful conclusion. A Police Action on the other hand is subject to the same political rules as any other Presidential Policy.


I say again to all conservatives on this board.

Only through an act of Congress can war Constitutionally be declared. When war is declared our rights as US citizens change in regard to the tone of public discourse concerning all matters of that war. Don't call other Americans traitors because Bush didn't have the guts to ask Congress to declare a war. They're just being patriotic citizens exercising their rights of free speech.

...and when was the last time that you actually did so?

I did it for 26 years as a member of the U.S. military.

I say again to all conservatives on this board.

Only through an act of Congress can war Constitutionally be declared. When war is declared our rights as US citizens change in regard to the tone of public discourse concerning all matters of that war. Don't call other Americans traitors because Bush didn't have the guts to ask Congress to declare a war. They're just being patriotic citizens exercising their rights of free speech.


You do realise that is the conserevative position and that Bush (and most of the recent presidents, including Clinton and Reagan) have been progresives, don't you. Please don't permit Bush and his gang further usurp the proper title of conservative.

I did it for 26 years as a member of the U.S. military.

Fair enough.

(honest question)

Did you think that during that time the US military was being used to spread American values abroad or just to do whatever was necessary to maintain American values in America, even if it meant, for example, taking away the liberties of foreigners in their own countries? (honest question)

Okay, pardon my ignorance, but who is Ted Rall?

Freedom of speech is important, because not only are ignorant, bigoted barbarians allowed to express their views, but their more civilized and enlightened peers are also allowed to verbally tear them to pieces.

Freedom of speech is important, because not only are ignorant, bigoted barbarians allowed to express their views, but their more civilized and enlightened peers are also allowed to verbally tear them to pieces.

So you support a tyranny of the intellect, then? It is a good thing that the mentally more adept can keep the less mentally adept down, but the more physically adept are not allowed to keep the less physically adept down?

Okay, pardon my ignorance, but who is Ted Rall?

*cough*

I think freedom of speech isn't the issue, but the very fact that groups of people in this nation are gathering together to even think about groups like NAMBLA, etc. Poor framers and early Congressmen didn't see what was coming. You have DARE against drugs, but you don't have kiddie programs against becoming a pedophile. Maybe the government could support some organizations that go around and simply encourage people to think about what they're doing. Just nudge people lightly and kindly and be like, "Hey, you know, that's not too cool.."...

Wow... Commando2 must run on like auto-moron mode or something....

Did you think that during that time the US military was being used to spread American values abroad or just to do whatever was necessary to maintain American values in America, even if it meant, for example, taking away the liberties of foreigners in their own countries? (honest question)

Wow! That's a damn good question. No, I never thought that the military was being used, either then or now, to “spread American values.” I never felt the American military was being used “to do whatever was necessary to maintain American values in America.” Nor did I then, or now, believe that we took away the liberties of any persons “in their own countries.”

The U.S. military has more than one purpose. First, it must protect and defend the U.S. Secondly; it is the ultimate instrument of national policy, which is something not to be used lightly. A third purpose emerged during the 20th Century, and that is to help provide humanitarian aid wherever needed.

Protecting and defending the U.S. is not necessarily cut and dried. Pearl Harbor and 911 are simple, we were attacked and the military was employed to fight a war against Japan and their allies, and Afghanistan where they provided a safe haven and training ground for our enemies. In Korea, the North Korean army (and their ally China) attacked South Korea and in the process killed American military personnel. A clear act of war. The attack on Libya is a little murky but there was strong evidence they aided the terrorists in blowing up the Pan Am flight over Lockerby.

Using the military as an instrument of national policy has been done by many ways by many Presidents. Teddy Roosevelt steamed the American Navy around the world as an obvious show of force to show he was serious with his “walk softly and carry a big stick” policy and Bush sending the Navy and Marines to Liberia. That is called a show of force and it works. It works sometimes with out the use of force. Kennedy did it over Cuba. However, using the military as an instrument of national policy can result in a war or police action. Reagan sent the troops into Grenada counter a thereat to American citizen. Clinton sent the troops into Bosnia to help prevent a possible genocide.

I think providing humanitarian aid speaks for itself although American military have been killed while providing that aid. Remember Somalia?

OK! There are some issues I did not address such “taking away the liberties of foreigners in their own countries” because this is a little long.

Do you want to continue this in the current thread, or do you want to start a new thread? I will always answer any honest question honestly. Let me know. If you want a new thread please provide the link.

Maybe the government could support some organizations that go around and simply encourage people to think about what they're doing. Just nudge people lightly and kindly and be like, "Hey, you know, that's not too cool.."...

Unfortunately, if the government were to do it some groups would claim propaganda or find a violation of Freedom of Speech.

What if someone founded a non-profit organization to do it?

Only through an act of Congress can war Constitutionally be declared. When war is declared our rights as US citizens change in regard to the tone of public discourse concerning all matters of that war. Don't call other Americans traitors because Bush didn't have the guts to ask Congress to declare a war. They're just being patriotic citizens exercising their rights of free speech.

True and False. According to the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. However, in the case of Iraq, Congress authorized the President Bush to use force.

A declaration of war does not abrogate a citizen’s right to protest that war. However, it may cast doubt on his/her motives. I think the same applies to an "action" that has been authorized by Congress.

I do think Constitution gives the President the right to use force without the consent of Congress, but that right has been limited because of the "Gulf or Tonkin" resolution and legal challenges

Todays version of freedom of speech is not what the founding fathers intended IMO. What the founding fathers wanted was the right to voice disagreement with the government. This was put in because at one point in colonial America a certain newspaperman disagreed with the govenor of new York and was jailed for it. The founding fathers did not want situations like this so they put that in. However, the founding fathers did not want this line to be used to protect evil. The founding fathers did not want free speech to be twisted and misinterpreted so it could protect evil groups like NAMBLA, the KKK(and all other hate groups), Playboy and other pornography, Feminazis, and these liberal traitors like Ted Rall. Yes, people do have the right to say what they want. But each of these own groups goes way over the top. NAMBLA has a freaking boy rape website. The KKK parades around burning crosses and threatening to kill about 90% of the country. Pornography is disgusting, immoral, and is a disgrace to this nation. Feminazis want abortion, which is legalized murder. And Ted Rall has made numerous treasonous statements that no doubt boost the confidence of Al-Quida(aiding the enemy). Each of these groups, and probably several others, endanger the country in some way and should not have to be put up with. Speech is fine but this so called speech protecting these groups is dangerous.
Your stupidity is exceeded only by your stupidity.

Who the hell it Ted Rall? :headbang:

Who the hell it Ted Rall? :headbang:

OOPS! I googled and am sorry I asked. :mad:

He wouldn't have made us as free moral agents.

Now... to have the choice to choose the wrong, Yet choose the right.. to know Both arguments fairly rather than being blinded to one, or biased to the other.. is not that the best choice, and also the best way to avoid man based coercion? Let GOD's truth shine out, and every man be a liar. I don't prefer lack of choice / freedom.. Let there be homosexuality, abortion, alternative religions.

The truth is still the truth.

Talk about gravedigging.

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. I wholly disagree with the argument of the Government that the First Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force. History seems to me against the notion. I had conceived that the United States, through many years, had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of 1798, by repaying fines that it imposed. Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants making any exception to the sweeping command, 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.'"

--Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) (dissenting opinion).

Ok, if there's no protection for any non-political speech then can gay groups sue churches to make them stop saying homosexual intercourse is a sin? Can atheists sue religious people because they make statements about god(s)?

Talk about gravedigging.
yep. And a DEAT nation's thread at that.