Freedom of Expression

[Patroclus]

Personally, I disagree with this rather new right. It was decided by the supreme court of the United States that, since speech is a form of expression through media such as vocalization, print and hand gestures (like Sign Language), that the first amendment right to free speech extends to any form of expression that does not pose a clear and present danger.

The issue itself revolved around incidents of flag-burnings during the Vietnam war. As an American, I personally regret that we involved ourselves in the conflict over there, but that is history. However, I am very much against defacing the flag.

The first three lines of our national pledge (edited or no) are:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the government for which it stands."

The concept of government for the American people is that its power is derived from the people who, by their liberty, have given it. Theoretically, it is not wrested from its people, and can be changed by the will of the people. Therefore, if the flag stands for the government, it stands for the people all the more.

Citizens of the United States benefit from this land, and should be wary about disrespecting their fellow citizens by burning a flag. I think those that burn or otherwise deface a flag should either leave, or stop eating, drinking or using other valuable resources of which they obviously want no part.

To dissenters I say "speak directly to those against whom you dissent, but recognize that your American brethren support you."

I am saying all of this in reaction to protestors in San Francisco displaying the flag inverted in response to the impending war in Iraq.

[undead]

I support flag burning, and every other form of protest against the state that does not threaten personal physical harm.

It is not the state who gives a man food, air, drink, the right to contract, the right to marriage, etc, but God. All these freedoms were in existence long before the US was invented.

The role of the state is not to permit man freedom to do what he was always entitled to do, but merely to safeguard his God given freedoms from unlawful violation and unreasonable intrusion.

The state was made for man, not man for the state.

[$cirisme]

I agree with you, Pat.

The freedoms the constitution gives to Americans are clearly defined.

[Patroclus]

I belive there are very few human rights. The freedom of speach et al are American rights. I believe human rights are those rights that if forfiet destroy human life. For instance, if one takes a person's right to eat, the person dies.


I support flag burning, and every other form of protest against the state that does not threaten personal physical harm.

perhaps you want to fix your most hilarious double entendre.

[undead]

Today @ 10:57 PM
Patroclus:
The freedom of speach et al are American rights.

You are quite wrong. Freedom of speech is a human right and was given by God to all men. Yes, it was God himself who told men to stick two fingers up at the state, when it tried to restrict the right of men to freedom of speech:


Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set [them] before the council: and the high priest asked them,

Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.

Act 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.




I believe human rights are those rights that if forfiet destroy human life. For instance, if one takes a person's right to eat, the person dies.

If one takes away the right to freedom of speech, truth is able to be suppressed by the state and the soul dies (cf Nazi Germany).



perhaps you want to fix your most hilarious double entendre.
?

[Patroclus]

Freedom of speech is a human right and was given by God to all men.

Sure, you can say whatever you please, but do not expect legal protection.


If one takes away the right to freedom of speech, truth is able to be suppressed by the state and the soul dies (cf Nazi Germany).


It's a good thing that I am not talking about the soul. If you give most people a choice between the soul and physical life, most people will choose physical life. Don't pull metaphysical mumbo-jumbo on this one, it doesn't work.


I support flag burning, and every other form of protest against the state that does not threaten personal physical harm.

What you mean to say is that you support methods of protest, that do not threaten personal, physical harm, (after all, take away the body, who really cares about the soul?) against the state.

What you said was that you support protests against a non-threatening state.

[undead]

Today @ 03:40 AM
Patroclus:
Sure, you can say whatever you please, but do not expect legal protection.

I agree that there is a distinction to be made betwee a legal right to freedom of speech, and a moral right. I was talking about a moral right. Moral rights can be suppressed.

Actually, to preach in the US that homosexuals ought to be executed as per Lev 20;13 would probably not be tolerated under the free speech laws, so even in the US, freedom of speech is limited. Segregationists are also not tolerated - I heard one senator was forced to resign by Bush recently over that issue.



It's a good thing that I am not talking about the soul. If you give most people a choice between the soul and physical life, most people will choose physical life. Don't pull metaphysical mumbo-jumbo on this one, it doesn't work.

So in your view, most people would sell their souls to the devil to prolong their physicial existence. Actually, that tenet was proved in the Roman era. Its interesting how that deduction cannot be squared with 90% of the US calling itself "Christian".



What you mean to say is that you support methods of protest, that do not threaten personal, physical harm, (after all, take away the body, who really cares about the soul?) against the state.

What you said was that you support protests against a non-threatening state.
I support all protests provided they are morally justified. The state ought to be careful not to stifle dissent ortherwise than by argument, otherwise its rulers will gain a reputation for themselves as tyrants.

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 02:20 PM
undead:
Segregationists are also not tolerated - I heard one senator was forced to resign by Bush recently over that issue.

Trent Lott made an off color joke at Strom Thurmonds 100th birthday party about Stroms run for the presidancy in 1948, when he ran on a states-rights/segregationist platform. Bush can't make a senator resign. Rather, Lott stepped down as the Senate Republican Leader (would have been majority leader) and Frist (sp?) took his place as the Senate majority leader. Lott is still in the Senate. It was public pressure and that led to his resignation.

GP

[GrayPilgrim]

Oh, Bush could have saved his position but he did not speak out in order to do so, which was IMHO for the best.

GP

[HerodionRomulus]

Undead --I agree with your original statement.

Anyone can say anything short of yelling "fire" in a crowded room and get away with it.

I have heard sermons calling for the death penalty for gay people
Anyone can still promote racism like the KKK.
Anyone can promote preferential treatment, like the Boy Scouts.
A Senator could push a bill to make everyone worship Booji, the Vorlon god of Frustration--but he would probably never be able to win another election.

[Alden]

undead:

So in your view, most people would sell their souls to the devil to prolong their physicial existence. Actually, that tenet was proved in the Roman era. Its interesting how that deduction cannot be squared with 90% of the US calling itself "Christian".

you've missed the point.

When Patroclus said:

It's a good thing that I am not talking about the soul. If you give most people a choice between the soul and physical life, most people will choose physical life. Don't pull metaphysical mumbo-jumbo on this one, it doesn't work.
He meant that he is not talking about the soul. He was referring to things that are recognized as a bit more tangible than the soul. He is not referring to the metaphysical.

So no, it is not his view that "most people would sell their souls to the devil to prolong their physicial existence." This is your misunderstanding of his view.

[Alden]

Yesterday @ 11:20 AM
undead:

I support all protests provided they are morally justified.

BTW, the term moral seems to mean many different things to different groups of protesters. It is an error to think that such a subjective term as "moral" (in terms of society's use of it) can be used to justify anything. "Moral" arguments have been used to justify slavery, aparthied, etc.

[brother vinny]

bored

bored

bored

bored

bored

bored

bored

bored

bored

[Conductor42]

Complete Freedom, 100% - as long as you're not on someone's private property. Whether that means homophobic sermons about how gays are going to hell, or flag burning, or atheistic rants against Christians - so be it.

Once you are on private property, its a different ballpark where you are subject to the rules of the person who owns it.