Re: Speech May Not Be Free, but It's Refundable
On Sun, 9 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
Ok, then I propose to surround your property from any vantage point on public land, and setup gigantic speakers from which I would recite very loud speeches in your direction at 3:00am.
No public land in the area that isn't managed by the city, you'll need to get permission from the public to use it. We also have a amplified music ordinance so you'd have to shutdown between midnite and 6am anyway.
But it's free speech, not music, regardless of amplification, so how does the ordinance apply?
As I would be on public land and excercising my freedom of speech, you couldn't do anything as that would be censorship.
Not at all, you're still annoying the community at large.
But in your world, there's nothing anyone can do to stop me, because if they were to do so, they'd violate my freedom of speech. If the constitution applies to all Americans, then only a Russian or other non-American could tell me to shut the fuck up. Acording to your statement two sentences down from this one, you can't do shit to stop me as you're an American and the Constitution applies to all Americans.
Or are you ready to submit that "Congress shall make no law ... freedom of expression" only applies to Congress?
No, the Constitution applies to all Americans.
But the 1st ammendment doesn't say "No American shall make no laws limiting the freedom of the press, etc." It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Hence the distinction. There in lies your error and lack of understanding. And this is why on private property the property owner decides what is and isn't allowed. This is why on public property that belongs to a specific state or city Congress has nothing to do with it, and the owner may decide on the rules of the house: "Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So now by muttering something about city ordinances about amplified music and certain hours, you've just admited that entities other than Congress may pass laws, and that Freedom of speech can be limited by any other entity, including: the states, cities, and individuals. And therefore your message below is completely wrong. Congratulations, you've just proven yourself wrong:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
But it's free speech, not music, regardless of amplification, so how does the ordinance apply?
You have a right to do whatever you want, UNTIL it impacts another. Then you stop, or they defend themselves. 'public' == other I'll leave the rest for you to muddle through at your own speed. <sigh> -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Choate" <ravage@ssz.com> To: <cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 7:14 PM Subject: CDR: Re: Speech May Not Be Free, but It's Refundable
You have a right to do whatever you want, UNTIL it impacts another. Then you stop, or they defend themselves.
Actually that's not true. Take for example the nearly nationwide ban on committing suicide. This clearly only impacts a single person directly, and is by it's very act clearly consensual. But it has even been proposed that attempted suicide should be tried as attempted murder 1. Oddly enough this would in some areas make attempted suicide punishable by death. There are other examples of similar, but not as ludicrous, legal situations where the only person being impacted is the person acting, but it's still illegal. Joe
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
Actually that's not true. Take for example the nearly nationwide ban on committing suicide.
There is a difference between stating the basic principle and stating that the principle is acted upon. Were the principle acted upon we wouldn't be having these discussions in the first place. We ALMOST ALL agree that the principles are not being followed. That in no way detracts from the principles (eg very few follow the CACL philosophy therefore it must not be 'true'). -- ____________________________________________________________________ Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind. Bumper Sticker The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
And which BASIC PRINCIPLE is that? Where is the law that codifies that? I don't see anything in the Bill of Rights that says anything about "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law, so long as it affect not another." Only in thelema and wicca is there anything close. Certainly it is a good principle, but where is it in the law? ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
Actually that's not true. Take for example the nearly nationwide ban on committing suicide.
There is a difference between stating the basic principle and stating that the principle is acted upon. Were the principle acted upon we wouldn't be having these discussions in the first place.
We ALMOST ALL agree that the principles are not being followed. That in no way detracts from the principles (eg very few follow the CACL philosophy therefore it must not be 'true').
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.
Bumper Sticker
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
You have a right to do whatever you want, UNTIL it impacts another. Then you stop, or they defend themselves.
Actually that's not true. Take for example the nearly nationwide ban on committing suicide.
Which simply goes on to demonstrate the grave difference between what is morally permissible on the one hand and legal on the other. Sampo Syreeni, aka decoy - mailto:decoy@iki.fi, tel:+358-50-5756111 student/math+cs/helsinki university, http://www.iki.fi/~decoy/front openpgp: 050985C2/025E D175 ABE5 027C 9494 EEB0 E090 8BA9 0509 85C2
Says who exactly (other than yourself)? Please provide quoted references that state exactly what you have just said. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Sunder wrote:
But it's free speech, not music, regardless of amplification, so how does the ordinance apply?
You have a right to do whatever you want, UNTIL it impacts another. Then you stop, or they defend themselves.
'public' == other
I'll leave the rest for you to muddle through at your own speed.
<sigh>
participants (4)
-
Jim Choate -
Joseph Ashwood -
Sampo Syreeni -
Sunder