This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Hyper-
You are saying that the right to speech trumps the right to grow up without harassment? The rights of the 50 year old trumps the 8 year old he is stalking? I think a person's immediate area, the few feet around them, is private property. If they don't want that area invaded with sexual explit harassment, then that trumps another person's right to do so.
So, can a man walk around public playgrounds showing naked pictures of himself to the children? I mean, if he can do it on a billboard, why not in a park?
And your right about rights not being granted, but I have a limited view on what is a 'right'. Life is a right that is not granted, but it is a different topic than speech.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Hyper-
You are saying that the right to speech trumps the right to grow up without harassment? The rights of the 50 year old trumps the 8 year old he is stalking? I think a person's immediate area, the few feet around them, is private property. If they don't want that area invaded with sexual explit harassment, then that trumps another person's right to do so.
Just just stick the label of right on to anything. I wouldn't "the right to grow up without harassment" a right; my parents harassed me quite a bit while I was growing up, and they were perfectly within their rights to do so. I would say that there is a
right to personal integrity
. So while you are using public property in a lawful manner, you are entitled to a certain amount of integrity. However, so is the man sitting on the other half of the bench. Yes, shoving a picture in your face violates your integrity, but talking nor just displaying a picture does not.
So, can a man walk around public playgrounds showing naked pictures of himself to the children?
So long as he is not violating any higher rights of the children/parents.
And your right about rights not being granted, but I have a limited view on what is a 'right'. Life is a right that is not granted, but it is a different topic than speech.
I explained this
above
. If you disagree, name a specific point so we can try to find out what is causing our different points of view.
Post by
MyTie
So, can a man walk around public playgrounds showing naked pictures of himself to the children?
So long as he is not violating any higher rights of the children/parents.
I disagree. I guess I cannot sufficiently explain to you why without using the word 'immoral', but you won't let me for some reason. This is one of those moments where humanity amazes me with their ability to condone disturbing behavior by calling it something that it is not. We call abortion 'choice'. We call baby 'fetus'. We call sexual harassment of an 8 year old 'speech'.
Truely disgusting.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
We call sexual harassment of an 8 year old 'speech'.
In this case that's exactly what it is. There is no physical contact, so what else would you call it? You're the one trying to call it something that it is not. Just admit that you don't believe in freedom of speech; trying to rename all the particulars won't make it any less speech.
I don't think you see where your position ultimately leads too. I could demand all public displays of gay marriage to be removed; gays could then do the same thing for straight marriage. None of us want our kids growing up in a discriminatory society, so let's take away all free speech.
Just think your position through.
Post by
MyTie
We call sexual harassment of an 8 year old 'speech'.
In this case that's exactly what it is. There is no physical contact, so what else would you call it? You're the one trying to call it something that it is not. Just admit that you don't believe in freedom of speech; trying to rename all the particulars won't make it any less speech.
I don't think you see where your position ultimately leads too. I could demand all public displays of gay marriage to be removed; gays could then do the same thing for straight marriage. None of us want our kids growing up in a discriminatory society, so let's take away all free speech.
Just think your position through.
A picture of a naked dude is NOT speech.... dude.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A picture of a naked dude is NOT speech.... dude.
That falls under the freedom of press aspect. Stop confusing the issue -_-
Pick one aspect and stick to it; you're jumping all over the place.
Post by
MyTie
A picture of a naked dude is NOT speech.... dude.
That falls under the freedom of press aspect. Stop confusing the issue -_-
press
? lol.... just... lol....
This just in! A picture of my balls.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
press
? lol.... just... lol....
This just in! A picture of my balls.
Good for you.
Post by
MyTie
press
? lol.... just... lol....
This just in! A picture of my balls.
Good for you.
Come on dude. Your arguement is ridiculous.
No judge! I wasn't harassing those kids, I was giving them up to date news!
Post by
Quest
We call sexual harassment of an 8 year old 'speech'.
In this case that's exactly what it is. There is no physical contact, so what else would you call it? You're the one trying to call it something that it is not. Just admit that you don't believe in freedom of speech; trying to rename all the particulars won't make it any less speech.
I don't think you see where your position ultimately leads too. I could demand all public displays of gay marriage to be removed; gays could then do the same thing for straight marriage. None of us want our kids growing up in a discriminatory society, so let's take away all free speech.
Just think your position through.
A picture of a naked dude is NOT speech.... dude.
Something is definitely free there.
Anyway someone harassing a child verbally does not fall under freedom of speech, its more a freedom of expression situation and not tolerated.
Post by
MyTie
Just think your position through.
A picture of a naked dude is NOT speech.... dude.
Something is definitely free there.
Anyway someone harassing a child verbally does not fall under freedom of speech, its more a freedom of expression situation and not tolerated.
Even if he is verbally harrassing them, the fact that the harrassment is verbal does not make the harrassment legal. It's like the right to bear arms. Just because you can walk around with a gun doesn't mean you can start shooting people with it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Come on dude.
Your argument is ridiculous.
No judge! I wasn't harassing those kids, I was giving them up to date news!
Then show where it is then present a counter-argument.
You're irony might work in convincing other people, but you should know by now that it has quite the opposite effect on me; imo it makes you look like you're struggling to come up with anything.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Even if he is verbally harrassing them, the fact that the harrassment is verbal does not make the harrassment legal. It's like the right to bear arms. Just because you can walk around with a gun doesn't mean you can start shooting people with it.
Wow. Fail analogy. You can do better than that...I know you can.
Post by
Quest
Just think your position through.
A picture of a naked dude is NOT speech.... dude.
Something is definitely free there.
Anyway someone harassing a child verbally does not fall under freedom of speech, its more a freedom of expression situation and not tolerated.
Even if he is verbally harrassing them, the fact that the harrassment is verbal does not make the harrassment legal. It's like the right to bear arms. Just because you can walk around with a gun doesn't mean you can start shooting people with it.
Did you even read what I said? It wasn't that long a post. Preach to the choir.
Also its '
harassment
'.
Post by
MyTie
Come on dude.
Your argument is ridiculous.
No judge! I wasn't harassing those kids, I was giving them up to date news!
Then show where it is then present a counter-argument.
You're irony might work in convincing other people, but you should know by now that it has quite the opposite effect on me; imo it make you look like you're struggling to come up with anything.
You are telling me that flashing children pictures of your genitals is journalism.... and you want me to explain to you a legitimate counter arguement?
It's insulting to my intelligence, but here goes:
Wiktionary:
PRESS:
A collective term for the print based media (both the people and the newspapers)
This article appeared in the press.
...according to a member of the press...
SEXUAL HARASSMENT:
Unwelcome sexual advances.
Harassment that is sexual in nature
Ok. It is my argument that a 50 year old man displaying nude photographs to children fits very well into the definition of Sexual Harassment, and at a
loooooooong stretch
into the press definition. He is free to print anything he likes according to freedom of the press, however his actions of sexual harassment are not covered by the constitution. The two actions are separate. I agree with one, but the other is illegal for good reason.
Post by
MyTie
Did you even read what I said? It wasn't that long a post. Preach to the choir.
Also its '
harassment
'.
I was agreeing with you. Also, it was kind of you to correct my spelling, but you should know that I don't care. Click the link in my sig.
Post by
MyTie
Even if he is verbally harrassing them, the fact that the harrassment is verbal does not make the harrassment legal. It's like the right to bear arms. Just because you can walk around with a gun doesn't mean you can start shooting people with it.
Wow. Fail analogy. You can do better than that...I know you can.
Shooting someone with a gun =/= bearing arms
Harrassing people =/= speech
True, you are bearing arms, but that doesn't make all actions done with those arms excused. True you are talking, but that doesn't make all actions done with your speech excused.
I have come up with a well thought out and literally supported arguement about the differences between press and harassment. I have come up with my thesis statement:
While speech is legal, not all actions performed while speaking are legal, even if the venue used for the action is speech.
And I have come up with numerous illustrations and examples. I will not be accepting any more assertions that I am failing to present you with a well thought out counter point. You need to explain to me how the constitution, or any innate right, grants us the rightful ability to excuse actions other than accepted rights (speech), if those actions are accompanied by the right itself. If you cannot conclusively demonstrate to me how one rightful action justifies an accompanied illegal action, then we are done here.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Shooting someone with a gun =/= bearing arms
Harrassing people =/= speech
True, you are bearing arms, but that doesn't make all actions done with those arms excused. True you are talking, but that doesn't make all actions done with your speech excused.
I have come up with a well thought out and literally supported arguement about the differences between press and harassment. I have come up with my thesis statement:
While speech is legal, not all actions performed while speaking are legal, even if the venue used for the action is speech.
And I have come up with numerous illustrations and examples. I will not be accepting any more assertions that I am failing to present you with a well thought out counter point. You need to explain to me how the constitution, or any innate right, grants us the rightful ability to excuse actions other than accepted rights (speech), if those actions are accompanied by the right itself. If you cannot conclusively demonstrate to me how one rightful action justifies an accompanied illegal action, then we are done here.
Yes, I completely agree with that premise...and I agree with everything that follows from that. It's you that seems to disagree with what follows.
If the speech itself is legal, then it's not the speech that's causing the action to be illegal. So why do you keep attacking the freedom of speech? Your own premise states that it's legal. Attack the particular aspect of the action that
does
make it illegal.
I never said the right to freedom of speech justifies anything except itself. But neither does anything done in conjunction with the speech condemn the speech itself.
He is free to print anything he likes according to freedom of the press, however his actions of sexual harassment are not covered by the constitution.
Actually freedom of the press covers the printing
and the distribution
.
Post by
TheMediator
Are pictures of genitalia on billboards really harassment though?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Are pictures of genitalia on billboards really harassment though?
Not according to any legal definition of harassment I've ever known.
Most my legal knowledge is in Minnesota law, and I can quote their legal definition of harass:
609.749 HARASSMENT; STALKING; PENALTIES.
Subdivision 1. Definition. As used in this section, "harass" means to engage in intentional
conduct which:
(1) the actor knows or has reason to know would cause the victim under the circumstances to
feel frightened, threatened, oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated; and
(2) causes this reaction on the part of the victim.
Subd. 1a. No proof of specific intent required. In a prosecution under this section, the state
is not required to prove that the actor intended to cause the victim to feel frightened, threatened,
oppressed, persecuted, or intimidated, or except as otherwise provided in subdivision 3, paragraph
(a), clause (4), or paragraph (b), that the actor intended to cause any other result.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.