This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
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
.Not to minors, and not to people who don't want to see it. You need advance individual permission to distribute sexually explicit material. The government may not be able to stop the distribution to a consenting (and of the age of consent) adult, but the other person sure as hell can. And if a person is not legally able to consent to reception of distribution, in the case of minors, the parents and/or the state can act as acceptors of that distribution. In the case of pornography, they deny, and rightfully so.
Post by
MyTie
Are pictures of genitalia on billboards really harassment though?
We are talking about showing minors pictures in playgrounds, which is sexual harassment. The billboard is indecency.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Not to minors, and not to people who don't want to see it. You need advance individual permission to distribute sexually explicit material. The government may not be able to stop the distribution to a consenting (and of the age of consent) adult, but the other person sure as hell can. And if a person is not legally able to consent to reception of distribution, in the case of minors, the parents and/or the state can act as acceptors of that distribution. In the case of pornography, they deny, and rightfully so.
You're arguing from laws. That doesn't help much if you're arguing the basis of those laws; it's just begging the question.
Post by
MyTie
Not to minors, and not to people who don't want to see it. You need advance individual permission to distribute sexually explicit material. The government may not be able to stop the distribution to a consenting (and of the age of consent) adult, but the other person sure as hell can. And if a person is not legally able to consent to reception of distribution, in the case of minors, the parents and/or the state can act as acceptors of that distribution. In the case of pornography, they deny, and rightfully so.
You're arguing from laws. That doesn't help much if you're arguing the basis of those laws; it's just begging the question.
Those laws are widely accepted by the society they were adopted in. Let's be honest, it is gracous of me to even consider the actions of our hypothetical pervert, as journalism. I agree with freedom of the press, but not unregulated freedom to produce and distribute any media you like to whomever you like, consentual or not.
Post by
TheMediator
Are pictures of genitalia on billboards really harassment though?
We are talking about showing minors pictures in playgrounds, which is sexual harassment. The billboard is indecency.
What right does "indecency" violate?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Those laws are widely accepted by the society they were adopted in. Let's be honest, it is gracous of me to even consider the actions of our hypothetical pervert, as journalism. I agree with freedom of the press, but not unregulated freedom to produce and distribute any media you like to whomever you like, consensual or not.
First of all you're the one bringing journalism into this. I never once said it was journalism. The constitution doesn't say anything about journalism. Another one of your straw-men.
You have the right to distribute it, they have the right not to accept it.
Would you also say that a Catholic church can't pass out fliers and show signs of Christ crucified in a public place because it's "offensive" to some people?
Post by
MyTie
Those laws are widely accepted by the society they were adopted in. Let's be honest, it is gracous of me to even consider the actions of our hypothetical pervert, as journalism. I agree with freedom of the press, but not unregulated freedom to produce and distribute any media you like to whomever you like, consensual or not.
First of all you're the one bringing journalism into this. I never once said it was journalism. The constitution doesn't say anything about journalism. Another one of your straw-men.You could say the two are unrelated completely, and thus a straw man arguement... unfortunately for you, not only are they related, but they are friggin synonomous:
The press, otherwise known as the journalism business, the newspaper business, the news media, the Fourth Estate or the mass media
If you are going to argue that the press and journalism are completely separate things, then this is going to be a very difficult arguement for you, since I am not a complete idiot. Anyway, the whole thing is beside the point. Nude pictures of a dude is not the press, nor is it journalism, nor is it news, nor is it dissemination of current events, nor is it FRIGGIN ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT IS SYNONOMOUS WITH JOURNALISM! So, pretty please, with sugar on top, stop being so difficult, and stick with the points.You have the right to distribute it, they have the right not to accept it.
Would you also say that a Catholic church can't pass out fliers and show signs of Christ crucified in a public place because it's "offensive" to some people?Now THESE are unrelated.
Posting a picture of Jesus on the cross holds religious significance. Showing a tallywacker to an 8 year old is not the same thing. Straw man arguement yourself.
Edit: If wikipedia is not good enough, then
here
is Merriam-Webster Online. Press = Journalism.
straw man arguement... lol... what a load of crap....
Post by
MyTie
What right does "indecency" violate?
No rights, just laws.
Post by
TheMediator
Posting a picture of Jesus on the cross holds religious significance. Showing a tallywacker to an 8 year old is not the same thing.
A billboard that says you'll go to hell if you don't worship Jesus is the same thing as a billboard of a giant ^&*! in my eyes. Religious significance? You can't do whatever you want because it has "religious significance" - otherwise, I'm sure you'd see some people making human sacrifices, etc.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What if your neighbor set up massive speakers in his yard, a hundred of them, and aimed them at your house, and shouted the 'F' word into them repetituously for a month straight? Are his actions protected by the first amendment?
You're on private property, and entailed in the right to private property is the right to not be disturbed.
Right to private property > right of freedom of speech
This is different from the guy on the street example because that's public property.
The right to own a slave was covered under the right to own property. Someone from the 1500's would see you as someone who took away their right to property, work, and by proxy their right to life if their food supply relied on their slave population.
Right to freedom > right to property. Therefore slavery is not a right. No matter how many people pretend something is an intrinsic right, it doesn't become one.
Wait what?
Wait what?
Right to freedom > right to private property > right to freedom of speech
Do people not think before posting? Seriously.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You could say the two are unrelated completely, and thus a straw man arguement... unfortunately for you, not only are they related, but they are friggin synonomous:
The press, otherwise known as the journalism business, the newspaper business, the news media, the Fourth Estate or the mass media
If you are going to argue that the press and journalism are completely separate things, then this is going to be a very difficult arguement for you, since I am not a complete idiot. Anyway, the whole thing is beside the point. Nude pictures of a dude is not the press, nor is it journalism, nor is it news, nor is it dissemination of current events, nor is it FRIGGIN ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT IS SYNONOMOUS WITH JOURNALISM! So, pretty please, with sugar on top, stop being so difficult, and stick with the points.
Press:
The people involved in the media, as news reporters, photographers, publishers, and broadcasters.
I NEVER said they were completely different. Attack what I say, not what you want me to say. Honestly.
Journalism is a species of media. So, yes it includes journalism, but journalism is not all that's covered, or they would have said just journalism.
Now THESE are unrelated.
Posting a picture of Jesus on the cross holds religious significance. Showing a tallywacker to an 8 year old is not the same thing. Straw man arguement yourself.
It only holds religious significance to Catholics. Most Christian denominations frown upon crosses depicting Christ because they see it as a graven image; for Christians it's
ANTI-RELIGIOUS
! And for non-Catholics it's not in the least religious, it's just grotesque.
In short you're implying that the government should decide what's "religious" or not. There goes freedom of religion out the door too.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And what reasons do you have for making these, this freedom is greater than that freedom? Feel free to quote a philosopher from the 1500s. How can your position on freedom be set up like a math equation and not set up on a case by case basis?
It's a metaphysical distinction. If X depends on Y, then Y is therefore more fundamental than X. All rights depend on the person being alive, therefore right to life is the most fundamental. Owning your own property depends on you being free yourself, therefore freedom/liberty is more fundamental than the right to private property. Etc.
As for the questions about the billboard, it would be in fact illegal because it is not indecent but obscene, there is a difference. Furthermore, something that is obscene can be regulated, banned, or censored.
You're pulling a MyTie, arguing for the basis of laws by using the laws themselves. Show me where in the constitution it gives the government the power to regulate any form of media.
The current method used by our government when it comes to Freedom of Speech vs. the 14th Amendment is this (called the Miller Test):
1) The average person in that community would find it obscene
2) SLAPS- serious literature, artistic, political, or scientific value
Is the billboard literature- no
is it artistic- no
political- might have motives to anger the political body, but it is in fact not political
scientific- its a billboard...
And finally would it be considered obscene to the public?
Another argument from law. If my whole point is to argue that things like this are against the constitution, don't use them to defend themselves.
Honestly, Hyper, that was the stupidest thing I have read in a long time.
I would say ditto, but I have read
stupider
.
Post by
MyTie
I never once said it was journalism. The constitution doesn't say anything about journalism.I NEVER said they were completely different.
It is or it isn't. I can't keep track of your argument one second to the next.You're pulling a MyTieIf argueing about what the law says, and how it is applicable to the actions performed in conjunction with a right, is 'pulling a MyTie' then I'm very proud to have my name associated with ration positions.Show me where in the constitution it gives the government the power to regulate any form of media.
The constitution gives the right to speech, but then turn around and says that treason is punishable by death. So, which is it? Does government regulate speech or not? Only when it is treasonous? So.... is the constitution saying what I've been explaining all this time: That speech itself is free, but it doesn't excuse actions performed in conjunction with that speech?
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I never once said it was journalism. The constitution doesn't say anything about journalism.I NEVER said they were completely different.
It is or it isn't. I can't keep track of your argument one second to the next.
Where in the first quote did I say journalism is completely different from press? As I already said journalism is a subdivision of the media (which is the object of the press). There's a good reason neither the constitution nor I use the word "journalism"--because that only part of the picture.
You're pulling a MyTieIf argueing about what the law says, and how it is applicable to the actions performed in conjunction with a right, is 'pulling a MyTie' then I'm very proud to have my name associated with ration positions.
You can't defend the legitimacy of a law with the law itself. That's a circular argument and it's a fallacy.
Show me where in the constitution it gives the government the power to regulate any form of media.
The constitution gives the right to speech, but then turn around and says that treason is punishable by death. So, which is it?
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
What does that have to do with the topic at hand?
Does government regulate speech or not?
It does, I'm not arguing whether they're doing ti or not, I'm arguing whether it's right or not (see title).
Only when it is treasonous?
Levying war and/or giving aid to an enemy government =/= speech
So.... is the constitution saying what I've been explaining all this time: That speech itself is free, but it doesn't excuse actions performed in conjunction with that speech?
Are you ignoring
my posts
intentionally?
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.