Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ultron · 02-13-2003, 06:25 AM

Goodness! How am I gonna keep up with you guys? hehe

Today's packed but I'll try to get some responses in.

Ultron · 02-13-2003, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Grad Student Humanist
Trying to distort the right of free expression provided by the 1st Amendment into just a protection of political speech, or even worse, just actual verbal communication, is a typical strategy of the right-wing in this country. It would then be easy for them to ban their whole laundry list of "objectionables": pornography, TV shows/movies/literature they don't agree with, "offensive" art, burning the flag, etc.

Disagreement about the nature of the law isn't distortion of the law. I am saying that literally, the Constitution only protects so much. You can certainly disagree with me, but I won't complain you are trying to distort the law.

Ultron · 02-13-2003, 07:16 AM

I want to go back and touch on something because I am not sure I was clear enough in explaining my PoV here.

Quote:

Originally posted by Melkor
Just because something isn't listed specifically as a "right" in the Constitution doesn't mean that we don't have it.

I agree with what you are saying, but our rights can be infringed upon unless it's protected by either the federal or state govts. And actually the federally-protected ones can be infringed upon through the Amendment process. No right is absolute, and no right is completely safe from infringement. It's just that the ones that are federally-protected have the benefit of Constitutional protection.

Quote:

Originally posted by Melkor
The Constitution doesn't "grant" us rights... it recognizes them

It grants us federal protections for those claimed rights. Think of the Constitution as a shield that protects our rights. Many things fall outside the reach of that shield, but that does not mean those things don't exist. They just don't have the benefit of that protection.

A lot of people might disagree on what is a right, and what isn't a right. The Constitution at least provides a concensus for many of the most important ones.

Quote:

Originally posted by Melkor
and it even goes as far as to ennumerate ones that the framers found particularly important, but doesn't limit our rights to those specifically ennumerated.

It doesn't limit our rights, just limits what is protected by federal law. Without such protection, laws can be made to limit such rights. This is why the 10th Amendment is so important (among other things) because it clearly establishes that states also have power, but where the federal and state govts don't have such power, the people clearly retain that power.

Also I think I wasn't clear when I was discussing flag-burning Amendments between different posters. I should make the distinction between a flag-burning Amendment that guarantees a federally-protected right to burn a flag, and a flag-protection Amendment that guarantees federal-protection for the flag. I used the term "flag-burning" the whole time.

One more thing, is anyone here claiming there are some rights that even the Constitution cannot infringe on? Certainly protected rights would be harder to infringe than unprotected (or unlisted) rights.

excreationist · 02-13-2003, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Three-Three
Alright. I want details. When did the Dickster blow chunks on a flag? ...or are you refering to Milhouse in "The Simpsons."

You mean there are other Milhouses? Anyway, it's from that episode of the Simpsons where Marge has big breast implants.

Ultron · 02-13-2003, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Melkor
Ultron, I take it then that you're one of those folks that doesn't have any problems with the Federal Government funding religious activities, since it isn't literally violating the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" bit? Likewise with other mixings of religion & gov't, as long as they don't violate the letter of the establishment clause?

Boy that's a swing to a different topic.

Ultron · 02-13-2003, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Neilium
If I remember correctly from the Boy Scout Manual (circa 1978), the proper way to dispose of a worn out American flag was to burn it. You couldn't let it touch the ground, throw it in the trash, or display it if it was ripped up. But, hey, torch it once you have a replacement.

So, are the Boy Scouts in danger here, or is it simply (ha ha) a matter of context?

I think the Boy Scouts have been in danger for the last few years anyhow hehe

Ultron · 02-13-2003, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
The right to free speech has always been held to end where it poses an immediate danger to others.

Agreed. Even the First Amendment does not give unlimited protection to those rights enumerated in it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
This has traditionally been expressed as not including the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater (unless, of course, there really is a fire). People won't go checking for a fire, they'll run. In such a situation people may get hurt.

Correct.

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
However, it applies to any speech that poses an immediate danger. A large piece of burning cloth in a building without specific arrangements to ensure it's safe poses a danger. As such, it's prohibited.

True, which is why I abandoned my flag-burning in a cafeteria scenario because that was an inescapable part of that scenario. I think I used an image of a nude, decapitated child instead. Would that still be protected in that room full of kids?

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
The same piece of cloth outside on a non-flammable surface and without people too close by poses no risk and thus is not prohibited.

Agreed.

Ultron · 02-13-2003, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Besides, flag burning isn't inherently anti-American.

I think it's anti-America but not un-American.

Ultron · 02-13-2003, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
That was your intention but fire doesn't always obey.

Yes, ask and red-blooded American who ever lost a meal in a BBQ pit.

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
You don't have to do actual harm to be punished. Doing an action with an unreasonable risk of harm can be punished even if nobody is hurt.

Roger that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Consider offenses such as reckless driving and driving under the influence. Also, brandishing a firearm.

True.

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
There are also a wide variety of offenses involving not having the proper license to do something and most of these involve risk to the public from an untrained individual. The few that don't involve training are for accountability purposes. (Example: Taxicabs. If you have unlicensed cabs who do you complain to about mistreatment?)

The taxi cab driver, while brandishing a firearm....

Three-Three · 02-13-2003, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by excreationist
You mean there are other Milhouses? Anyway, it's from that episode of the Simpsons where Marge has big breast implants.

Other Milhouses???/ (Yikes!)

Richard Milhouse Nixon. I thought perhaps the *defecation* allusion had to do with him. I guess that leaves us George the First as the only Pres. one who lost his lunch in public.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2003, 06:25 AM	#131
Ultron Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: here Posts: 738	Goodness! How am I gonna keep up with you guys? hehe Today's packed but I'll try to get some responses in.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.