How far is too far for free speech?

[Wrabbit2000]

We live in a nation where freedom of speech and expression hold top priority in both numerical designation and in real terms of law above all other rights we enjoy. There are reasons for that, and they are very solid and well considered ones. More can be found in supporting documents to the US Constitution.

At what point can we say that has gone too far? Is there a point where we can say free speech crosses into harmful speech?

First, let me say I am by NO means suggesting, even for discussion, that Government or State authority have any place in this. It isn't their business to tend, and that is also by the same #1 right which we speak by. However....SHOULD there be a point where we, as citizens, exercise some self-moderation? Should there be a point where, failing that, the citizenry exercises some pointed moderation? Take this case as an example....and yes, sadly, is from my own state.

Jefferson County Recorder of Deeds Debbie Dunnegan called President Barack Obama "our domestic enemy" and suggested the U.S. Constitution would give the U.S. military the authority to oust the president in a coup d'état, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Wednesday.

Now there is more than one problem with that. Oh, my yes. There are a couple major issues I see here. However, lets start with the most obvious one. She is mistaken, unless I read my Constitution wrong. There is absolutely *NO* place or right, implied or otherwise, for the Military to stage the forceful takeover (our Coup) of our nation. None. Period. Doesn't exist. Isn't there. If it comes to that, they have already chosen to act well outside the law and the founding principles of our nation. Oh, there is more tho...

"I cannot and do not understand why no action is being taken against our domestic enemy. I know he is supposedly the commander in chief, but the Constitution gives you the authority. What am I missing?" Dunnegan, a Republican, wrote in a since deleted Facebook post.

Suggesting the President is a fool is one thing. I've done so more than once. Suggesting the man has the professional competence of a circus performer is probably fair too, or at least I'd say so. He plays a clown so well too, but I disgress. Suggesting the President is a real and legitimate ENEMY of our nation, with suggestion to see real world action to follow on that basis? Now, I think that is a bit too far. A tad over the top. Perhaps.....pushing it that last step into the abyss.

Finally....

Military recruits pledge to defend the United States against "all enemies, foreign and domestic" when joining the armed forces.

Source

Yes, they absolutely do. They take that oath, but that isn't the FULL oath they take. This is:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

The part in yellow, the clerk in our State Capital got correct. The part in red, she seems to handily forget when it means the most. So, to be realistic, a military coup to remove this or any other President would accomplish two things before we even get to the aftermath of rebuilding.

#1. It would, beyond any question whatever, enrage and infuriate a fair % of our nation who are either neutral to, supportive of, or simply disinterested in the plight of the President. (There are a few without apparent interest....really!)

#2. It would start, from the first opening move, a new day in America and with a new way. That new way would, from its inception, be based in violation of...not support of...our most cherished principles and founding guidelines. In short, we would see our future start by the worst parts of our long past.

Somehow...I don't think advocating for coup is a great idea. Even more? I think hearing that come from an elected official, even at her level, is disturbing. To hear it justified through arguments showing such profound ignorance puts the cherry on the cupcake of WRONG.

Anyone else agree? Disagree? Think the woman ought to get a key to the city or perhaps a ticket to unemployment?

[WarToad]

I honestly don't know why anyone would want to be the President.  No matter what you do, what you say, what your policies are, you're going to be hated.  Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon - all had people wanting their heads on a pike.

The current hate for Obama reminds me exactly of the hate for Bush.(43) Wash, rinse, repeat. Head on a pike.  Only the partisan sides have flipped.

The military should have no place in replacing a president.  That is an act of Congress.  To get a majority of Congress to agree on this issue, it'll likely not be partisan in nature.  It'll be clear cut egregious action by the President.  AKA Nixon.  Dislike Obama for whatever reasons, he hasn't crossed a red line like Nixon did.

And I think you are correct, if the military were to overthrow the President, a fair percentage of the population would immediately lose faith in both the military as well as the new government.  Your vote is suddenly marginalized.

As far as that elected official on facebook, that says more about her than the object of her whining.

[The Matrix Traveller]

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance
to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders
of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So help me God

Just a point of interest;

Regarding the bible they 'Swear this oath upon'.

It is written in the very same bible they 'Swear Upon', in 'The Gospel According to MATTHEW' Quote;

33.
Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,
Thou shalt not forswear thyself,
but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34.
But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

35.
Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem;
for it is the city of the great King.

36.
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head,
because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

37.
But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay:
for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

So the 'Swearing In' process makes a full MOCKERY of this, before they start ! 


Perhaps performing the 'Affirmation' is more appropriate, for the 'human Primates' condition.


The 'human Primate' is full to the brim, with 'Corruption'.   

[Pimander]

Apart from explaining how to wipe out huge parts of the population or abusing people, all speech should be free.

[Norval]

Free speech is fine, , , , , , ,



, , , it's the LISTENERS one has to be careful of. 

[Wrabbit2000]

Free speech is fine, , , , , , ,



, , , it's the LISTENERS one has to be careful of. 

LOL... Oh, truer words have never been spoken. No kidding!

[VillageIdiot]

Free speech is a myth. Prove otherwise.

[zorgon]

all speech should be free.

All speech IS free... in every country.

It doesn't matter where you are you have the right to say whatever you want at any time.

What people forget is that Freedom of Speech comes with CONSEQUENCES

So say for example I want to say that all Harley riders are are pussies that use the bike to compensate for their lack of manhood...

No one will stop me from saying that... however if I say that in a biker bar I can expect that there will be certain consequences for uttering those words



Lets have a look at the basics...

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "for respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "for the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals"

THIS ONE is the key...

"for respect of the rights or reputation of others"

That is the one that most people tend to utterly ignore when touting freedom of speech.  People forget that when you say something that involves OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS.. it is easy to cross the line. If people would remember that saying what you will about others has CAUSE AND EFFECT, there would be la lot less problems in the world today

Every government restricts speech to some degree. Common limitations on speech relate to: libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, right to privacy, right to be forgotten, and campaign finance reform. Whether these limitations can be justified under the harm principle depends upon whether influencing a third party's opinions or actions adversely to the second party constitutes such harm or not.

The term "offense principle" is also used to expand the range of free speech limitations to prohibit forms of expression where they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws.

An it harm none, do what ye will. (do what you will so long as it harms no one)

[zorgon]

Free speech is a myth. Prove otherwise.

No it is real enough but it is a two edged sword.

Take this forum for example...

You can freely post whatever you want... but since this is a PRIVATE forum, I have the right to delete anything I wish

[zorgon]

There are very few nations in the world that even HAVE a "Freedom of Speech" clause in their constitution.  Even in the US it was added as the first ammendment. Seems they forgot it at the beginning 

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.  It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual's religious practices.  It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.   

The CATCH here is the word "CONGRESS"  It says nothing about state or other local governments from restricting speech

Fortunately for us...

The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

So it wasn't until the 14th amendment that it trickled down to state level

[Wrabbit2000]

So it wasn't until the 14th amendment that it trickled down to state level

Very true. Even that didn't necessarily settle the issue.  One of the interesting things to see in looking at American history is how much further the Government has gone in abuse than it has so far in modern times. Some of it was beyond what we'd call police state today, and one example was an outright Act passed by Congress and signed by Wilson.

Aimed at socialists, pacifists and other anti-war activists, the Sedition Act imposed harsh penalties on anyone found guilty of making false statements that interfered with the prosecution of the war; insulting or abusing the U.S. government, the flag, the Constitution or the military; agitating against the production of necessary war materials; or advocating, teaching or defending any of these acts. Those who were found guilty of such actions, the act stated, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both. This was the same penalty that had been imposed for acts of espionage in the earlier legislation.

Source: History Channel

Of course, our founding fathers weren't too great in all cases themselves. It seems we can infer they had a few insecurity issues too. At least with Adams and those of his thinking.

Since the country was founded, Americans have struggled with the right of free speech. Should there be limits? At what point does one person's right impinge on the right of another? Should people be able to freely criticize the government, even in times of national crisis? In the late 1790s, President John Adams and Congress decided the answer to the last question was a resounding NO. 

In July 1798, Congress passed and the President signed, the Sedition Act- a bill that made it a crime to speak or write anything against the government. A person charged under the Sedition Act was subject to a maximum of two years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

That had quite a double punch as well, and especially if you weren't well off for the times. $2,000 was A LOT of late 18th century dough to cough up. Debtors prisons were alive and well with plenty of room for more back then though, so I'll bet it could be a bit more than 2 years by the end of it.

Getting back to the more recent example tho..... Quite a few people got wacked with Wilson's little sedition stick by the end of it.

Once again, U.S. Marshals were charged with the enforcement of sedition cases. By the time the law was repealed in 1920, more than 2,000 people had been prosecuted under the Sedition Act and its precursor, the Espionage Act of 1917.

Source: US Marshals Museum

I'm thinking it is irresponsible of an elected official to say what she did, at any level. Still, the only place which should have the ability to give her grief are those that can remove her. The voters that see her on the ballot. Apparently that is coming right up for her, too. We're the state that generally runs as red as a Washington Apple, but turned down Akin for McCaskill in large part because extreme ignorance just rubs the Show Me state the wrong way. lol.... (I find it a bit amusing because we do have a fairly responsive electorate across this state. Always have.....and things like this often come back to bite here)

[petrus4]

Suggesting the President is a real and legitimate ENEMY of our nation, with suggestion to see real world action to follow on that basis? Now, I think that is a bit too far. A tad over the top. Perhaps.....pushing it that last step into the abyss.

Wrabbit, I know this might seem an unspeakably radical question to ask, but...have you ever considered the possibility that Ms. Dunnegan just might be right?

America has desperately needed violent revolution for a long time, as far as I am concerned; at least since 2000, but probably longer than that.  The Presidency is also the least of the country's problems, because the executive branch has become surrounded by career politicians who are never elected, and who remain in office, irrespective of whether the party or President in question are voted in or out.

I honestly believe that, taken together, the combination of the American government, Randian Objectivism, and corporate Capitalism, represent the single most dire threat to continued human survival on this planet, that either does currently exist, or has ever existed.  Said combination is a political, economic, and sociological plague that makes Ebola look like allergic rhinitis by comparison.  It is omnicidal.  It does not discriminate as to who it kills.  It destroys plants, animals, humans; literally every element of the organic or natural world that crosses its' path.

This statement does not need to be taken as a criticism of those members of the American public who are unaffiliated with either the government or Wall Street.  Yet I will say, that if said American public wish to actively demonstrate that they are the saviours of humanity that they apparently like to regard themselves as, that they should be the first to recognise the urgent need for the complete, unsparing overthrow of their government; and this for the wellbeing of the entirety of humanity, not just their own.



I am not an American; yet ironically I often feel that I am actually more patriotic, or hold greater fidelity to the country's initial mentality, than the majority of you yourselves do.  The proverbial rebel yell is seemingly no longer heard among any of you, and it is utterly disgraceful.  I have come to believe that America will probably be the last country on this planet to revolt against its' government, at this point; yet the truth is, that yours is also the country with the greatest need to do so.

How long is it going to take?  When will you say that enough is enough?  When, more importantly, will you realise, that while doing so may cost you your lives, that there is a certain level of inhumanity, which it is honestly better to die in preference to, rather than to experience?

At least according to the propaganda that we are all taught, America's ancestors supposedly knew the above.  The country's contemporary population, on the other hand, has apparently forgotten it.  I have always believed, and will continue to believe, that sedition is a literally divine imperative; and that has never been more true at any other point in human history, than it is right now.

[undo11]

Wrabbit, I know this might seem an unspeakably radical question to ask, but...have you ever considered the possibility that Ms. Dunnegan just might be right?

America has desperately needed violent revolution for a long time, as far as I am concerned; at least since 2000, but probably longer than that.  The Presidency is also the least of the country's problems, because the executive branch has become surrounded by career politicians who are never elected, and who remain in office, irrespective of whether the party or President in question are voted in or out.

I honestly believe that, taken together, the combination of the American government, Randian Objectivism, and corporate Capitalism, represent the single most dire threat to continued human survival on this planet, that either does currently exist, or has ever existed.  Said combination is a political, economic, and sociological plague that makes Ebola look like allergic rhinitis by comparison.  It is omnicidal.  It does not discriminate as to who it kills.  It destroys plants, animals, humans; literally every element of the organic or natural world that crosses its' path.

This statement does not need to be taken as a criticism of those members of the American public who are unaffiliated with either the government or Wall Street.  Yet I will say, that if said American public wish to actively demonstrate that they are the saviours of humanity that they apparently like to regard themselves as, that they should be the first to recognise the urgent need for the complete, unsparing overthrow of their government; and this for the wellbeing of the entirety of humanity, not just their own.



I am not an American; yet ironically I often feel that I am actually more patriotic, or hold greater fidelity to the country's initial mentality, than the majority of you yourselves do.  The proverbial rebel yell is apparently no longer heard among any of you, and it is utterly disgraceful.  I have come to believe that America will probably be the last country on this planet to revolt against its' government, at this point; yet the truth is, that yours is also the country with the greatest need to do so.

How long is it going to take?  When will you say that enough is enough?  When, more importantly, will you realise, that while doing so may cost you your lives, that there is a certain level of inhumanity, which it is honestly better to die in preference to, rather than to experience?

At least according to the propaganda that we are all taught, America's ancestors supposedly knew the above.  The country's contemporary population, on the other hand, has apparently forgotten it.  I have always believed, and will continue to believe, that sedition is a literally divine imperative; and that has never been more true at any other point in human history, than it is right now.

boy oh boy, petrus, you do need to read that link in the thread you referred to as a treatise on baphomet.   sun-tzu ain't got nothing on these guys.  i mean, it's like a chess game with human life.
http://www.granddesignexposed.com/pdf/RulersofEvil.pdf

what kind of human being, would spend their entire existence, formulating ways in which to bend people to the will of one guy? it's horrific.

[Wrabbit2000]

Wrabbit, I know this might seem an unspeakably radical question to ask, but...have you ever considered the possibility that Ms. Dunnegan just might be right?

I've certainly considered it. Very briefly. It's a terrible idea. I can't say what works or what doesn't in other nations. However, a coup would put the military of the system you most dislike in unquestioned control, at least for a short time. Hopefully, if it ever happened, it would only be a short time, anyway.

Bad idea.

America has desperately needed violent revolution for a long time

Creating an open fight that destabilizes civil order within a society of over 100 million gun owners is a bad idea[/quote]

The Presidency is also the least of the country's problems, because the executive branch has become surrounded by career politicians who are never elected, and who remain in office, irrespective of whether the party or President in question are voted in or out.

I agree with that 100% and it is amazing to see which names are the same through the last 10-15 years, and the 90's, AND the 80's, and for some? The 70's as well. Same individual men. Not just the same family names. You're right about a general group of men appearing over across multiple administrations and decades.

I honestly believe that, taken together, the combination of the American government, Randian Objectivism, and corporate Capitalism, represent the single most dire threat to continued human survival on this planet, that either does currently exist, or has ever existed. 

Disagreement brings variety and that's a good thing when done without being disagreeable, eh? Agree to disagree on that point.

Yet I will say, that if said American public wish to actively demonstrate that they are the saviours of humanity that they apparently like to regard themselves as, that they should be the first to recognise the urgent need for the complete, unsparing overthrow of their government;

Careful what you'd wish for. Soviet and later Russian projections of that almost unthinkable outcome showed an ultimate break up into 3-4 different nations. America would have a very violent road internally, getting there. Too many mutually exclusive agendas. All armed.

There is also still the fact over 50% of the people who did bother to vote, voted for the guy we have right now. That's (thumbnail figuring) at least 30-35 million real people who'd think it an actionable criminal thing to see this President removed outside Impeachment (and conviction) or legitimate medical incapacity.

How long is it going to take?  When will you say that enough is enough?  When, more importantly, will you realise, that while doing so may cost you your lives, that there is a certain level of inhumanity, which it is honestly better to die in preference to, rather than to experience?

The America you seem to see or somehow know has little to no relation at all to the America I live in and have spent most of my lifetime travelling all over in trucking. I see serious issues, and I definitely see problems that support the level of demonstrations happening in some places. More will likely come. As it should. We're an open and free society, and the absurd and outright silly numbers imbalance needs driven home if the State gets all out of hand about things. 2 million on their side to control 330 million with. Anything that would seriously reduce that 330 would all but obliterate the couple million in the process ...and nowhere is THAT deep. lol....

It won't likely go beyond demonstrations until more concrete things are happening to show the system has broken down. You could start with a minimum of Obama overstaying his welcome, or something equally obvious in 2016. The public as a whole won't support or tolerate anything like forceful change short of it.

Not real likely to happen, IMO. Almost half of those that actually register to vote don't even show up. More, in some past years. That, taken from a more dismal number between eligible and registered. The system IS run by a small #....but not much conspiracy is needed at how. Too many don't participate, and those who do are largely the party faithful who barely consider or care what the names are.

Those who remain and vote outside the party faithful are the subject of $700 million to $1 billion, per side, in spending to confuse the logic from their minds for just a short period of time. Hardly fair when you think about it...but people who are already confused easily become capable of voting for the man with nuclear weapons release authority based almost entirely on popularity and wit. (sigh)

We'll have a remarkable epitaph for history: 'Here lay the American Experiment. It was struck down by apathy, and no one bothered to notice it go'.

[undo11]

We'll have a remarkable epitaph for history: 'Here lay the American Experiment. It was struck down by apathy, and no one bothered to notice it go'.

none of this makes sense.  that is part of the problem.  if the american people revolted it would take about 5 minutes with modern tech, to stop the whole thing dead in its tracks and when the dust cleared, there'd be fields of dead people for as far as the eye could see, with their guns laying mute by their sides.

if they didn't take instant response, they'd just call on their allies who they helped socially engineer their countries.  and many of them would jump at the chance to wipe out americans, as you can well imagine.   heck our government could use it as a door prize -- wanna get revenge on white protestants and jews, sign here and bring your ak47 (you keep the spoils).