Damnit AP, there's so much thought inspiring material in your post...

1) I don't believe speech violates your rights. Not under any circumstances. My actions most certainly can, but my speech can do nothing but inspire emotions.
2) Should my words make you feel entitled to defend yourself, and you can convince a judge of the necessity of those actions, then I would say you are well within your rights, while not infringing on Freedom of Speech.
3) At no point do you have the right not to be mortified/offended/affronted/horrified by the speech you hear from other people. I see a lot of that being enforced however, and I think it walks a very dangerous line.
4) The most immediate tilt against Freedom of Speech in my opinion is a Grand Jury indictment having the ability to force you to give testimony on anything you do not want to testify about under any circumstances. I understand the need for it, but applying it to Barry Bonds trainer so Congress can get the goods on Bonds for prosecution has always struck me as bullshit. I don't think your silence should EVER get you jail time. That's just me.

I've put a lot of thought into it, and I just threw easy examples up there for occurrences where speech can get you prosecuted. I don't necessarily believe I should be able to threaten your life, liberty of the pursuit of happiness. I just think Freedom of Speech means no criminal proceedings should follow a verbal demonstration. This is not so, not at all. Just say "Bomb" on an airplane, or yell "Fire" in a movie theater.

artie_fufkin wrote:

LOL. Only on this board would a thread about Cuban politics evolve into regional cuisine.
BTW, anyone ever had a Cuban sandwich? They're OK if you tell them to hold the pickle. And there's no mayo.

I'm with you in spades on the mayo thing. For reasons unexplained, the stuff absolutely disgusts me. My revulsion has grown over the years such that the little kid who used to eat tomato-and-Miracle Whip sandwiches is now an old fussbudget who won't touch tuna salad or creamy salad dressings. Haven't tried a Cuban because I heard they had mayo on 'em; good to know that ain't necessarily so. And although I eschew fast food places these days, I have a soft spot for BK precisely due to their Have It Your Way policy dating back to when Mickey D's wouldn't think of letting you order a Big Mac without the pink glop.

"Now you know exactly what I'm arguing. We have no freedom of speech."

Actually, I still really don't. If you are saying that the concept of free speech is a myth because there are certain acts which are entirely speech based that can result in a prosecution, then I agree in a literal sense. Perjury being an obvious example. But what I can't tell is whether you are saying that the examples you cited should be protected or whether you're just saying people should quit saying we have a right to free speech.

Exactly AP, we have no freedom of speech, thank you for doing the legal research for me.

Fors, it's not certain things. There's probably 100 ways to be punished criminally for things you say. There's probably 1,000,000 ways to be punished in today's society due to the same thing. I read a while back about a guy getting fired because he admitted that the presense of a traditionally dressed Muslim on his plane made him nervous and highly aware of that person. 9/10 Americans probably felt the same way, but him actually saying it cost him his job.

My major beef is this facade of Freedom of Speech, we have nothing of the sort... If we had "Freedom of Speech", nobody would give two shits about what a Venezuelan born US Citizen feels about a guy who used to lead Cuba. I personally don't care one bit if he loves and respects Castro. I'll even agree with his comment that you have to respect a guy that dodged 600+ CIA assassination attempts and held power so long. Despite America's best efforts, this dude has been kicking for 60 years with his middle finger in the air.

"I'm with you in spades on the mayo thing. For reasons unexplained, the stuff absolutely disgusts me."

I'm not completely skivved by mayo. I just don't like it on my hamburger.
My dad tells a story about the first job he got out of college at a place in downtown Boston that was across the street from a Jewish deli. My dad grew up on a farm, and the closest synagogue was probably 50 miles away. Passover was when you didn't get picked for a team.
Anyway, dad goes into the deli for the first time and orders a pastrami on white bread with mayo.
The guy behind the counter looks at him with utter disgust and says "I'm NOT making that sandwich."

Last edited by artie_fufkin (4/11/2012 8:29 am)

artie_fufkin wrote:

"I'm with you in spades on the mayo thing. For reasons unexplained, the stuff absolutely disgusts me."

I'm not completely skivved by mayo. I just don't like it on my hamburger.
My dad tells a story about the first job he got out of college at a place in downtown Boston that was across the street from a Jewish deli. My dad grew up on a farm, and the closest synagogue was probably 50 miles away. Passover was when you didn't get picked for a team.
Anyway, dad goes into the deli for the first time and orders a pastrami on white bread with mayo.
The guy behind the counter looks at him with utter disgust and says "I'm NOT making that sandwich."

I love mayo. I should be Canadian. Can't stand mustard, and can barely tolerate Ketchup. Unless you mix it 50/50 with mayo, then that's amazing.

alz wrote:

By themselves they are noble and good ideals to prevent such crime as soon as possible. I'm not denying that. However this is not all that contains our freedom of speech. Members of the media get jailed for refusing to reveal a source, and there's Bonds trainer getting jailed for what 18 months because he refused to testify to a grand jury over whether Bonds took juice?

I can understand your fears over Freedom of Speech being unchecked, and can agree with the moral reasoning behind it. I hope you can also understand mine when a Government takes aspects of the law that were intended to make sure we'd get testimony of a vital crime (mass murder, serial rapist, corruption of power) and apply it to a fucking strength trainer....

I agree that Anderson's deal was a BS witch hunt and a waste of federal time.  He should have just got on stand and misremembered like Clemens.  Not that I like Clemens but his deal was BS as well.

Fors, what good is the First Ammendment when the society punishment for having a thought expressed is going to destroy your life/liberty/pursuit of happiness? Like so many other laws the application is stretched to exceed the intention of the law.

I'm not lamenting freedom of speech as much as I'm lamenting the American legal process deciding to stretch the coverage umbrella of laws beyond the intent that was behind their creation. By doing so, they have managed to put serious stipulations, limitations, or other consequence on 5 of the original 10 "inalienable" rights that our founders died to give us.

AP, on another topic altogether, you would be shocked at the individuality I do not have if I want to keep the job I currently have. I do, it's a good job with a pretty strong salary, and a great potential to advance. The sacrifices that come with it however.. I'm not even sure if I can frequent a gentlemen's club without risking termination. I possibly can, but if I'm recognized or photgraphed with that place in the background and it comes out that I witness a crime... If at any point in time my employer is associated to me in any way they do not 100% approve of, I can be fired. The likeliness of this occuring are minimal, but there is certainly a chance. This is not uncommon at all. Americans have grown used to this.

A lady was in the insideSTL.com Girl Next Door photo shoot. This is a poor-medium taste nightlife site who does the "eye candy" thing. Sensual poses, minimal clothing. Nearly got canned because it was mentioned in her bio that she worked for our company....

I cannot even wear a goatee, and no visual tattoos of any kind. No piercings either, anywhere visible.

"But my First Amendment rights allow me the right to not associate with you if you choose to get the tattoo, and if you happen to be my employee, then it costs you your job. "

Or get knocked. 

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/former-coach-fired-christian-school-wedlock-pregnancy-145601399.html

alz wrote:

Fors, what good is the First Ammendment when the society punishment for having a thought expressed is going to destroy your life/liberty/pursuit of happiness? Like so many other laws the application is stretched to exceed the intention of the law.

I'm not lamenting freedom of speech as much as I'm lamenting the American legal process deciding to stretch the coverage umbrella of laws beyond the intent that was behind their creation. By doing so, they have managed to put serious stipulations, limitations, or other consequence on 5 of the original 10 "inalienable" rights that our founders died to give us.

AP, on another topic altogether, you would be shocked at the individuality I do not have if I want to keep the job I currently have. I do, it's a good job with a pretty strong salary, and a great potential to advance. The sacrifices that come with it however.. I'm not even sure if I can frequent a gentlemen's club without risking termination. I possibly can, but if I'm recognized or photgraphed with that place in the background and it comes out that I witness a crime... If at any point in time my employer is associated to me in any way they do not 100% approve of, I can be fired. The likeliness of this occuring are minimal, but there is certainly a chance. This is not uncommon at all. Americans have grown used to this.

A lady was in the insideSTL.com Girl Next Door photo shoot. This is a poor-medium taste nightlife site who does the "eye candy" thing. Sensual poses, minimal clothing. Nearly got canned because it was mentioned in her bio that she worked for our company....

I cannot even wear a goatee, and no visual tattoos of any kind. No piercings either, anywhere visible.

Alz, I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your question, yesterday was super busy.

We could spend years debating what the framers intended when they drafted the Constitution and never reach a resultion.  In fact, people have this debate on a regular basis in Washington DC.  I think a lot of the arguments to the Supreme Court regarding Obamacare centered on what the framers intended when they included the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

I'm not a First Amendment scholar, and certainly don't hold myself out to be an expert on the framers' original intent.  But whenever I get into discussions like these, I try to ask myself what was it that pissed off a group of intelligent men so much that they basically told their king to go fuck himself and were then willing to go to war to escape his rule.  My suspicion is that you can trace every one of the first 8 amendments in the bill of rights to some specific abuse that the colonists suffered under the King's rule.

You are correct that the First Amendment is not an absolute freedom to say whatever you want.  But the First Amendment does give you the right to criticize the President and his policies without landing in prison or finding yourself in front of a firing squad.  As repugnant as it may be, the First Amendment gives those assholes affiliated with the Westboro Baptist Church the right to protest at funerals and it allows whackjobs like Harold Camping the right to predict the end of the world.

You ask what good was the First Amendment if society has the power to ruin your life for the thoughts you express, but I'm not sure that the First Amendment was ever intended to protect you from society.  Even in 1787, a person probably had the right to not purchase goods from a person who manufactured those goods through slave labor. 

Much like the Ozzie Guillen situation, in which I can't appreciate the incorrectness of what he said without being Cuban, I suspect that we cannot fully appreciate the value of the First Amendment until we've lived somewhere where those same protections don't exist. 

Imagine living in a country where the only information you receive is state-sponsored and it's fed to you by someone like that Baghdad Bob guy.  Never mind those American tanks rolling through town, we are winning the war and have the Americans on the run.  It would almost be like being a Cub fan thinking every year is the year you're finally going to win the World Series.

"can barely tolerate Ketchup. Unless you mix it 50/50 with mayo, then that's amazing."

It's also called Russian salad dressing.

"The right to bear arms has been almost annihilated entirely. It's amendment number 2... That's how important our founders thought it was."

Like Fors, I'm not going to speculate on what was going through the framers' minds when they wrote this, but one has to at least look at the Second Amendment in its entirety:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, I don't know what a "well-regulated militia" exactly is, but I'm pretty sure that the Second Amendment does not, as Ted Nugent would have you believe, essentially give him the right to pack a gun wherever and whenever he wants. And it's certainly absurd for Sarah Palin to suggest the framers' intent was to allow people to arm themselves against the government they were trying to establish.
There's a certain mindset that the framers were these pristine egalitarians who drafted a blueprint of a utopian society. Far from the truth. If you weren't a male white land owner in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, you had no say in the government. So much for "all men being created equal."
The Constitution is an ingeniously-crafted document, and the American democracy grants its citizens more freedom than any other government in the history of civilization, but like the authors themselves, it has flaws.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"if we had the same media in place when Clinton got his hummer, nobody would have blinked."

And we would have been poorer for our ignorance. Without sounding like someone from Fox News, the media's role ought to be to dissemminate as much accurate information as it can obtain, and let the people it serves make up their minds.

I agree 100% with you on media needing to stress the priority of accuracy as much/more than they seem to prioritize speed.

News I don't want.
I guess I'm different then most people. I don't really care where the President decides to put "the first penis". I don't really care if Favre films his and texts the pics to hot girls. I certainly don't care what Tiger does with his "wood" either. There's a soap opera-esque bombardment of reporting that makes it feel like the Enquirer is running the show. TMZ makes me sick... I don't care about Lohan staying clean or out of trouble. I don't care if Brittany Spears is crazy. I could care less if Snookie wore the same dress as J-Lo to the Quad-Annual "BlowMe" awards.

News I want.
I care about the Pakistan Bin Laden operation, our foreign relations fallout for greenlighting it without alerting our "allies". I care what happens to the Fort Hood Shooter. I'd like to know what's truthfully in store for Zimmerman, and where the facts of the case lead. I still wanna know who killed Pac and Biggie I loved knowing that Charles Manson was coming up for a parole hearing, hopefully for the last time, where he was declined. Unless he lives to ~92/93, we won't see that headline again, and he's not getting out.

Anyone know of a news outlet that is perfectly happy to go blank if there's nothing major going down? That's a news source I would tie into my phone.