Smoking Ban...For You, Not Leftist Elites [Archive]

WMT1

27th April 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
This is a laugh...I'm Tobacco addicted but I have no problem in consuming it in private...not up the nose of my fellow citizens. I have a "smoking place"...outside my house, in the back yard (children in the house). I can happily sit out there and shorten my miserable life as much as I like without poisoning anyone else.

That's fine for you. But if others prefer to be able to do so in a restaurant or bar, why should the owners of such establishments be prohibited from catering to those preferences?

People accept that they cannot drink alcohol wherever and whenever they please.

This isn't about "wherever and whenever they please". It's about wherever and whenever the owner of the property they happen to be on has no objections.

I cannot smoke pot, crack or opium.

:rolleyes:

Sadly, some people have no shame about citing existing bad laws as precedent to support additional bad laws.

History has decided that this particular drug is legal to consume....just not wherever and whenever I please.....

:confused:

History has decided? Who the hell speaks for "history"? This is the sort of nonsensical argument people have relied on to try to defend all sorts of restrictions on liberty that would otherwise be indefensible. You might want to rethink this.

is that such a huge imposition on my liberty?

Sounds like it may not be such a huge imposition on yours, but if others want to smoke in a bar or restaurant, and there is a bar/restaurant owner who wants to allow it, why should that be anyone else's call to make?

The Central Scrutinizer

27th April 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by shanek

No, a public place is a place owned by the government. Anything else is private property.

No, a bar is on private property.

Technically you are correct. However..... I assume you would then argue that department stores and restaurants, being "private property" can exclude blacks, women, etc from entering? The courts would disagree.

ImpyTimpy

27th April 2003, 06:26 PM

How exactly do you define public and private property then? Is your house considered to be public property?

Originally posted by shanek

Because "public area" has been redefined to include private property. If they can ban it on private property, then it is Prohibition, albeit not total Prohibition.

shanek

27th April 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Technically you are correct. However..... I assume you would then argue that department stores and restaurants, being "private property" can exclude blacks, women, etc from entering?

If they really want to lose money, yes.

The courts would disagree.

If you're going to accept court findings as legitimate then you're going to be forced to accept a lot of incredibly insane things.

shanek

27th April 2003, 06:39 PM

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
How exactly do you define public and private property then?

I said so above: Public property is owned by the government. Everything else is private property.

The Central Scrutinizer

27th April 2003, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by shanek

If they really want to lose money, yes.

If you're going to accept court findings as legitimate then you're going to be forced to accept a lot of incredibly insane things.

I wasn't disagreeing with you, just making sure you were consistant. You are.

True, I may not agree with a lot of court descisions, but ultimately, it's all we have to go by.

shanek

27th April 2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
True, I may not agree with a lot of court descisions, but ultimately, it's all we have to go by.

I strongly disagree with that. We have this other thing to "go by," called the Constitution. Even the courts are subject to and limited by it.

The Central Scrutinizer

27th April 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by shanek

I strongly disagree with that. We have this other thing to "go by," called the Constitution. Even the courts are subject to and limited by it.

The courts interpret the Constitution. You and I do not. (We can, but it doesn't count)

The Fool

27th April 2003, 08:28 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Fool
This is a laugh...I'm Tobacco addicted but I have no problem in consuming it in private...not up the nose of my fellow citizens. I have a "smoking place"...outside my house, in the back yard (children in the house).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shanek:
How about when you have guests over? Can you do it then? If so, what's the difference between that and you running a bar on your private property and allowing smoking?

Because my home is my private property. I say that nobody smokes in there, my home, my choice. I have not set it up as a public place.... ie a bar. You are using your own definition of public place here.....The defiition used for this legislation specifically includes places where the public can reasonably be expected to go....ie, a bar. I could understand if I set up a "smoking den" or something....but a bar is somewhere I expect to be able to walk into and drink booze. I dont think its unreasonable for me to expect the air to be non-toxic.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
People accept that they cannot drink alcohol wherever and whenever they please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shanek:
People accept a lot of bad, and even tyrannical, policies.

I fully agree....they have a vote, thats about all they have to fight whatever they feel is bad.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I cannot smoke pot, crack or opium.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shane:
And that tyranny is destroying our society.

ok...I lied, I smoke a bit of pot, I do smoke a bit. But isn't there a difference between prohibition, which I disagree with. And restrictions on sale and consumption of intoxicants and drugs that are potentially harmful to bystanders.....I don't think drinking in public spaces is a good idea, I can understand people who want it banned, I can understand people who want to be able to go into bars etc and have non-toxic airto breathe.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
History has decided that this particular drug is legal to consume....just not wherever and whenever I please.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shanek:
Who's this "history," and with what authority does it speak?

mostly its US drug policy that is enforced on most of the world. I never cease to be amused about drug legality and how certain drugs bounce between legal and illegal...In the 50s there was heroin in cough mixture in Australia....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
is that such a huge imposition on my liberty?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

shane:
Yes.

Fair enough....but i think there is such a weight of public support that smoking restrictions are going to happen, like it or not.
__________________

shanek

28th April 2003, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
The courts interpret the Constitution. You and I do not. (We can, but it doesn't count)

The courts have no more power to interpret the Constitution as do you or I. The courts are supposed to be there to enforce the Constitution, not interpret it.

shanek

28th April 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
Because my home is my private property.

So is a bar or restaurant.

I have not set it up as a public place.... ie a bar.

If you have guests over, how is it any different than a bar?

You are using your own definition of public place here.

No, I'm not. I'm using the traditional common law definition.

I fully agree....they have a vote, thats about all they have to fight whatever they feel is bad.

Yet again, I have to point out the Constitution...

I can understand people who want to be able to go into bars etc and have non-toxic airto breathe.

But why does what they want trump the rights of the property owner?

mostly its US drug policy that is enforced on most of the world.

So we're back to bad laws again.

Fair enough....but i think there is such a weight of public support that smoking restrictions are going to happen, like it or not.

One could have once said the same of slavery.

Thanz

28th April 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by shanek

The courts have no more power to interpret the Constitution as do you or I. The courts are supposed to be there to enforce the Constitution, not interpret it.

Really, shanek, I do expect better from you. Word games? Come on. You cannot enforce a law if you do not know what it means or how it applies. Interpreting what the Constitution means is the method used to enforce it.

On a broader note, do you really think that there is no difference between a bar and your backyard? Can anyone come into your backyard and get a beer?

The private/public dichotomy you propose does not exist in such a simplistic form. There are different rules for an establishment that is open to the public and a private residence, and there has been for a long, long time.

I assume from your stance that you also believe that restaurants should not be subject to any sort of health inspections either.

Skeptic

28th April 2003, 08:28 AM

The whole bruhahaha in this thread seems to center around the meaning of the word "public". It has many meanings, of course; but in this context, a "public place" means a BUSINESS THAT SERVES THE PUBLIC, where anybody can come in without an invitation, not one that is OWNED by the public. Most restaurants, theatres, and sports arena, for instance, are privately owned, but are "public" in the sense of being businesses that serve the public.

Of course, businesses that are open to the public have to obey certain rules that private clubs or people (in the sense of not being open to the public, and requiring an invitation or permission to enter) do not. For example, I may refuse to invite black people into my home, or refuse to accept women into my country club. but I may not refuse to serve blacks or women in a restaurant that I own that is open to the public. Or, I may go out of the bathroom without washing my hands in my home and make a sandwich, but I must, by law, wash my hands after using the bathroom if I work in a restaurant and am preparing food for customers--even if I own the restaurant.

Bloomberg isn't being a hypocrite (this time.) He isn't allowing people to smoke in a bar he owns, only in his private apartment, which is NOT open to the public. Anybody else can allow people to smoke and drink in their apartment as well, legally; the new law doesn't apply to such situations.

P.S.

I agree that this law is stupid--it will only lead to the creation of "smokeasies", places with legal booze and illegal cigarettes (go figure.) Since many people go to bars to smoke as well as drink, no bar can afford to obey the law without losing most of its customers. In effect, it is a new tax on bars--and, indirectly, on those who patronize them--since they must break the law and pay the fines in order to stay in business.

If I were in their place, I would start a civil disobedience campaign where all bars just refuse to abide by the new law, and dare Bloomberg to send in thousands of cops every night to enforce it. I'll bet the result would simply be a city-wide "give your friendly neighborhood cop a free highball" charity campaign.

I don't smoke and I rarely go to bars, but when I DO go to a bar, I don't do it for my health! Am I supposed to believe that the woman sitting next to a smoker, drinking her fourth vodka martini, is SOOOOO concerned about her health while doing so that she cannot take sniff of cigarette smoke while doing it? Is (hic) my health (hic, hic) so precious that (hic) I cannot stand (hic, hic, hic) to breath some smoke after (hic) a night of drinking (hic, hic) hard liquer (thud, falls under the table)?

But all this has nothing to do with the "public/private" issue, or with Bloomberg's supposed hypocricy.

P.S.S.

A HYPOCRITICAL politician??? Next thing you'll tell me he sometimes lies, as well.

Tricky

28th April 2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by shanek

The courts have no more power to interpret the Constitution as do you or I. The courts are supposed to be there to enforce the Constitution, not interpret it.
Actually I believe you are confusing the judicial branch with the executive branch. The primary role of the courts is to interpret (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/seminars/2001/sikkenga.html) the law.

Are you sure you were a candidate for public office?

DavidJames

28th April 2003, 09:16 AM

"The courts are supposed to be there to enforce the Constitution, not interpret it."

I suspect you are very happy the courts interpreted the meaning of 2nd amendment rather than taken the words literally.

Doghouse Reilly

28th April 2003, 11:24 AM

In California where they've had this ban for several years it hasn't put any bars out of business and they enforce it. Even many smokers I've talked to enjoy not sitting in a smoky room. It comes down to workers rights as well, a worker should not, for economic reasons, be forced to work in a hazardous environment, such as a smoky bar or restaurant. Any employer should be required to provide as safe a working environment as possible, as well as a safe environment for patrons. Second hand smoke has been proven to be harmful....so what more is there to say?
As an ex-smoker, I can say that I truly truly appreciate this ban. And some of you non-smokers who oppose this because of privacy rights, etc, should try going over to Europe where everyone smokes like a chimney all over the place and you have to turn your head every two seconds to avoid inhaling a lung full of smoke and then see how much you appreciate the lack of this over here. The sad fact is that restaurant owners would allow smoking for the sake of a small minority. It's ridiculous when there's two people smoking in a restaurant filled with 50 people and the other 48 non smokers have to breath in that foul air. But they have better things to do then campaign for the owner to disallow smoking, whereas the smokers will be disproportionally vocal....as people in the grip of addiction always are. I don't mind the government stepping in on this one, and that's coming from a rabid libertarian. It took me a while to come to terms with this , but I really support it now.

The Fool

28th April 2003, 04:57 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shanek

If you have guests over, how is it any different than a bar?

It is different because I don't charge my guests for food and drinks, maybe I should! But my home is not a commercial building which becomes a public place as soon as it is opened for business and the general public has access. I do not need to be invited into a Bar...Its a public place, If it is open and operating under its licence any reasonable member of the public can enter without permission....It is a public place.

No, I'm not. I'm using the traditional common law definition.

no your not :)

The term "public place" In US common law means a place which is generally open to all persons in a community as opposed to being restricted to specific persons. Churches, schools, and commercial buildings such as shops and Bars as well as any publicly owned rights-of-way or property are public places.

shanek

28th April 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Really, shanek, I do expect better from you. Word games? Come on.

It's not word games—it's a very important distinction! The Supreme Court had no authority to "interpret" the Constitution to mean that the Federal government could restrict free speech as long as there was a compelling reason, for example. This kind of "interpretation" is something the founders would have balked at. The Constitution means what it says; the founders' writings make that plain, as I have shown. There is a big difference between enforcing something and interpreting something, and for you to dismiss that distinction as "word games" just shows how much you're unwilling to even consider that you might be wrong.

On a broader note, do you really think that there is no difference between a bar and your backyard?

From a legal standpoint, no.

Can anyone come into your backyard and get a beer?

If I say they can, yes.

The private/public dichotomy you propose does not exist in such a simplistic form.

It did up until the politicians started perverting the meaning of it.

There are different rules for an establishment that is open to the public and a private residence, and there has been for a long, long time.

That doesn't mean it's justified. We've had the Income Tax for a long, long time; that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

I assume from your stance that you also believe that restaurants should not be subject to any sort of health inspections either.

Not government mandated health inspections, no.

shanek

28th April 2003, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Actually I believe you are confusing the judicial branch with the executive branch. The primary role of the courts is to interpret (http://teachingamericanhistory.org/seminars/2001/sikkenga.html) the law.

Are you sure you were a candidate for public office?

Show me where the Constitution empowers the SC to interpret it.

shanek

28th April 2003, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
I suspect you are very happy the courts interpreted the meaning of 2nd amendment rather than taken the words literally.

The 2nd amendment literally says that our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How have they "interpreted" it?

shanek

28th April 2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
In California where they've had this ban for several years it hasn't put any bars out of business and they enforce it.

Well, I suppose that makes it justified then. :rolleyes:

If it's something that people really want, the government doesn't have to do a thing. The free market will provide smoke-free restaurants and workplaces if that is what the market demands.

It comes down to workers rights as well, a worker should not, for economic reasons, be forced to work in a hazardous environment, such as a smoky bar or restaurant.

Who in America is being forced to work anywhere? Slavery was abolished a long time ago.

shanek

28th April 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
It is different because I don't charge my guests for food and drinks,

And if you did? Would it suddenly be different?

maybe I should! But my home is not a commercial building which becomes a public place as soon as it is opened for business and the general public has access.

And our increasingly convoluted definition of "public" gets modified yet again...

I do not need to be invited into a Bar.

Yes, you do. If you don't believe me, try going into one when it's closed and see what happens. (Hint: It's called "forced entry.") The "Open" sign is your invitation.

The term "public place" In US common law means a place which is generally open to all persons in a community as opposed to being restricted to specific persons.

No, it doesn't. It never did. US Common Law came from British Common Law which vested the title to all public property to the King. The US, not having a king, vests the titles of all public property to the various governments of the Republic.

shanek

28th April 2003, 05:36 PM

Those of you who are in complete denial about this might want to stick your heads back in the sand before you read these definitions from law.com:

public property
n. property owned by the government or one of its agencies, divisions, or entities. Commonly a reference to parks, playgrounds, streets, sidewalks, schools, libraries and other property regularly used by the general public.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1683

property
n. anything that is owned by a person or entity. Property is divided into two types: "real property," which is any interest in land, real estate, growing plants or the improvements on it, and "personal property" (sometimes called "personalty"), which is everything else. "Common property" is ownership by more than one person of the same possession. "Community property" is a form of joint ownership between husband and wife recognized in several states. "Separate property" is property owned by one spouse only in a community property state, or a married woman's sole ownership in some states. "Public property" refers to ownership by a governmental body such as the federal, state, county or city governments or their agencies (e.g. school or redevelopment districts). The government and the courts are obligated to protect property rights and to help clarify ownership.

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1645 (emphasis mine)

The Fool

28th April 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Those of you who are in complete denial about this might want to stick your heads back in the sand before you read this quote from law.com:

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1683

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1645 (emphasis mine)

starting to get a bit frustrated about this shane?

try citing a definition for "public place" instead of "public property" There is a major difference.....and don't tell me to stick my head back in the sand when you appear to be deliberately avoiding the blood obvious. Being obnoxious is not going to improve your lack of understanding of what a public place is.

Bars are public places Shane....get used to it. Privately owned or publicly owned makes not one bit of difference...If it is open to the public it is a public place.

The Central Scrutinizer

28th April 2003, 05:56 PM

DavidJames

28th April 2003, 07:26 PM

"The 2nd amendment literally says that our rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How have they "interpreted" it?"

"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"

It is one sentence, throwing out the first part (correctly or not) is interpreting the entire sentence.

shanek

28th April 2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
try citing a definition for "public place" instead of "public property"

They don't have one for "public place." Here's their definition of public:

public
1) n. the people of the nation, state, county, district or municipality which the government serves. 2) adj. referring to any agency, interest, property, or activity which is under the authority of the government or which belongs to the people. This distinguishes public from private interests as with public and private schools, public and private utilities, public and private hospitals, public and private lands and public and private roads.

Still doesn't include bars and restaurants.

By the way, FindLaw's Dictionary of Law didn't have one either:

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/search.pl?s=public+place

You spouting off made-up terms does not impress me. Neither am I impressed when legislators do it.

Bars are public places Shane.

No, they aren't, no matter how many times you say it. Reference the definition of "public" above; that does not apply to bars and restaurants.

shanek

28th April 2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
The NRA wouldn't like it if they enforced it.

1) In what way, and 2) why should I care what the NRA would or wouldn't like?

shanek

28th April 2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by DavidJames
It is one sentence, throwing out the first part (correctly or not) is interpreting the entire sentence.

Who threw out the first part?

Tricky

28th April 2003, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Show me where the Constitution empowers the SC to interpret it.
Now Shane. Don't start losing it here. If two groups argue over the interpretation of the Constitution (or over the Second Amendment), who decides which interpretation is correct? Hint: It's not the Legislative, and its not the Executive. It starts with a J.

Really, Shane, I have a great deal of respect for you and I would hate to see you take a ludicrously indefensible position. like Jedi's "gravity is only created by stars" stance.

Judge = interpret.
Judge <> enforce.

Get back to what you do best, whackin' dem Republicrats!

shanek

28th April 2003, 08:10 PM

More definitions for the pig-headed:

public

1 a: exposed to general view
Example: {h,1}public indecency

b: known or recognized by many or most people

2 a: of, relating to, or affecting all of the people or the whole area of a nation or state
Example: {h,1}public statutes

b: of or relating to a government: authorized by, administered by, or acting for the people as a political entity
Example: {h,1}public expenditures
Example: the {h,1}public prosecutor

c: of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation
Example: holding {h,1}public office

d: provided for, used by, or containing the records of a government agency
Example: the post office and other {h,1}public buildings

3: of or relating to people in general

4: of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs
Example: {h,1}public policy
Example: a matter of {h,1}public concern

5: devoted to the general or national welfare
Example: actions motivated by {h,1}public spirit

6: accessible to or shared by all members of the community
Example: a {h,1}public hearing
Example: a {h,1}public park
(compare private)

7: capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market (often used with go)

http://dictionary.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=e2/e21d8f5d32899563e83a02aca4b58b0b

Note definition #6 is the one being claimed as referring to bars and restaurants...but the examples given are public hearings and public parks.

I did find one definition for "public place," at http://www.petercollin.com/lawcom.html (I can't link directly to the definition because it's a dynamic page; do a search for "public place" and you'll get it):

public place = place (such as a road, park or pavement) where the public in general have a right to be

This supports my position. Roads, parks, etc., not bars and restaurants.

Keep those heads stuck in the sand...

shanek

28th April 2003, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

Now Shane. Don't start losing it here. If two groups argue over the interpretation of the Constitution (or over the Second Amendment), who decides which interpretation is correct? Hint: It's not the Legislative, and its not the Executive. It starts with a J.

The two sides do argue their cases before the Judicial branch. The Courts have the obligation of deciding in favor of the group whose arguments coincide with the Constitution as written. That still doesn't mean they have the ability to interpret it!

Unless, of course, you're using the word "interpret" in its applicative sense; they can apply the Constitution to real-world situations. But they do NOT have the authority to "interpret" the Constitution in the sense we've been meaning it—using the Constitution to justify things that aren't directly permitted by it.

The Fool

28th April 2003, 08:23 PM

Shanek:

This is the last post I am doing on the "public place" issue. I can only do so much......

I googled the terms "public, place and definition". Everyone and thier dog has one. some of them are listed below...as you say, they all hark back to british common law, that why the definition of a public place is very much the same here in Australia. The reason I know something about it is a very close friend of mine is a news photographer, he is legally allowed to photograph people "in a public place" but not on thier own private property. He is absolutely certain on what constitutes a public place under common law....and a Bar is a perfect example of a public place. It is not a private place even if it is privately owned....anyone can enter, it is a public place....

now if you wish to stick to your definition of public place, where it does not apply to privately owned places then admit that you are the only known person who uses this definition. All others clearly state that the private or public ownership is irrelevant. the simple test is if the place is somewhere that the public would be reasonably expected to go.....

385.10. "Public place" defined. Whenever used in this chapter, "public place" shall include streets, alleys and sidewalks dedicated to public use, and shall also include such parts of buildings and other premises whether publicly or privately owned which are used by the general public or to which the general public is invited commercially, for a fee, or otherwise, or
in or on which the general public is permitted without specific invitation.
(Code 1960, As Amend., § 870.180)

Sec. 16-1. Public place defined.
The term "public place," as used in this chapter, shall mean any street, alley, park, public building, or any place of business, grounds, parking lot, or area of assembly in the city, which is open to or frequented by the public.

Public place, defined.
1-5704. Public place shall mean any enclosed, indoor
area used by the general public or serving as a place of work,
including, but not limited to, restaurants, retail stores,
offices and other commercial establishments, public conveyances,
educational facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums,
arenas, and meeting rooms, but excluding private, enclosed
offices occupied exclusively by smokers even though such offices
may be visited by nonsmokers.

Public Place Defined: Public place shall mean any place to which the public has access, including any street, highway, road, alley, sidewalk, parking lot, parks and those establishments generally open for the public convenience.

"public place" means the dining rooms in hotels, restaurants, cafes and cafeterias, theaters, arenas, passenger elevators, streetcars, buses, interurban and railway passenger coaches, motor and other passenger vehicles used by common carriers, railway station waiting rooms, and state, county and city buildings;

71-5704: Public place, defined.

Public place shall mean any enclosed, indoor area used by the general public or serving as a place of work, including, but not limited to, restaurants, retail stores, offices and other commercial establishments, public conveyances, educational facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, arenas, and meeting rooms

can you come up with one example (besides siting yourself) that would exclude a bar?????
You can continue to offer up definitions of other things like "Public" and "Public ownership" I cant decide if you are doing this out of ignorance or a deliberate desire to confuse the issue. Maybe calling people pigheaded and moronic helps? Anyhow, I can't force you to understand......

Tricky

28th April 2003, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by shanek
This supports my position. Roads, parks, etc., not bars and restaurants.
No, Shanek, it goes against your point. You should not assume that because it only listed two examples that these are the only ones. The dictionary cannot list every example. But the defintion clearly says "A place where the public in general have a right to be." That certainly applies to any establishment that doesn't insist on membership. If you are invited (as with a sign for advertisement) to walk in, then it is a public place. If there are restrictions, they should be clearly posted (e.g. "You must be 21 to enter.) I have yet to see a sign that says "People who are offended by smoking are forbidden to enter," or even a simple "smoking is permitted throughout this establishment" sign. Why do you suppose that is?

Tricky

28th April 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by shanek
The two sides do argue their cases before the Judicial branch. The Courts have the obligation of deciding in favor of the group whose arguments coincide with the Constitution as written. That still doesn't mean they have the ability to interpret it!
In what possible way could you call this anything other than interpretation? Some people say you should interpret Amendment Two to mean that only a "well ordered militia" should have arms. Others interpret it to mean that a "well ordered militia" is only one possibility. By selecting which one of these interpretations is correct, the Court is interpreting the Constitution.

Originally posted by shanek
Unless, of course, you're using the word "interpret" in its applicative sense; they can apply the Constitution to real-world situations. But they do NOT have the authority to "interpret" the Constitution in the sense we've been meaning it—using the Constitution to justify things that aren't directly permitted by it.
Applicative sense? I'm afraid you have lost me there. Could you define "applicative sense" for me?

The U.S. Constitution is called a "living document". It is loosely written specifically for the purpose of being adaptable. That is why it has been amended so few times over two hundred years. By contrast, the Texas Constitution, which was written to avoid interpretation, is more a set of laws than a set of guidelines. It has been amended 409 times, and it is a legal nightmare to figure out what it means. Which system do you think is better?

Tony

28th April 2003, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

The U.S. Constitution is called a "living document".

Where in the constitution or the federalist papers does it say the constitution is a "living document"?

Tricky

28th April 2003, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Where in the constitution or the federalist papers does it say the constitution is a "living document"?
That is how historians describe it. It is a high compliment. Very few documents, especially legal documents, can survive the changing times with so little modification. It speaks well of the founding fathers' ability to recognize that things would change and a rigid document would not be able to cover all possibilities. So it is very general and loosly worded. No doubt, the FFs would be quite shocked to see the way we've interpreted it now. ("What!!!?? They're letting women vote?") The fact that we've been able to use judicial interpretation instead of rewrites gives it a flexibility that is, IMO, one of the foundations of our freedom.

Tony

28th April 2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

The fact that we've been able to use judicial interpretation instead of rewrites gives it a flexibility that is, IMO, one of the foundations of our freedom.

Except when that "interpretation" is used to take away freedoms.

Tricky

28th April 2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Except when that "interpretation" is used to take away freedoms.
Every single legal document in the world takes away certain kinds of freedoms. They all say, "You cannot do whatever the hell you want". The fact that "what you can do" depends mostly on the way society has evolved is the most freedom you could have.

corplinx

28th April 2003, 09:43 PM

Shanek, I've given up trying to convince people of the wrongness of banning smoking in privately owned establishments. I've nver seen anyone change their mind on the subject.

I blame this sort of apathy about the erosion of civil liberties on groups who constantly make false or exaggerated civil liberty infringement claims on politicians they dont like. Its been so long since anyone's seen a real civil liberty grab than now when there is one they dont recognize it for what it is.

The Fool

28th April 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
Shanek, I've given up trying to convince people of the wrongness of banning smoking in privately owned establishments. I've nver seen anyone change their mind on the subject.

I blame this sort of apathy about the erosion of civil liberties on groups who constantly make false or exaggerated civil liberty infringement claims on politicians they dont like. Its been so long since anyone's seen a real civil liberty grab than now when there is one they dont recognize it for what it is.

I can see your personal liberty viewpoint, trust me I really can:)

The private ownership thing is a red herring. If I open my private property for commercial use, after obtaining the required licences etc...I then allow the general public access, As soon as I do that the area becomes part of the living space of society, public place. Where the rule of law prevails. It becmes a public place in the USA, not "Fool Land". Because I own the land doesn't give me the ability to over-ride the law. I can't decide to sell booze to the underage just because I own the property. I can't elect to ignore certain laws because I own the property.

If the society I live in bans smoking in public places then thats the law. I can fight the law in the usual legal manner...If I choose to ignore the law I must accept the consequences.....There is no point beating yourself and others about it. Its the law, thats life in a free society. People will ask for and get laws you don't like. The majority in the USA seem to want smoking restrictions, as the majority in Australia do, If they didn't the laws would not have a chance of getting up.....

If you want to fight for personal liberties, isn't there enough examples of serious issues to attack? The rights of people to render the air toxic seems to be rather low on the table of Personal liberties (to me). I suppose it can be seen as the thin edge........but isn't speed limits on roads the thin edge too? I don't see too many people complaining thier rights to drive too fast are being infringed.

KelvinG

28th April 2003, 10:42 PM

Mr Manifesto

28th April 2003, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by The Fool
...blood obvious...

I know it's not what you meant but that doesn't make it any less cool. :)

Mr Manifesto

28th April 2003, 10:53 PM

Wasn't this 'left wing elite' the heir of choice of Giuliani? The propaganda in this place is shameless.

peptoabysmal

28th April 2003, 11:09 PM

You may find this site amusing:
http://www.forces.org/index.htm

corplinx

29th April 2003, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG

I find the pro-smokers are apathetic about the well being of employees in bars and restaurants who are forced to endure their second hand smoke.

Forced to endure? Now you see why we don't take pro-ban people seriously.

shanek

29th April 2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
now if you wish to stick to your definition of public place, where it does not apply to privately owned places then admit that you are the only known person who uses this definition.

I posted several AUTHORITATIVE LAW SOURCES who agreed with me. Your "rebuttal" is to use exactly what we're talking about to begin with—modern lawmakers distorting the definition for their own political ends. You can't use the conclusion as a premise!

can you come up with one example (besides siting yourself) that would exclude a bar?????

I've already posted several!!! How much more do you want???

A bar or restaurant is not a public place under any reasonable definition. You cannot go in there any time you like, only when the owner opens; they can throw you out whenever they like for whatever reason. And people going into the establishment have to abide by any rules the owner sees fit to establish.

shanek

29th April 2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

No, Shanek, it goes against your point. You should not assume that because it only listed two examples that these are the only ones.

How are roads and parks equivalent to bars and restaurants??? :rolleyes:

The dictionary cannot list every example.

That is so pathetic! It lists examples to give you the idea what it's talking about! Bars and restaurants are completely different from roads and parks—if the definition were inclusive of those, the dictionary certainly would have made a note of that!

But the defintion clearly says "A place where the public in general have a right to be."

And you DO NOT have a right to be in a bar or retaurant. The owner can kick you out if he wants. You also do not have the right to go in when the business is closed.

That certainly applies to any establishment that doesn't insist on membership.

On what are you basing this? I don't require a membership for my friends to visit my home; does that mean my home is now a public place?

If you are invited (as with a sign for advertisement) to walk in, then it is a public place.

If it's a public place, you don't need an invitation!

I have yet to see a sign that says "People who are offended by smoking are forbidden to enter," or even a simple "smoking is permitted throughout this establishment" sign. Why do you suppose that is?

Because your experience is not indicative of reality everywhere? I have seen such signs. It's a smoking or non-smoking establishment; guns are or aren't allowed; etc.

shanek

29th April 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
In what possible way could you call this anything other than interpretation? Some people say you should interpret Amendment Two to mean that only a "well ordered militia" should have arms.

It doesn't say that, though. It says "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms, not the militia. It's not rocket science.

Applicative sense? I'm afraid you have lost me there. Could you define "applicative sense" for me?

Simply that they have to look at a real-world situation and determine whether or not this real-world application matches what the Constitution says. Does the law abrogate free speech, for example.

The U.S. Constitution is called a "living document". It is loosely written specifically for the purpose of being adaptable.

The process of "adaptation" is called "amending." If you want to change the meaning of the Constitution, there's a process you have to go through to do it.

That is why it has been amended so few times over two hundred years.

No, it's been amended so few times because, by design, it's very difficult to do so! What does that tell you?

shanek

29th April 2003, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
That is how historians describe it.

How do historians have legal power?

No doubt, the FFs would be quite shocked to see the way we've interpreted it now. ("What!!!?? They're letting women vote?")

And they would see that we amended the Constitution to allow this!

shanek

29th April 2003, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
I can't decide to sell booze to the underage just because I own the property.

That is completely irrelevant. You can't do that on private property, either. You can't murder or rape someone on private property. You're really getting desperate to justify this...

If the society I live in bans smoking in public places then thats the law.

No one's arguing that. We're arguing whether or not the law violates our sovereign rights.

The majority in the USA seem to want smoking restrictions,

Too bad. Even if a majority agree, you don't get to take away the rights of a minority. That's why we're a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.

If you want to fight for personal liberties, isn't there enough examples of serious issues to attack?

Yes, and this is one of them.

but isn't speed limits on roads the thin edge too?

Speed limits aren't in effect on private roads, only public, GOVERNMENT-OWNED roads.

shanek

29th April 2003, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
I find the pro-smokers are apathetic about the well being of employees in bars and restaurants who are forced to endure their second hand smoke.

:rolleyes:

Who's forcing them to be there? And why is the recourse to appeal to the government and not the property owner?

Because this ISN'T REALLY ABOUT HEALTH AND CLEAN AIR. It's about political power.

The anti-smokers understand that sometimes some rights override others.

No, rights do not override other rights, and anyone who says that completely misunderstands the nature of "rights" to begin with. If it overrides someone else's right, then it isn't a right at all.

The right of the employee and fellow customers outweighs the rights of the smoker.

The employees and other customers have the option of going elsewhere. As do the smokers. The only one whose rights have any meaning in this situation is that of the restaurant owner. Does the owner want to appeal to the smoking clientele, and the clientele and employee pool who don't mind working around cigarette smoke, or does the owner want the business of patrons and employees who don't want to be around cigarette smoke?

Thanz

29th April 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by shanek

I posted several AUTHORITATIVE LAW SOURCES who agreed with me. Your "rebuttal" is to use exactly what we're talking about to begin with—modern lawmakers distorting the definition for their own political ends. You can't use the conclusion as a premise!

Please, shanek, you are really digging a deep hole here. You have posted some stuff from an online legal dictionary. NO court in any country will ever recognize that as an "AUTHORITATIVE LAW SOURCE" for anything. The Fool posted what appears to be several statutory legal definitions for "public place". In case you missed it, these are actual AUTHORITATIVE LAW SOURCES - they will be upheld by the court, not your dictionary stuff.

I've already posted several!!! How much more do you want???

A bar or restaurant is not a public place under any reasonable definition. You cannot go in there any time you like, only when the owner opens; they can throw you out whenever they like for whatever reason. And people going into the establishment have to abide by any rules the owner sees fit to establish.

Well, the british common law tends to disagree with you. Are you saying that the following is an unreasonable definition?:

A public place is a place to which the public can and do have access; it doesn't matter whether they come at the invitation of the occupier or merely with his permission, or whether some payment or the performance of some formality is required before access can be had (R. v. Kane [1965] 1 All E.R. 705).

The quote is taken from [i]Stroud's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases. This would certainly include bars and restaurants.

Lurker

29th April 2003, 08:18 AM

Shanek:

You are a strict interpretist of the Constitution. I guess I am missing it. Where in the bill of rights is the right to smoke enumerated? It is not covered by Amendment I, is it? And Amendment X allows local governments (city and states) to pass laws not going against the Constitution.

So, please point out which area of the Constitution allows for the freedom to smoke.

Thank you,

Lurker

Bjorn

29th April 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
Shanek:

You are a strict interpretist of the Constitution. I guess I am missing it. Where in the bill of rights is the right to smoke enumerated? It is not covered by Amendment I, is it? And Amendment X allows local governments (city and states) to pass laws not going against the Constitution.

So, please point out which area of the Constitution allows for the freedom to smoke.

Thank you,

Lurker Where is the right to eat or drink mentioned? :confused:

Lurker

29th April 2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Bjorn
Where is the right to eat or drink mentioned? :confused:

Hey, Shanek seems to be saying the Constitution is supporting his viewpoint. I just want to know where? Or is it merely an interpretation (which Shanek says courts do not do)?

Lurker

Lurker

29th April 2003, 08:30 AM

If I may make an analogy of smoking to prostitution. In certain localities prostitution is legal. In others it is not. Now, do people have a right to prostitute themselves? Clearly the government feels it can regulate where it happens. How is this different than smoking?

I understand the analogy is stretching a bit.

Lurker

shanek

29th April 2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
You are a strict interpretist of the Constitution. I guess I am missing it. Where in the bill of rights is the right to smoke enumerated?

It doesn't have to be enumerated in the Constitution to be a right of the people. It does have to be enumerated in the Constitution to be a power of government. How many times does this have to be pointed out?

Skeptic

29th April 2003, 08:39 AM

Shanek--I really don't see what you're getting all up in the air about.

"Public", like many other words, has several meanings, depending on the context. It could mean an institution that is owned by the public. It could mean an institution that is open to the public, even if privately owned. It could even mean any place that can be SEEN by the public, even if private and not open to the public.

The latter is the case, for example, with laws forbidding "public nudity": I cannot walk around naked in my front lawn, even if it is my private property that isn't open to the public, because the public can see me that way. On the other hand, if a soldier takes a shower in the barracks, he is not violating the "public nudity" laws just because the shower stands on land owned by the government.

It's a question of context. Clearly, in the non-smoking law case, it's perfectly legal for me to smoke in the privacy of my house, or to do so on my front lawn even if I can be seen by the public--just not to do so in a bar that has other customers. This had nothing to do with the constitution really; it's just common sense.

Again, I think the ban is stupid, but not because of this discussion about the word "public".

shanek

29th April 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
"Public", like many other words, has several meanings, depending on the context.

Of course it does. I'm arguing that in this context, bars and restaurants are not considered public, and I have quoted numerous sources backing me up.

"Public" can also, for example, mean a company who's stock is traded on the open market. But that clearly isn't the context here.

The latter is the case, for example, with laws forbidding "public nudity"

And the basis there is that the nudity can be seen by someone on public property, like on the sidewalk outside. As long as the business conducts the nudity in an area that cannot be seen from the outside, they're covered. Note that this applies to you in your own home, too—if you undress in your own home, but in front of an open window, that's considered public nudity. But again, that isn't the context here. We aren't talking about people who are walking on the sidewalk outside the bar or restaurant; we are talking about those who CHOOSE to go inside the bar or restaurant.

It's a question of context. Clearly, in the non-smoking law case, it's perfectly legal for me to smoke in the privacy of my house, or to do so on my front lawn even if I can be seen by the public--just not to do so in a bar that has other customers.

And I maintain that the context here makes such a distinction insane. The customers are in the bar of their own free will; they are on the private property of the bar owner. How can that be public when you on your front lawn blowing smoke which can drift into your neighbor's lawn isn't?

chapka

29th April 2003, 08:54 AM

Where are you people getting this "public places" language from? There's nothing in the law about public places.

What the New York law did was remove exceptions for bars and restaurants from the existing law banning smoking in workplaces. Yes, most workplaces are privately owned, but we still regulate them. How is this different?

The fact is, people like myself may think restaurants are more pleasant without smoke, but it won't affect our health much. But long-term exposure to second-hand smoke in the workplace has clear health effects, just like PCB exposure in the workplace. So we regulate both. Maybe for some people it's about "freedom," but for most people, reasonable workplace regulation is not an issue. We like guaranteed minimum working conditions and a modicum of health and safety. So if you have a problem with all regulation, say so, and don't try to make smoking a special case.

Reager

29th April 2003, 08:59 AM

I think you're fighting a losing battle here Shanek.

The Constitution is full of phrases that demand interpretation, like "cruel and unusual," "well regulated," and "speedy." They are not quantifiable terms like "$10,000" or "three fourths of the several states." You may believe the USSC has no more authority than you or I to decide what those phrases mean, but such authority was assumed in Marbury v. Madison. Frankly, if it hadn't, I don't know how we'd ever resolve legal questions in this country. If the Constitution were such a self-evident document then everyone would agree on its meaning, no?

Now, perhaps you believe John Marshall was the devil incarnate. But it's interesting to note that Marbury was decided in 1803 by members of the founding generation. It wasn't foisted upon us by "modern lawmakers wishing to pervert the constitution." Most of the founders were still alive in 1803!

Mike

Edited to replace "clear cut, black & white" with "self-evident."

Thanz

29th April 2003, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Of course it does. I'm arguing that in this context, bars and restaurants are not considered public, and I have quoted numerous sources backing me up.

And ignored the numerous sources that contradict your stance.

Do you think that someone who enters a restaurant and strips naked will not be subject to arrest for public nudity? Your definition of "public" strains credulity.

Anyway, Chapka has an excellent point.

WMT1

29th April 2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
It comes down to workers rights as well, a worker should not, for economic reasons, be forced to work in a hazardous environment, such as a smoky bar or restaurant.

They're not. Nobody is "forced" to accept any particular job. If they don't like their choices, it might be a good idea to try to expand their options by improving their own skills.

Any employer should be required to provide as safe a working environment as possible, as well as a safe environment for patrons.

Why should he be required to do so, especially if there are actually customers who might actually prefer the less safe environment? And with regard to the "working environment" argument, can I take it you would support a ban on all dangerous professional sports?

Second hand smoke has been proven to be harmful....so what more is there to say?

Apparently a hell of a lot that you've overlooked, even in this thread, such as about the right of business owners to make such decisions themselves, as well as several related questions that have thus far gone unanswered by the proponents of such bans.

As an ex-smoker, I can say that I truly truly appreciate this ban.

As an ex-smoker, I can say that I truly appreciate letting business owners decide for themselves which customer preferences to cater to.

And some of you non-smokers who oppose this because of privacy rights, etc, should try going over to Europe where everyone smokes like a chimney all over the place and you have to turn your head every two seconds to avoid inhaling a lung full of smoke and then see how much you appreciate the lack of this over here.

If "all over the place" means their smoke can invade my property whether I like it or not, you have a point. If you're just talking about privately owned businesses letting their customers smoke, then I'd simply avoid any of them that made me sufficiently uncomfortable. Sorry, but you don't have much of a point here.

The sad fact is that restaurant owners would allow smoking for the sake of a small minority.

They wouldn't if the majority withheld their business until some of these places started to accomodate them. This is one of those things that's already been covered.

It's ridiculous when there's two people smoking in a restaurant filled with 50 people and the other 48 non smokers have to breath in that foul air.

But they don't "have to". They can choose to withhold their business. It would be helpful if you guys would stop playing fast and loose with language to bolster your otherwise lame arguments.

But they have better things to do then campaign for the owner to disallow smoking, whereas the smokers will be disproportionally vocal....

If they have better things to do, then how important could it be? Life is full of choices. Not liking the ones you have doesn't give you a right to interefere with someone else's.

I don't mind the government stepping in on this one, and that's coming from a rabid libertarian.

You might be on every other issue, but you're not on this one.

WMT1

29th April 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Tricky
If there are restrictions, they should be clearly posted (e.g. "You must be 21 to enter.) I have yet to see a sign that says "People who are offended by smoking are forbidden to enter," or even a simple "smoking is permitted throughout this establishment" sign.

Hey, I think you may be on to something with that last thing. That could solve the whole damn problem. :D

WMT1

29th April 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by The Fool
The private ownership thing is a red herring.

No, it is not, and characterizing it as such demonstrates not only your own cluelessness about a real respect for the rights of others, but also a certain arrogance about the motives of those you disagree with, because it suggests that their use of that argument is insincere, something for which there is absolutely no foundation. Nice goin'.

Just out of curiosity though, what exactly do you think is motivating the non-smoking opponents of the ban?

If you want to fight for personal liberties, isn't there enough examples of serious issues to attack?

Yes, and the right of a business owner to serve the customer preferences he chooses to serve, without a bullying government stepping in and prohibiting him from doing so, is a good example of one.

The rights of people to render the air toxic seems to be rather low on the table of Personal liberties (to me).

When you spin things in such a way as to completely ignore the actual right in question (identified in my previous point), it's probably pretty easy to rationalize it as a low priority.

I suppose it can be seen as the thin edge........but isn't speed limits on roads the thin edge too? I don't see too many people complaining thier rights to drive too fast are being infringed.

Who wants to be the first to point out to the poor "Fool" what's wrong with this analogy - the key difference that's already been pointed out ad nauseum in these discussions? Oh, that's right, he just dismisses the primary argument of his opposition as a "red herring".

Most of the rest of your post was just a diatribe about what someone can or cannot do under the current laws, as if merely describing the status quo somehow trumps any arguments about how things should be. Of course, this is just about the laziest (and most pointless) form of argument imaginable. Hell, if "it's the law, dammit!" was all it took to decide an issue, none of the damn things could ever get changed.

You even managed to include a comment about majority will, which is almost as pathetic. You're not much for independent thought in determining your position on issues, are you?

Lurker

29th April 2003, 09:24 AM

The public nudity analogy is a good one. Shane said it held up because if the nude person could be visible from public areas.

What about nude sunbathing in your backyard where only other backyards had acess? So all the neighbors could see you but they also are on private property, thus avoiding the possibility of being seen from public property.

Take it a bit further, can you have sex in your backyard? Only private property abuts it so nobody on public property can see you.

Hmmm. And the answer is? Shanek?

Lurker

WMT1

29th April 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by KelvinG
But, as for the anti-smoking side being apathetic, I'm afraid I see it the opposite. I find the pro-smokers are apathetic about the well being of employees in bars and restaurants who are forced to endure their second hand smoke.

:rolleyes:

Here we go again, with the word games. Read very slowly: They're not "forced", because they have the option of not being there in the first place. (Perhaps it might be helpful to write it down this time?)

The anti-smokers understand that sometimes some rights override others.

The anti-smokers understand almost nothing about rights, as those of the business owner seem to take a back seat to everyone else's for some reason. Among the things they fail to understand is that his right to cater to whatever customer preferences he wants to cater to overrides the right of any individual customer to get what he wants from any particular business. In fact, there simply is no "right" of a customer (smoker or nonsmoker) to force a business to cater to his preferences at all.

Now, do you seriously want to argue that there is such a right, or that a right that does not otherwise exist suddenly pops into existence just because there are enough people who want something? And if not, then could you please clearly identify just what this "right" is that you seem to think outweighs the others in question? And remember, the right to breathe clean air isn't in jeopardy. The ability to have clean air available to you everywhere you go, even inside a privately owned business where others, including the owner, may prefer unclean air, is what is in question.

The right of the employee and fellow customers outweighs the rights of the smoker.

No, they don't. They are all essentially equal, and all are outweighed by the rights of the business owner to run the kind of business he wants to run.

By banning smoking in bars and restaurants, civil liberties are preserved, not infringed upon.

Yeah, banning things is always the best way to preserve liberties. :rolleyes:

WMT1

29th April 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
What about nude sunbathing in your backyard where only other backyards had acess? So all the neighbors could see you but they also are on private property, thus avoiding the possibility of being seen from public property.

Take it a bit further, can you have sex in your backyard?

It all sounds good to me. If the neighbors don't like it, they are free to put something up on their own property to obstruct their view of someone else's. Did you think these were tough questions?

Reager

29th April 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Did you think these were tough questions?

Not for someone who'se obviously so sure of the answer... :rolleyes:

Mike

WMT1

29th April 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Did you think these were tough questions?

Originally posted by mfeldman
Not for someone who'se obviously so sure of the answer...:rolleyes:

Is trying to spin as an insult what would normally be considered a compliment the best you can manage to come up with?

ggcarl

29th April 2003, 09:44 AM

Agree with it or not, here is the actual text (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=06001-07000&file=6400-6413.5) of the Labor Code in California regulating smoking in the workplace. Just scroll down to 6404.5 to read it.

Lurker

29th April 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

It all sounds good to me. If the neighbors don't like it, they are free to put something up on their own property to obstruct their view of someone else's. Did you think these were tough questions?

So if you have a two story house and your neighbor has a whirlpool in back that he likes to "frolic" in during the day with a friend that is all right? Shall I build a 20' high fence to ensure my children do not see this from windows that look out in that general direction?

Lurker

chapka

29th April 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by shanek
Those of you who are in complete denial about this might want to stick your heads back in the sand before you read these definitions from law.com:

May I point out that, when interpreting a statute or regulation, the definition that matters is the definition given in the statute? The statute or regulation we're discussing is the Smoke-Free Air Act. The terms are defined in New York City Administrative Code chapter 5 section 17-502(p):

"Public place" means any area to which the public is invited or permitted, including, but not limited to, banks, educational facilities, health care facilities, child day care centers, children's institutions, shopping malls, property owned, occupied or operated by the city of New York or an agency thereof, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, catering halls, retail stores, theaters, sports arenas and recreational areas and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a "public place" within the meaning of this subdivision, except that areas in a private residence where a child day care center or health care facility is operated during the times of operation and areas in a private residence which constitute common areas of a multiple dwelling containing ten or more dwelling units, are "public places" within the meaning of this subdivision.

This is the 2001 version; I'd assume the definitions are the same for the revised law, which is not on Lexis yet.

Reager

29th April 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by WMT1

Is trying to spin as an insult what would normally be considered a compliment the best you can manage to come up with?

Trying? :)

I don't consider it a virtue to be absolutely sure of anything. To quote Billy Joel:

Now with the wisdom of years
I try to reason things out
And the only people I fear
are those who never have doubts
Save us all from arrogant men
and all the causes they're for
I won't be righteous again
I'm not that sure anymore

Mike

WMT1

29th April 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
So if you have a two story house and your neighbor has a whirlpool in back that he likes to "frolic" in during the day with a friend that is all right? Shall I build a 20' high fence to ensure my children do not see this from windows that look out in that general direction?

Once again, in both cases, fine by me. :D

WMT1

29th April 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by mfeldman
I don't consider it a virtue to be absolutely sure of anything.

Are you sure about that?

Doghouse Reilly

29th April 2003, 10:56 AM

Yeah, sure they don't HAVE to work there....cause everyone can choose which job to take because we're all so successful and rich that we never have to take a job we don't want....what about in the meantime when we're busy improving our skills to get a better job? Not everyone can be so picky about where they work. And we all know workplace safety works just like capitalism supply and demand that's why companies should be allowed to spray asbestos dust into the air where their employees are because of course no one would work there then and they'd be forced to change their conditions without any regulation. Oh wait, no, they didn't do that until someone passed a law and meanwhile thousands of people died. How are coal mine safety regulations any different than bar smoke safety regulations? If you're against coal mine and asbestos safety regulations then just say so, and if you're not please inform us of how they are somehow different than health hazard second hand smoke?

shanek

29th April 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by chapka
What the New York law did was remove exceptions for bars and restaurants from the existing law banning smoking in workplaces. Yes, most workplaces are privately owned, but we still regulate them. How is this different?

The question is, whether or not we should be regulating them. As I have pointed out, the "public places" rant is an excuse to avoid the issue.

shanek

29th April 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by mfeldman
The Constitution is full of phrases that demand interpretation, like "cruel and unusual," "well regulated," and "speedy."

But even so, it still means what it says. It just says something that can cover a particular range. The courts can determine what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. That's different from, for example, the courts saying that Congress can abridge free speech if there's a compelling interest in doing so, because the Constitution says that government cannot abridge free speech at all!

shanek

29th April 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
And ignored the numerous sources that contradict your stance.

No, the sources that contradict my stance were the very kinds of things that we're arguing whether or not is justified! You can't use your conclusion as a premise!

Do you think that someone who enters a restaurant and strips naked will not be subject to arrest for public nudity?

If they can be seen from a public place, then yes. If not, then no. Ever heard of nudie bars?

WMT1

29th April 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
Yeah, sure they don't HAVE to work there....cause everyone can choose which job to take because we're all so successful and rich that we never have to take a job we don't want....

:rolleyes:

what about in the meantime when we're busy improving our skills to get a better job?

What about it?

Not everyone can be so picky about where they work.

Well, like I said, if they don't like their choices, it might be a good idea to try to expand their options by improving their own skills.

How are coal mine safety regulations any different than bar smoke safety regulations? If you're against coal mine and asbestos safety regulations then just say so, and if you're not please inform us of how they are somehow different than health hazard second hand smoke?

As far as I'm concerned, in either situation, if someone is willing to pay you to do the work, and you are aware of the risks, and have determined that whatever they're offering you is worth that risk, I don't see the problem.

shanek

29th April 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
The public nudity analogy is a good one. Shane said it held up because if the nude person could be visible from public areas.

What about nude sunbathing in your backyard where only other backyards had acess? So all the neighbors could see you but they also are on private property, thus avoiding the possibility of being seen from public property.

Take it a bit further, can you have sex in your backyard? Only private property abuts it so nobody on public property can see you.

Hmmm. And the answer is? Shanek?

Good question. The answer is, I can see the justification for restricting this, but that justification has nothing to do with "public" areas. It has to do with the rights of the neighbors. Since the neighbors haven't put up privacy fences, etc., they are responsible for how their actions affect their neighbors.

OTOH, let's say it's a naturist community where it's expected and even desired that people will be naked in their backyard, and everyone within eyesight is part of this community. What, then, would be the justification for government coming in and restricting this?

shanek

29th April 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by ggcarl
Agree with it or not, here is the actual text (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=06001-07000&file=6400-6413.5) of the Labor Code in California regulating smoking in the workplace. Just scroll down to 6404.5 to read it.

Heh...They actually use a term "quasi-public." :rolleyes:

shanek

29th April 2003, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by chapka
May I point out that, when interpreting a statute or regulation, the definition that matters is the definition given in the statute?

Of course, but that's not the point. The point is, calling a private establishment a "public place" is simply newspeak. It's a way of skirting an issue that they don't want to address, even though what they're really doing is restricting the rights of the property owner.

"Public place" means any area to which the public is invited or permitted, including, but not limited to, banks, educational facilities, health care facilities, child day care centers, children's institutions, shopping malls, property owned, occupied or operated by the city of New York or an agency thereof, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, catering halls, retail stores, theaters, sports arenas and recreational areas and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a "public place" within the meaning of this subdivision, except that areas in a private residence where a child day care center or health care facility is operated during the times of operation and areas in a private residence which constitute common areas of a multiple dwelling containing ten or more dwelling units, are "public places" within the meaning of this subdivision.

In other words, just about anything they care to apply it to.

shanek

29th April 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Doghouse Reilly
Yeah, sure they don't HAVE to work there....cause everyone can choose which job to take because we're all so successful and rich that we never have to take a job we don't want...

Socialistic claptrap. The employees are the suppliers in the job market; the employers provide the demand. If employers can attract employees by making their facilities nonsmoking, they'll do so, even if they're low income employees.

And we all know workplace safety works just like capitalism supply and demand that's why companies should be allowed to spray asbestos dust into the air

That never happened.

How are coal mine safety regulations

I posted in another thread how the safety of coal miners was much more improved by free market forces than by government regulation.

Lurker

29th April 2003, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by shanek

Good question. The answer is, I can see the justification for restricting this, but that justification has nothing to do with "public" areas. It has to do with the rights of the neighbors. Since the neighbors haven't put up privacy fences, etc., they are responsible for how their actions affect their neighbors.

OTOH, let's say it's a naturist community where it's expected and even desired that people will be naked in their backyard, and everyone within eyesight is part of this community. What, then, would be the justification for government coming in and restricting this?

I agree there would be no justification for the paragraph two scenario for the govt to get involved. What right of the neighbor is being violated by someone having sex in the backyard?

Curious,

Lurker

shanek

29th April 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
I agree there would be no justification for the paragraph two scenario for the govt to get involved.

Then you see the difference between a private yard and a public place.

What right of the neighbor is being violated by someone having sex in the backyard?

Please note: I only said I could see the justification for it; I didn't say I agreed with that justification.

chapka

29th April 2003, 01:11 PM

Is there really any disagreement here over the smoking ban? As far as I can tell, everyone is agreed that regulating smoking is pretty much the same as any other workplace regulation. Some people, like myself, thing that this is a reasonable thing for the government to be involved in. Some others, like shanek, think that all government regulation of private businesses is morally wrong, including not just smoking but workplace health and safety generally, and (presumably) minimum wage and hour laws.

So is this actually a thread about the smoking ban, or is it just "all regulation is bad"? Is there any reason someone thinks that this regulation is particularly bad?

shanek

29th April 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by chapka
Is there really any disagreement here over the smoking ban? As far as I can tell, everyone is agreed that regulating smoking is pretty much the same as any other workplace regulation. Some people, like myself, thing that this is a reasonable thing for the government to be involved in. Some others, like shanek, think that all government regulation of private businesses is morally wrong, including not just smoking but workplace health and safety generally, and (presumably) minimum wage and hour laws.

So is this actually a thread about the smoking ban, or is it just "all regulation is bad"? Is there any reason someone thinks that this regulation is particularly bad?

Good point.

Thanz

29th April 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by shanek

No, the sources that contradict my stance were the very kinds of things that we're arguing whether or not is justified! You can't use your conclusion as a premise!

What about the definition I posted from a 1965 English case? You seem to have respect for the common law - why are you ignoring this one? It certainly has more legal authority than your dictionary definitions, and it also deals with the term directly.

If they can be seen from a public place, then yes. If not, then no. Ever heard of nudie bars?

Nudie bars require special licenses. Notice I also used the term "restaurant" not "bar". Can you walk into a Denny's naked and not be subject to arrest for public nudity?

Lurker

29th April 2003, 01:20 PM

Yes, for me I think we have hit the end of the debate. Shanek has some interesting ideas and I admire that he backs them up but I still disagree with him.

It comes down to what freedoms are you willing to abridge when you pass a regulation? My parent's city passed an anti-smoking law in all public buildings (including restaurants, bowling alleys etc) and when they told me about it I laughed and thought it was ridiculous (I am not a smoker). After a while, I have modified my position to non-opposition.

Lurker

Reager

29th April 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by shanek

But even so, it still means what it says.

Ahhh, but how do we know what it means?

It just says something that can cover a particular range. The courts can determine what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. That's different from, for example, the courts saying that Congress can abridge free speech if there's a compelling interest in doing so, because the Constitution says that government cannot abridge free speech at all!

Here I disagree with you. Reasonable people believe that even the term "freedom of speech" can "cover a particular range," as you say. Does it encompass any utterance or word that can possibly be written or spoken, in any context? If so, that means slander and libel laws are unconstitutional. The same goes for "threatening" speech used to intimidate. Our society (through the courts) has accepted a particular definition of "free speech," attempting to balance the spirit of the first amendment with the realization that no right is absolute all the time. There may be other, better definitions we could use, and folks like you should do your damndest to convince us of that. But your position is not so self-evident that any other interpretation of the Consitution is per se erroneous.

Mike

shanek

29th April 2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by mfeldman
Ahhh, but how do we know what it means?

Here I disagree with you. Reasonable people believe that even the term "freedom of speech" can "cover a particular range," as you say. Does it encompass any utterance or word that can possibly be written or spoken, in any context?

This is, of course, a good and legitimate question; but it is still the case that freedom of speech is not meant to have exceptions.

If so, that means slander and libel laws are unconstitutional.

Not any moreso than laws against murdering someone with a gun are unconstitutional because of the Second Amendment.

Our society (through the courts) has accepted a particular definition of "free speech," attempting to balance the spirit of the first amendment with the realization that no right is absolute all the time.

No, the right is absolute; but exercising the right makes the person responsible for any harm that comes to others as a result. In other words, it's only a right up until the point it infringes on the rights of others.

To go back to the situation this thread is talking about, the asserted "right to breathe clean air" only exists up until the point where you start, say, forcing restaurant owners to ban smoking in their establishments.

Reager

29th April 2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by shanek

This is, of course, a good and legitimate question; but it is still the case that freedom of speech is not meant to have exceptions.

I'm not qualified to answer what the founders "meant" when they wrote the First Amendment. I'm much more interested in whether having those exceptions are a good idea or not, regardless of what they meant.

Not any moreso than laws against murdering someone with a gun are unconstitutional because of the Second Amendment.

The second amendment is about firearm ownership, NOT the right to shoot someone but still be locked up for it.

You can't have it both ways. If slander and libel laws are constitutional then the right to freedom of speech is not an absolute gurantee (in anything but the semantic sense: "Well you can SAY it..you'll just be thrown in jail if you do..."). The question then becomes, where do we draw the line? That is a societal question that has been answered over the course of 200+ years (and is still being answered today).

No, the right is absolute; but exercising the right makes the person responsible for any harm that comes to others as a result. In other words, it's only a right up until the point it infringes on the rights of others.

Uhhh, it's therefore NOT absolute and we're then into line-drawing. You have your ideas about where the lines should be, and so does everyone else.

To go back to the situation this thread is talking about, the asserted "right to breathe clean air" only exists up until the point where you start, say, forcing restaurant owners to ban smoking in their establishments.

I don't want to get into the smoking issue. But I will say that the trouble I have with your position (what I can gather) is accepting it demands accepting all of it. No health codes (for example), no fire-safety inspections, and on down the line... That's not a position I'm willing to accept, especially when the benefits of certain reasonable regulation are so apparant (at least, compared to no regulation).

Mike

shanek

29th April 2003, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by mfeldman
I'm not qualified to answer what the founders "meant" when they wrote the First Amendment.

The language is quite emphatic. "Congress shall make NO LAW..." That's NO LAW. None. Zip. Nada. No law whatsoever that infringes on freedom of speech, no exceptions, no excuses. NO LAW.

The second amendment is about firearm ownership, NOT the right to shoot someone but still be locked up for it.

That's exactly the point. You have the right to have a firearm; you are responsible for any harm you cause with it. Likewise, you have a right to free speech, but you are responsible for any harm you cause with it.

If slander and libel laws are constitutional then the right to freedom of speech is not an absolute gurantee

No, the speech is fully protected. The fraud behind it isn't. Truth is a complete defense to slander and libel. That's how John Peter Zenger got out of it.

(in anything but the semantic sense: "Well you can SAY it..you'll just be thrown in jail if you do...").

In the US, slander and libel are civil, not criminal, offenses.

The question then becomes, where do we draw the line?

I've said it several times: You draw the line where it infringes on someone else's rights. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Uhhh, it's therefore NOT absolute and we're then into line-drawing.

No, we aren't. We have rights. But that means that we are responsible for our actions. Legislation, by infringing our rights, also removes responsibility as well. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other.

No health codes (for example), no fire-safety inspections, and on down the line...

I never said no health codes, no safety inspections, etc. I said they shouldn't be done by the government. There's a big difference. The government's got everyone snowed into believing this false dichotomy.

Reager

29th April 2003, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by shanek

The language is quite emphatic. "Congress shall make NO LAW..." That's NO LAW. None. Zip. Nada. No law whatsoever that infringes on freedom of speech, no exceptions, no excuses. NO LAW.

I think you're missing the point. The question is not whether Congress has passed a law or not, but what constitutes "freedom of speech?"

That's exactly the point. You have the right to have a firearm; you are responsible for any harm you cause with it. Likewise, you have a right to free speech, but you are responsible for any harm you cause with it.

No, the speech is fully protected. The fraud behind it isn't. Truth is a complete defense to slander and libel. That's how John Peter Zenger got out of it.

I think you're playing semantics. A law punishing me for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is an infringement of my freedom of speech, even if the law is meant to punish me for the ensuing pandemonium and not the literal speech.

Basically, if freedom of speech were an absolute right, as you claim, ANY law infringing on the freedom of speech would be unconstitutional. That would include laws punishing the criminal act you commit with the speech (Frankly, I don't think that makes any sense but I'm using your jargon here. It is possible to separate gun ownership from the act of shooting someone, but I don't get how it's possible to separate the prohibition of fraud but not the speech that produced it).

In the US, slander and libel are civil, not criminal, offenses.

Yes. It was a general point, not specifically referring to the above offenses.

I've said it several times: You draw the line where it infringes on someone else's rights. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

If people are having trouble understanding so simple a point, maybe it's not as simple as you believe.

No, we aren't. We have rights. But that means that we are responsible for our actions. Legislation, by infringing our rights, also removes responsibility as well. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand; you can't have one without the other.

I'll say it again, if freedom of speech were absolute there would be NO line-drawing, period, and someone else's rights wouldn't matter in the least.

I never said no health codes, no safety inspections, etc. I said they shouldn't be done by the government. There's a big difference. The government's got everyone snowed into believing this false dichotomy.

Maybe you're right, I don't know. All I know is I don't want to go back to pre-FDA hamburgers. I prefer my meat to be free of rat droppings and rusty nails. But I'll gladly save that debate for another day.

Mike

Lurker

30th April 2003, 05:13 AM

Forget slander and libel laws, how about networks not being able to say certain words or phrases on TV? Isn' t THAT an infringement of freedom of speech? Is it federal law enforced by the FCC or not?

Lurker

Victor Danilchenko

30th April 2003, 05:22 AM

shanek

The language is quite emphatic. "Congress shall make NO LAW..." That's NO LAW. None. Zip. Nada. No law whatsoever that infringes on freedom of speech, no exceptions, no excuses. NO LAW.Ah, then crying "fire" in the crowded theater should be legal -- as should libel and slander... NO LAW, after all, means NO LAW. Oh wait, you say that harmful speech is not protected by the 1st amendment? Well, well, shane, now we are getting into that pesky "interpretation" thing... :rolleyes:

That's exactly the point. You have the right to have a firearm; you are responsible for any harm you cause with it.Yes; because the right is to keep and bear firearms, and thus laws regulating their abuse do not infringe upon the said right. Contrawise, congress is prohibited from making laws abrudging freedom of speech, not just access to means of speaking (such as the press) -- so the literal reading would suggest that prohibiting abuse of firearms is OK (because such a prohibition wouldn't abridge the right to keep and bear arms), but prohibiting libel and slander aren't OK (because such legislation would abridge the right to free speech).

Literal readings are so much dfun, aren't they? Especially when the opponent is too blind to recognize when they do their own interpretation...

Likewise, you have a right to free speech, but you are responsible for any harm you cause with it.But laws enforcing such responsibility would abridge the freedom of speech! <gasp>

No, the speech is fully protected. The fraud behind it isn't.So the speech isn't fully protected -- false or harmful speech isn't. Well, Bill of Rights doesn't say ' Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of truthful speech'. I wonder why?.. Could it be that the founding fathers meant all speech to be protected unconditionally? Or could it be that the founding fathers expected their descendants to not be stupid literalists, but didn't expect the future interpreters of the constitution to blind themselves to the fact of them actually doing interpretation?

Self-deception is the worst kind of lie, don't you know...

I've said it several times: You draw the line where it infringes on someone else's rights.That's not what the 1st amendment says; "no law" plainly means "no law", right?... Those pesky interpretations again!

Why is that so hard for people to understand?perhaps because the error of understanding in in your head; and the error might -- just might -- lie in the fact that you, by assuming that your interpretation of the Constitution is literal, ignore the unavoidable interpretations you make, thus bilnding yourself to your own biases. By deceiving yourself about your reading of the constitution, you arrive at the position where you believe your interpretation to be "objectively true" and everyone else's otherwise, while in fact your interpretation is not in any way privileged over many others.

Only when you understand that you are interpreting the constitution and that your interpretation is guided by your biases, will it be possible to have a meaningful discussion about constitution with you.

shanek

30th April 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by mfeldman
I think you're missing the point. The question is not whether Congress has passed a law or not, but what constitutes "freedom of speech?"

The question is both.

I think you're playing semantics. A law punishing me for shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater is an infringement of my freedom of speech,

Considering that this is the favorite example of people to use, I think it's important that I have not been able to find one single law, Federal, state, or local, prohibiting this. I even tried it once; nothing happened.

even if the law is meant to punish me for the ensuing pandemonium and not the literal speech.

When I tried it, there was no pandemonium. (I got a few nasty looks...) No pandemonium, no punishment. There's a difference between "freedom of speech" and "inciting a riot." Just saying something isn't enough to make it illegal.

That is NOT the case with the "compelling national interest" business...there, the excuse is used to restrict the speech itself even when no harm results from it, and it was even admitted by the court that the behavior restricted did, in fact, constitute free speech!

Why can you not see the difference there?

That would include laws punishing the criminal act you commit with the speech

No, it wouldn't, because there are aspects of the criminal act beyond the speech.

(Frankly, I don't think that makes any sense but I'm using your jargon here. It is possible to separate gun ownership from the act of shooting someone, but I don't get how it's possible to separate the prohibition of fraud but not the speech that produced it).

Because with fraud there's other stuff going on other than the speech itself.

That's why you can't be sued for libel or fraud if what you're presenting is an opinion.

I'll say it again, if freedom of speech were absolute there would be NO line-drawing, period,

Now you're twisting my words. The freedom is absolute. Anything that directly inflicts harm against another is, by definition, not a part of freedom!

and someone else's rights wouldn't matter in the least.

If someone else's rights don't matter, then you don't have freedom! Come on, THINK!

shanek

30th April 2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
Forget slander and libel laws, how about networks not being able to say certain words or phrases on TV? Isn' t THAT an infringement of freedom of speech?

Absolutely, and the government should have no power to do it.

shanek

30th April 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Yes; because the right is to keep and bear firearms, and thus laws regulating their abuse do not infringe upon the said right. Contrawise, congress is prohibited from making laws abrudging freedom of speech, not just access to means of speaking (such as the press) -- so the literal reading would suggest that prohibiting abuse of firearms is OK (because such a prohibition wouldn't abridge the right to keep and bear arms), but prohibiting libel and slander aren't OK (because such legislation would abridge the right to free speech).

Except that, as I have explained several times, libel and slander have aspects to them other than the speech which are harmful. Same with fraud.

Literal readings are so much dfun, aren't they? Especially when the opponent is too blind to recognize when they do their own interpretation...

:rolleyes:

But laws enforcing such responsibility would abridge the freedom of speech! <gasp>

No, it wouldn't! If that were the case, it would be impossible to punish any criminal act! I'm constantly amazed at the depths you will sink to in order to avoid considering the actual argument. I have explained this to you, numerous times, over the course of several months, and you still come back with the same old claim as though I never said anything!

So the speech isn't fully protected -- false or harmful speech isn't.

The speech itself is not what causes the harm; it's additional aspects relating to the speech.

I can say "Victor is a weenie" all I want.

I can say "Victor rapes 9-year-old-boys" all I want.

But if I say "Victor rapes 9-year-old-boys" to, say, a potential employer who denies you a job as a result, then that's actionable.

If it really were the speech itself, then I could be arrested for just saying the words. But I have to do so in relation to an action that directly harms you!

Think about the insanity that you and your ilk are proposing: If I say to my (hypothetical) friend Guido, "I'll give you $500 if you kill Victor," and he goes and kills you, I can be arrested even if I haven't actually gotten around to paying him the $500 yet. This is clearly not an infringement of freedom of speech, but it would be under the concept that you and mfeldman are trying to support! After all, I have the right to say what I want, right?

There's also the concept of contract. I say, "I'll give you $5,000 for that autographed life-size cardboard cutout of William Shatner naked," you give it to me, then I don't pay up. You can seek to collect the $5,000, even take me to court to get it, and free speech has nothing to do with it!!!

Lurker

30th April 2003, 07:10 AM

Shanek:

Two points. First, your example of not being prosecuted for shouting fire in the theatre only shows that you got away with it. Had there been a panic and people got hurt I bet you would have been prosecuted despite your pleas of freedom of speech.

Secondly, I doubt I would want to live in the society that you promote where TV/Radio are not regulated at all, people can do whather they want in their backyards and it it MY responsibility as a neighbor to put up with it. Just the examples I have put forth I find untenable for a good society.

You are welcome to your point of view and I find it interesting to hear it but I do not share it.

Lurker

Victor Danilchenko

30th April 2003, 08:20 AM

shanek

Except that, as I have explained several times, libel and slander have aspects to them other than the speech which are harmful.Right. So your reading is that, contrary to the letter of the Constitution being "congress shall make no law...", Congress is constitutionally entitled to make some laws abridging freedom of speech.

Think about the insanity that you and your ilk are proposing:I am not proposing that at all, Shane -- once again your pre-judgement runs away from you. What I am saying is that this is what the literal reading of the Constitution implies; i am playing devil's advocate here. My goal is to prove to you that, your self-inflicted blindness notwithstanding, you do interpret the Constitution non-literally, that there is no reasonable literal meaning to be gotten there; that the self-evident literal meaning that you glean, is still an interpretation. What I want is for you to understand that your reading is a non-literal interpretation rather than the one true literal reading, which in turn will hopefully bring you to a point where we can reasonably discuss interpretation of Constitution. As it is, because you blind yourself to the fact that you are interpreting the Constitution rather than reading it literally, it's basically impossible to meaningfully talk about Constitution with you -- instead of reasonably discussing various interpretations, you simply dig your heels in and proclaim that your reading is the one true thing, and all others are a-priori incorrect.

This is clearly not an infringement of freedom of speech, but it would be under the concept that you and mfeldman are trying to support!Clearly not. I am not trying to support such an absurd reading; what I am trying to show is that, inasmuch as a literal reading is possible at all, such an absurd reading of the Constitution is the literal one; that your reading is a non-literal interpretation, and must be compared to other interpretations on such a basis.

shanek

30th April 2003, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Right. So your reading is that, contrary to the letter of the Constitution being "congress shall make no law...", Congress is constitutionally entitled to make some laws abridging freedom of speech.

You're not listening (normal for you). The laws don't abridge speech; they abridge actions relating to the speech.

I am not proposing that at all, Shane

Yes, you are! That is the logical extension of your argument! If libel and slander laws abridge speech, then so do the other examples I mentioned—and then the very concept of "freedom" has no meaning! It's a reductio ad absurdum. And it is NOT a literal reading of the Constitution!

What I want is for you to understand that your reading is a non-literal interpretation

Except that, for reasons I have already shown, it isn't! If it were, it would be a crime to say the words regardless of whatever harm came from it! But I could just as easily tell Guido to kill you in jest, and he'd have a good laugh and not do anything, and nothing would come from it. Ergo, it's not an abridgement of free speech, because if it were, I wouldn't be allowed to say it at all!

Clearly not. I am not trying to support such an absurd reading;

You are trying to support that that is the literal reading of the Constitution. For onc in your pathetic life, stop trying to weasel out of it!

And ANSWER THE FSCKING QUESTIONS!!!!!!!

shanek

30th April 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
Two points. First, your example of not being prosecuted for shouting fire in the theatre only shows that you got away with it. Had there been a panic and people got hurt I bet you would have been prosecuted despite your pleas of freedom of speech.

That's exactly my point—I "got away with it" because my actions didn't result in any harm! And as you yourself just said, I would have been prosecuted if my actions had resulted in harm!

I have a right to swing my fists through the air all I want, as long as your face doesn't get in the way.

Secondly, I doubt I would want to live in the society that you promote where TV/Radio are not regulated at all, people can do whather they want in their backyards and it it MY responsibility as a neighbor to put up with it.

Then just admit that you don't want to live in a free society. And then hope to whatever Deity, if any, you may believe in that the people in charge of that government happen to agree with you, otherwise you may find yourself in jail for simply trying to live your life your way.

You are welcome to your point of view and I find it interesting to hear it but I do not share it.

Fair enough.

Reager

30th April 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by shanek

[snip for brevity]

Look, Shanek..I am trying to do one thing here, and that's figure out where you stand on whether the freedom of speech is absolute. It SHOULD be a simple task, but the inconsistency in your position is making it difficult. You claimed the Constitution guaranteed absolute freedom of speech. Well the dictionary.com definition of "absolute" is:

- Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional.
- Unqualified in extent or degree.

Therefore, ANY law restricting someone's (harmful or nonharmful) speech in ANY way (whether direct or indirect) for ANY reason (whether the law was aimed at the speech or the resulting harm) would be a restriction on that ABSOLUTE right.

Yes or no, do you agree with that? If not, please explain why "absolute" doesn't mean what the dictionary says it means.

Now you're twisting my words. The freedom is absolute. Anything that directly inflicts harm against another is, by definition, not a part of freedom!

I'm not twisting anything, and now you're shifting the debate. Now it's not that speech is "absolute," but rather, you have your own special definition of "freedom" that excludes harmful speech!

Well you know what, I can agree with that (sort of..but close enough for this discussion)! I wish you had said it sooner and saved this erroneous quarrel over the definition of "absolute."

So the Constitution does not "absolutely" gurantee speech, and Congress CAN make laws where the harm to someone else outweighs the speech. Whew! Of course, we probably differ on where and when those laws are justified...

If someone else's rights don't matter, then you don't have freedom! Come on, THINK!

We can have this debate without the childish insults. I can assure you I do, indeed, think.

Mike

Edited to clarify the second to last point, above.

Victor Danilchenko

30th April 2003, 09:09 AM

shanek

You're not listening (normal for you). The laws don't abridge speech; they abridge actions relating to the speech.No, they abridge speech. they abridge my freedom to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. the consequences of that act of speaking are immaterial -- "no law" plainly means "no law". :rolleyes:

Yes, you are! That is the logical extension of your argument!Except that the argument in question is deliberately made as a reduction ad absurdum. I personally most certainly don't support labelling of libel and slander as protected speech -- but that's because i don't claim to read the Constitution literally.

If libel and slander laws abridge speech, then so do the other examples I mentioned—and then the very concept of "freedom" has no meaning! It's a reductio ad absurdum.Why yes, it is. Literal reading of the constitution reduces to an absurd position. Get it yet?

And it is NOT a literal reading of the Constitution!yes, it is, as I have just shown. it says right there -- congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. How much more literal can you get?

You are trying to support that that is the literal reading of the Constitution.Yes, I am -- I am claiming that such is the literal reading of the Constitution, but I am not defending such a reading; I am in fact claiming that such a literal reading is idiotic.

Can you keep more than one proposition in your mind at the same time?.. Do you even understand what reductio ad absurdum is?

For onc in your pathetic life, stop trying to weasel out of it!You really have some serious comprehension problems.

And ANSWER THE FSCKING QUESTIONS!!!!!!!Which question -- the rhetorical one, 'After all, I have the right to say what I want, right?' That was the only question in your entire previous post.

To answer the question I presume you meant to ask -- yes, under literal reading of the constitution, inciting someone to murder should be legal. No law means no law.

Of course, I don't support such a ridiculous thing as a [pretense of] literal reading. I realize that we interpret everything we read, including the Constitution, and that our interpretations -- mine included -- are inevitably biased by our beliefs and backgrounds and desires. This applies even to scientific works, and it applies tenfold more to political and social texts, of which the Constitution is one.

Lurker

30th April 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by shanek

That's exactly my point—I "got away with it" because my actions didn't result in any harm! And as you yourself just said, I would have been prosecuted if my actions had resulted in harm!

Actually, I wonder what would have happened had you yelled "Fire" loudly a few times and some people got distressed but nobody panicked and a police officer were present. Might you have been brought up on charges of some sort anyways? I think you might have, depnding on the police officer's mood.
Originally posted by shanek

Then just admit that you don't want to live in a free society. And then hope to whatever Deity, if any, you may believe in that the people in charge of that government happen to agree with you, otherwise you may find yourself in jail for simply trying to live your life your way.

Well free is a matter of scale, don't you think? America is not a totally free society and neither is the libertarian one you espouse.

So it really comes down to which freedoms are we willing to abridge?

Lurker

WMT1

30th April 2003, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
America is not a totally free society and neither is the libertarian one you espouse.

Guess which one comes closer. :D

shanek

30th April 2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by mfeldman
Look, Shanek..I am trying to do one thing here, and that's figure out where you stand on whether the freedom of speech is absolute. It SHOULD be a simple task, but the inconsistency in your position is making it difficult.

WHAT inconsistency? Holding people responsible for their actions is not the same as restricting their freedom!

I have explained this several times. I have given example after example after example, most of which have been ignored. And now, here you are saying the exact same thing yet again with no regard to my earlier explanations! So why should I believe that explaining it yet again will make any difference?

You want the answer to your question? READ MY POSTS!!! I'm getting sick and tired of constantly repeating myself...

I'm not twisting anything, and now you're shifting the debate. Now it's not that speech is "absolute," but rather, you have your own special definition of "freedom" that excludes harmful speech!

That isn't even remotely close to what I said! How many times do I have to explain it?

If there is a condition where you can say it without it being actionable, then it obviously isn't the speech itself that is being restricted! And I have given several examples of this!

shanek

30th April 2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
No, they abridge speech. they abridge my freedom to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

No, they don't. I've already covered that. In fact, no one AT ALL is going to abridge your freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre if there actually is a fire!

Except that the argument in question is deliberately made as a reduction ad absurdum.

Well, duh—I said that! Going back on your old ploy of trying to score cheap points? Pretending to tell me something I've already said? You've done that before.

Why yes, it is. Literal reading of the constitution reduces to an absurd position. Get it yet?

Except that your position doesn't hold water in light of the fact that there are many instances where someone can say exactly the same thing and yet not commit a crime! GET IT YET??? :rolleyes:

yes, it is, as I have just shown. it says right there -- congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.

And as I have repeatedly shown, and as you have repeatedly ignored as per usual, libel and slander laws do not abridge freedom of speech!

Yes, I am -- I am claiming that such is the literal reading of the Constitution,

You are claiming that, but the claim des not survive scrutiny!

Can you keep more than one proposition in your mind at the same time?.. Do you even understand what reductio ad absurdum is?

Yes, I do. You, apparently, don't. You didn't even mention the term until I brought it up! You're just trying to pull your usual crap.

You really have some serious comprehension problems.

Which question

Every single one I raised in my post to you! And now you're pretending like they didn't exist...

You ignore points, like you always do, and try to weasel out of it.

To answer the question I presume you meant to ask -- yes, under literal reading of the constitution, inciting someone to murder should be legal.

Then you have no concept of what the word "freedom" means. What a surprise...

shanek

30th April 2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
Actually, I wonder what would have happened had you yelled "Fire" loudly a few times and some people got distressed but nobody panicked and a police officer were present. Might you have been brought up on charges of some sort anyways?

The only way I can think of is by a complaint from the theatre owner, who is perfectly within his rights to do so. It is, after all, private property.

Well free is a matter of scale, don't you think? America is not a totally free society and neither is the libertarian one you espouse.

Before we go on, I'm going to ask you people to define "freedom," because you're apparently using a definition totally at odds with the traditional one...

Reager

30th April 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by shanek

WHAT inconsistency? Holding people responsible for their actions is not the same as restricting their freedom!

I have explained this several times. I have given example after example after example, most of which have been ignored. And now, here you are saying the exact same thing yet again with no regard to my earlier explanations! So why should I believe that explaining it yet again will make any difference?

You want the answer to your question? READ MY POSTS!!! I'm getting sick and tired of constantly repeating myself...

I'm making a real effort to understand your position Shanek. But either I'm not as bright as my mother thinks I am, or your explanatory abilities are not as maginificent as you think they are.

That isn't even remotely close to what I said! How many times do I have to explain it?

Well, like I said above, perhaps the problem lies with your explanation. For example, it helps if your answers didn't use words that have special definitions only YOU know (like "freedom"). Why don't you define your terms instead of berating everyone else for not understanding you? Geez.

If there is a condition where you can say it without it being actionable, then it obviously isn't the speech itself that is being restricted! And I have given several examples of this!

Of COURSE it's not the literal speech itself. Is THAT what you think this is about? <Sigh> I will try once more from the beginning, because I really do want to understand. This time, I ask that you answer the question, instead of side-stepping it. I've put the above discussion out of my mind and am starting from basics. If you don't want to participate any further, fine. But don't dare claim I'm being purposefully obtuse or just playing games.

You claimed the constitutional right to freedom of speech is absolute. My question is:

How can a right be absolute if there are circumstances under which you may be held criminally or civilly liable for exercising that right?

Mike

Mahatma Kane Jeeves

30th April 2003, 05:49 PM

FYI:

CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/315/568.html)
Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention [315 U.S. 568, 572] and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 , 310 S., 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 128 A.L.R. 1352.

VIRGINIA v. BLACK et al. (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/01-1107.html)
The protections the First Amendment affords speech and expressive conduct are not absolute. This Court has long recognized that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution. See, e.g., Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 571-572. For example, the First Amendment permits a State to ban "true threats," e.g., Watts v. United States, 394 U. S. 705, 708 (per curiam), which encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals, see, e.g., id., at 708. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protects individuals from the fear of violence and the disruption that fear engenders, as well as from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur. R. A. V., supra, at 388.

Reager

30th April 2003, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
FYI:

Yep...there is a long history of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter. I'm specifically avoiding using legal arguments and reference to caselaw and legislation bc Shanek will no doubt claim the Supreme Court and the entire US and state governments have gotten it all wrong for 200 years...

Mike

Skeptic

30th April 2003, 06:14 PM

Good question. The answer is, I can see the justification for restricting this, but that justification has nothing to do with "public" areas. It has to do with the rights of the neighbors. Since the neighbors haven't put up privacy fences, etc., they are responsible for how their actions affect their neighbors.

So, on your view, if I (say) have an orgy in my front yard, then if someone on the sidewalk (public property) sees me, I am violating the law against "public nudity". But if someone in the house next door sees me (private property), I am only "violating his rights", a completely different matter--for starters, it would be civil law, not criminal law.

Surely, this conclusion defies common sense and couldn't be what the lawmakers intended. On your view, the law against public nudity protects only those who walk on the sidewalk from your nudity by criminal law, and leave those who happen to be standing in their front yard to their own devices. This is,logically, like passing a law that makes murder a crime, but only if it is committed on government-owned land, and not if you are killed in your own house.

You only reach this conclusion because you stubbornly deny that "public" can have more than one meaning depending on the context.

OTOH, let's say it's a naturist community where it's expected and even desired that people will be naked in their backyard, and everyone within eyesight is part of this community. What, then, would be the justification for government coming in and restricting this?

But the government DOESN'T restrict this.

Why? Because nudist camps, once they make sure (by privacy fences, etc.) that the public (other people in general, who do not belong to the nudist camp) cannot see them, they are NOT violating the law against "public nudity" merely because the public (the community of the nudists) see each other naked.

The latter is not the sort of "public" that the law against "public nudity" is concerned with, any more than the fact that you might have a crowd of ten people having sex in an orgy in your partment violates "public nudity" laws because they can see each other having sex; or, for that matter, any more than sex itself is "illegal" because someone other than yourself sees your nakedness. Once again, it's a different use of the word "public"...

Victor Danilchenko

1st May 2003, 05:55 AM

shanek

No, they don't. I've already covered that. In fact, no one AT ALL is going to abridge your freedom to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre if there actually is a fire!Fine. Then my right to falsely shout "fire" is abridged.

Except that your position doesn't hold water in light of the fact that there are many instances where someone can say exactly the same thing and yet not commit a crime!And plenty of instances when one commits a crime simply by speaking certain woprds in a certain context! So those sorts of speech are abridged by law, despite Constitution saying that "congress shall make no law...".

You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater.
You cannot verbally incite violence.
You cannot threaten, even if you never intend to carry out your threat.
You cannot violate copyright protection.

In fact, let's look at copyrights: another clear-cut case. Constitution grants Congress the power to make copyright laws, and the very existence of copyright laws directly contradicts the literal reading of the first amendment; for what are copyright laws if not an abridgement of your right to speak or write another's copyrighted material?

On this subject, Constitution contradicts itself directly -- iff you are bent on interpreting it literally.

And as I have repeatedly shown, and as you have repeatedly ignored as per usual, libel and slander laws do not abridge freedom of speech!yes, they do, dude; just as illegality of you punching my nose does abridge your freedom to swing your fist. Just because my nose is in your vicinity, doesn't mean that your freedom is not abridged; however, that's the sort of abridgement inherent in the concept of freedom -- absolute freedom is impossible, and so it's up to us to decide which tradeoffs of freedom are appropriate. As long as you hold on to your delusion of absolute freedom and constitutional literalism, you are about as fruitful to converse with as your average biblical literalist.

Libel and slander laws do abridge freedom of speech; as do many other laws. However, some abridgement of some freedoms is unavoidable, including freedom of speech; and so we must decide, intelligently and keeping in mind the nature of our society, which freedoms may be abridged in what manner so as to bring about the greatest good. Libel and slander laws are just such a compromise -- we abridge the freedom of false harmful speech in order to protect property, because we as a society decide that false harmful speech is not deserving of protection the way, say, political speech is, and that false harmful speech is worth less protection that property rights. Nonetheless, libel and slander laws do abridge one's freedom of speech.

Yes, I do. You, apparently, don't. You didn't even mention the term until I brought it up!Dude, I am a mathelogician by education -- logical proofs is certainly one thing I know about.

Every single one I raised in my post to you!There was only one question in that entire post of yours, and it sounded rhetorical, you liar; nonetheless, I did answer that question, to the best of my ability to guess what it was you actually meant to ask.

Then you have no concept of what the word "freedom" means.Oh, I do. Unlike you, I realize that freedom cannot be absolute, and that therefore reading Constitution literally (Congress shall make no law...) is lunacy. You are too emotionally invested in your claim of literal reading of Constitution and absolute nature of freedom, to comprehend the numerous contradictions in your views.

None are so blind as those who will not see.

shanek

1st May 2003, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by mfeldman
Of COURSE it's not the literal speech itself. Is THAT what you think this is about? <Sigh>

Well, since we're considering a LITEREAL reading of the Constitution, with what it means about freedom of SPEECH, then yes, I do think that's what this is about!

You claimed the constitutional right to freedom of speech is absolute. My question is:

How can a right be absolute if there are circumstances under which you may be held criminally or civilly liable for exercising that right?

And my response is that you are not liable for exercising the right to free speech, you are liable for causing harm, regardless of whether or not speech is involved. Having free speech does not absolve you of any harm you cause others.

Your question is ill-formed, and assumes the very premise I'm questioning.

shanek

1st May 2003, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by Mahatma Kane Jeeves
FYI:

I've already spoken to both of those examples.

shanek

1st May 2003, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
So, on your view, if I (say) have an orgy in my front yard, then if someone on the sidewalk (public property) sees me, I am violating the law against "public nudity". But if someone in the house next door sees me (private property), I am only "violating his rights", a completely different matter--for starters, it would be civil law, not criminal law.

I'm not going to get into what's civil vs. criminal law, but yes, it is a different matter. In the former, you could be charged regardless of whether or not anyone complains; in the latter, the neighbor would have to complain, and if the neighbor has no problem with it then nothing will happen to you.

On your view, the law against public nudity protects only those who walk on the sidewalk from your nudity by criminal law, and leave those who happen to be standing in their front yard to their own devices.

When did I say that? Stop putting words in my mouth.

But the government DOESN'T restrict this.

EXACTLY MY POINT!!!!! If your neighbor's yard were considered public property for this purpose, then it would be restricted under the aforementioned laws! You know, where you said my conclusion "defies common sense"? And now here you are acknowledging that what I've said is true!

Why? Because nudist camps, once they make sure (by privacy fences, etc.)[/i] that the public (other people in general, who do not belong to the nudist camp) cannot see them,[/i] they are NOT violating the law against "public nudity"

There you go agreeing with me again...

merely because the public (the community of the nudists) see each other naked.

So they're the public, and they're not the public? Now who's defying common sense?

The latter is not the sort of "public" that the law against "public nudity" is concerned with,

So, then they're not the public after all...So then being seen by my neighbor in his yard is not being seen by the public!

Why is one kind of neighbor "public" but the other isn't? Isn't the only difference that the neighbor in question has agreed to the arrangement?

shanek

1st May 2003, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Fine. Then my right to falsely shout "fire" is abridged.

And now we're getting into aspects beyond the speech itself. By the way, as I have demonstrated, merely falsely shouting "fire" isn't enough either. You either have to cause a panic or be enough of a bother for the property owner to complain. So again, the offence is beyond the speech itself.

I've explained this several different ways! What is it that people are having trouble understanding?

You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater.

Only in certain circumstances, where related actions cause harm.

You cannot verbally incite violence.

Only because of related actions that cause harm.

You cannot threaten, even if you never intend to carry out your threat.

Because again, the related action causes harm. It makes someone live in fear of their lives. But again, you could do so in jest and be all right.

You cannot violate copyright protection.

In that case, the speech isn't yours to begin with. The First Amendment does, however, guarantee you "fair use" of the material (even though Congress, through lobbying by the entertainment industry, has sought to abridge that in recent years). So no, not even copyright laws are an abridgement of free speech (except for this latest batch).

yes, they do, dude; just as illegality of you punching my nose does abridge your freedom to swing your fist.

Only if your nose is in the way.

Just because my nose is in your vicinity, doesn't mean that your freedom is not abridged;

Right; I am just responsible for the harm I cause. Come on—my 6-year-old niece understands this!

Libel and slander laws do abridge freedom of speech;

This is another one of your tactics: Just repeat the claim without any regard to my response to it.

There was only one question in that entire post of yours, and it sounded rhetorical, you liar;

Sigh....LIAR, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:

How come I can say "Victor rapes 9-year-old-boys" all I want, but if I say "Victor rapes 9-year-old-boys" to, say, a potential employer who denies you a job as a result, then that's actionable? If it's the speech itself that's being abridged, how come I can say it in one instance and not the other?

Hoe come I say to my (hypothetical) friend Guido, "I'll give you $500 if you kill Victor" in jest, and it's all right, but if I say it to him and he goes and kills you, I can be arrested even if I haven't actually gotten around to paying him the $500 yet?

If I say, "I'll give you $5,000 for that autographed life-size cardboard cutout of William Shatner naked," and I don't pay up if you give it to me, then you can take action against me, how is that an abridgemen of free speech?

There you are, YOU PEDANTIC WEASEL! You're apparently not enough of a logician to realize that someone can question someone without using the little "?" at the end, but since you think this is fscking Jeopardy or something (I'm sorry, you did not phrase it in the form of a question) you get to weasel out of it.

Well, NOW YOU DON'T, LIAR!!!! SO ANSWER THE FASCKING QUESTIONS ALREADY!!!!!

Oh, I do.

Then give me the definition of "freedom" under which you are operating. (Note: That is a question, even if it doesn't use the little "?" at the end; it's still phrased in the form of a request.)

Tmy

1st May 2003, 06:47 AM

Its public nudity cause it can easily be seen by the public. Your neighbor is part of "the public" even while on his private land.

We can agree that having sex in your bedroom is legal and private. But if you open up your window shades for all the neighborhood kids to see, then you're publicizing.

Victor Danilchenko

1st May 2003, 07:37 AM

shanek

And now we're getting into aspects beyond the speech itself. By the way, as I have demonstrated, merely falsely shouting "fire" isn't enough either. You either have to cause a panic or be enough of a bother for the property owner to complain. So again, the offence is beyond the speech itself.But puinishing that offense does abridge freedom of speech; just as punishing murder does abridge freedom to shoot your gun indiscriminately. Criminalizing the consequences of an act inevitably restricts the act itself.

I've explained this several different ways! What is it that people are having trouble understanding?People are disagreeing with your "love the sinner, hate the sin"-style approach. "No sir, the murder laws don't abridge your freedom to shoot someone in the head, they merely hold you responsible for the consequences!"

A law punishing murder abridges the right to shoot a stranger in the head; and the law punishing harmful consequences of speech abridges that speech.

Only because of related actions that cause harm.And it's still abridgement of speech -- it's just abridgement of speech for a good reason.

In that case, the speech isn't yours to begin with.Sure it is. My mouth makes the sounds, my hands touch the keyboard... When I sing "YMCA" out loud, or when I type it up on the internet, it's my speech; copyright laws control what I do with my speech, with my voice and my hands. Nobody else owns my mouth or my fingers, I am the one who speaks; and yet my right to sing or post YMCA lyrics is abridged by copyright laws. Check out http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html to see that even libertarians disagree on the nature of copyrights vis-a-vis freedom.

To how ridiculous an extent will you go to preserve your illusion of freedom of speech being absolute and literally protected in Constitution?

The First Amendment does, however, guarantee you "fair use" of the materialFirst Amendment does nothing of the sort. Copyright laws do that -- they permit fair use because they recognize that copyright laws are inherently at odds with freedom of speech. Therefore, a compromise is struck: individuals are given greater freedom (via fair use) but authors' interests are still protected.

Only if your nose is in the way.Nonetheless, the presence of my nose does abridge your freedom to swing your fist. it's a justified abridgement, but it's still an abridgement.

Now the nose/fist example is pretty clear cut -- we all agree where the demarkation is drawn for appropriate abridgement of freedom. However, the position of this divide is much less clear in many other cases. When you ignore the very existence of this abridgement, by pretending the the justifiably abridged freedoms (e.g. your freedom to swing your first, or yout freedom to post YMCA lyrics, or your freedom to incide panic by shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater) are not actually abridged at all, what you accomplish is making it impossible to actually reasonably discuss where the compromise in freedoms should lie. You take a fuzzy divide subject to public debate, and pretend that there is only one valid demarkation line -- your demarkation line.

Right; I am just responsible for the harm I cause. Come on—my 6-year-old niece understands this!So are you responsible when you cause harm by speaking truly? Are you responsible for the harm you cause when you speak falsely, but merely hurt someone's feelings? How about if you speak falsely and break up a marriage? Are you responsible for the harm you cause by treating someone badly and thus driving them to hurt themselves?

In order to cling to your simplistic view, Shane, you have to ignore the subtleties and shades that comprise the real world. As Einstein said,
things should be as simple as possible, but no simpler; your view falls squarely into the latter undesirable category.

Sigh....LIAR, ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS:You didn't ask these questions. If you want to ask a question, phrase it as such; as it is, you have zero grounds to accuse me of not answering your questions.

How come I can say "Victor rapes 9-year-old-boys" all I want, but if I say "Victor rapes 9-year-old-boys" to, say, a potential employer who denies you a job as a result, then that's actionable?Under literal interpretation of the 1st amendment -- no; and I already answered the equivalent question, dude, when I said that in such conditions, you promising Guido to kill me should be legal as well.

If it's the speech itself that's being abridged, how come I can say it in one instance and not the other?Under literal interpretation of the 1t amendment, you could say anything, and not have your freedom be abridged. Under a sane interpretation of the 1st amendment, freedom of speech is not absolute -- but that would require you to abandon literal interpretation of the constitution.

There you are, YOU PEDANTIC WEASEL! You're apparently not enough of a logician to realize that someone can question someone without using the little "?"in case you missed it, dude, I gave an answer that, with only a minute amnount of thought, addressed all the concerns you raised here. I wrote:

"To answer the question I presume you meant to ask -- yes, under literal reading of the constitution, inciting someone to murder should be legal. No law means no law."

Well, NOW YOU DON'T, LIAR!!!! SO ANSWER THE FASCKING QUESTIONS ALREADY!!!!!I already answered two posts ago, dude. You really need to screech less, and think and read more.

Then give me the definition of "freedom" under which you are operating.See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom , 1st defintiion:

The condition of being free of restraints.

Laws banning libel, slander, death threats, copyright infringement, etc. are all restraints on by speech. Those restraints are justified, but they are nonetheless restraints.

Reager

1st May 2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Well, since we're considering a LITEREAL reading of the Constitution, with what it means about freedom of SPEECH, then yes, I do think that's what this is about!

And my response is that you are not liable for exercising the right to free speech, you are liable for causing harm, regardless of whether or not speech is involved. Having free speech does not absolve you of any harm you cause others.

Your question is ill-formed, and assumes the very premise I'm questioning.

I give up. You're repeating the same mantra over and over, without regard for the questions that are being asked of you. Victor is doing a much better job of getting a similar point across than I am, so I'll leave it to him to try and get a straight answer out of you.

Mike

shanek

1st May 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
But puinishing that offense does abridge freedom of speech; just as punishing murder does abridge freedom to shoot your gun indiscriminately.

This is what you absolutely refuse to understand: punishing murder has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with firing a gun! You can be charged for murder without having fired a gun, and you can fire a gun (say, at a target) without being charged for murder! Likewise, offenses may be punished even if at some point speech was involved!

Criminalizing the consequences of an act inevitably restricts the act itself.

No, it doesn't. Just the opposite: Restricting the act removes responsibility. I have said this several times, and you still continue on as if I had said nothing!!!!

People are disagreeing with your "love the sinner, hate the sin"-style approach. "No sir, the murder laws don't abridge your freedom to shoot someone in the head, they merely hold you responsible for the consequences!"

This is a complete lie. I never said anything of the kind. But you always have to resort to LIES because you have no response to what I'm really saying.

A law punishing murder abridges the right to shoot a stranger in the head;

This is a circular argument, and one I never posed the converse of. You're twisting the word "right" until it has no meaning.

First Amendment does nothing of the sort. Copyright laws do that

No, fair use came as a direct result of the Supreme Court supporting freedom of speech over the copyright laws! See several examples here:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/copyrt.htm

Nonetheless, the presence of my nose does abridge your freedom to swing your fist.

No, it doesn't, because ordinarily I can swing my fist all I want! But when your nose gets in the way, then there are consequences that I have to face!

So are you responsible when you cause harm by speaking truly?

No. As I have said several times, truth is a defense to slander and libel. Try reasing my posts sometimes instead of doing your typical knee-jerk lack-of-thought reaction to what you think I'm saying.

I'm cutting out a lot of this post becuase it covers things I have already explained.

You didn't ask these questions.

Yes, I did! And I asked them again, in your pedant "Jeopardy!" format!

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=question

ques·tion

1. a. An expression of inquiry that invites or calls for a reply.
b. An interrogative sentence, phrase, or gesture.
2. A subject or point open to controversy; an issue.
3. A difficult matter; a problem: a question of ethics.
4. A point or subject under discussion or consideration.
5. a. A proposition brought up for consideration by an assembly.
b. The act of bringing a proposal to vote.
6. Uncertainty; doubt: There is no question about the validity of the enterprise.

My statements were questions under definitions 1a, 1b, 2, 3, and 4. Weasel.

Under literal interpretation of the 1st amendment -- no; and I already answered the equivalent question, dude, when I said that in such conditions, you promising Guido to kill me should be legal as well.

How??? Making a deal with someone to kill someone is illegal, regardless of whether or not speech is used! Fraudulently preventing someone from obtaining employment is illegal, regardless of whether or not speech is used!!! These restrictions do not have ONE D*MN THING TO DO WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH!!!!

See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=freedom , 1st defintiion:

The condition of being free of restraints.

And if someone commits slander or libel against you, how are you free from restraints? If someone hires someone to kill you, how are you free of restraints?

Speech alone restrains no one. As I have repeatedly pointed out, there are aspects other than the speech to each and every one of these situations.

shanek

1st May 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by mfeldman
I give up. You're repeating the same mantra over and over, without regard for the questions that are being asked of you.

I'm "repeating" it because you completely and repeatedly fail to get the point! And I have considered and responded to every single question asked of me! (BTW, Victor says they aren't questions...)

Victor is doing a much better job of getting a similar point across than I am, so I'll leave it to him to try and get a straight answer out of you.

I have BEEN giving straight answers! Straightforward, clear, unequivocal answers! Disagree all you want, but don't say I didn't answer, don't say I didn't respond, and don't say I didn't make it clear!!!! I've been breaking my neck trying to explain this to you!!!!! :mad:

Reager

1st May 2003, 07:02 PM

Somewhere in America...

Miss Jones: ...And that, class is how you multiply negative numbers.

Johnny: Miss Jones, I have a question! You said that multiplying a negative number by a negative number gives you a positive number. I don't understand that. After all, multiplication is just adding something a number of times. So it seems to me if you have less than something and add it to less than something, you still have less that something.

Miss Jones: I've already explained it Johnny. It's so obvious.

Johnny: I know Miss Jones. But how is it if you add 2 and 2 you get 4, same as multiplying them. And if you add -2 and -2 you get -4, but if you multiply -2 by -2 you get positive 4. That doesn't seem to make any sense.

Miss Jones: Look Johnny, you're completely missing the point. When you multiply -2 to itself, you're actually adding -2 to itself -2 times.

Johnny: But, I still don't understand. How you add something -2 times?

Miss Jones: Look, Johnny, I've already explained it twice. C'mon..think!

Johnny (Almost in tears): I..I'm sorry Miss Jones. I'm really trying to understand this..maybe if you explained it a different way...

Miss Jones: There's nothing wrong with my explanation, Johnny! It's obvious you just don't get it.

Johnny (exasperated): I hate math!

Lurker

2nd May 2003, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by shanek
[B]

The only way I can think of is by a complaint from the theatre owner, who is perfectly within his rights to do so. It is, after all, private property.

Yes, but a complaint from the owner would just result in your removal from the premises. No charges. But the police officer could arrest you even though you merely spoke.

Lurker

Thanz

2nd May 2003, 05:00 AM

I'm not sure how we got onto free speech, but I'll try a different example to try to illustrate why free speech is not absolute, despite the wording of the constitution.

Let's say that there is a anti-WTO demonstration in some city. A large number of Jedi's dreaded leftist commie matriarchal anti-american fascists :p have gathered in the financial district. Some guy gets up and gives a fiery speech about how we need to take the power back from the evil corporations, let's shut down the city, blah blah blah.

In case A, the crowd goes nuts, starts breaking windows of major corporations, etc. - general mayhem. The police arrest the speech dude for inciting a riot.

In case B, the crowd yells "Yeah! down with those capitalist pig-dogs" but does not riot, or cause any mayhem. It remains a peaceful protest.

Same speech, different outcomes. It seems that shanek says that arresting the guy in case A is not abridging freedom of speech, because he is arrested for the harm that the speech did - the riot - and not the speech itself. Freedom of speech is still somehow absolute.

This is hogwash. You cannot claim that speech is "free" so long as there are no consequences and still claim that free speech is absolute. Free speech is only absolute if it is still free EVEN THOUGH it may have consequences.

If you arrest the guy in case A, you are abridging freedom of speech just as much as if you arrested him in case B. Arresting him in case A may be justified - but don't say it is not abridging free speech, because it is.

In Canada, none of the rights set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are absolute - rather they are all subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Thus, we never have to say that something isn't "speech" - rather, we just argue whether the limit is justified.

Victor Danilchenko

2nd May 2003, 06:06 AM

Shane,

I already gave you all the necessary explanations; you simply don't undersatand them, just like in mfeldman's math example. It's like there is an ideologically created blind spot in your cognitive process -- you simply don't understand certain things, simple and obvious to everyone else though they may be.

Have a life, and don't expect the rest of the world to follow your lunatic faith.

shanek

2nd May 2003, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by mfeldman
Somewhere in America...

Well, this is the kind of insult you get from someone who doesn't even want to try and understand what the other side is saying....

I HAVE explained it, several times, in many different ways. Stop pretending otherwise.

shanek

2nd May 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by Lurker
Yes, but a complaint from the owner would just result in your removal from the premises. No charges. But the police officer could arrest you even though you merely spoke.

Not if my actions resulted in no harm. The policeman can't just up and arrest me. And the owner can press charges against me if my actions are harmful.

shanek

2nd May 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Same speech, different outcomes. It seems that shanek says that arresting the guy in case A is not abridging freedom of speech, because he is arrested for the harm that the speech did - the riot - and not the speech itself. Freedom of speech is still somehow absolute.

At last, someone at least understands what it is I'm saying...and that's a good example, too!

This is hogwash. You cannot claim that speech is "free" so long as there are no consequences and still claim that free speech is absolute. Free speech is only absolute if it is still free EVEN THOUGH it may have consequences.

This is where we disagree. As I've said several times in this very thread, freedom means you are responsible for your actions. You CAN get up in front of the crowd and speak; but if your actions result in a riot, you can be held accountable—FOR THE RIOT, not the speech.

Just like you have the right to own a hammer, you have the right to swing a hammer, but if you swing that hammer and it hits someone's head—deliberately or accidentally—you are responsible for the consequences of your actions.

If you arrest the guy in case A, you are abridging freedom of speech just as much as if you arrested him in case B. Arresting him in case A may be justified - but don't say it is not abridging free speech, because it is.

How can that be, when the charge—that of inciting the riot—is only indirectly related to the speech? You're not arresting him for the speech itself! If that were the case, you would be just as justified for arresting him in case B! And as you seem to imply, arresting him in case B would not be justified. Ergo, the speech itself is not the offense!

In Canada, none of the rights set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are absolute - rather they are all subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

Fine. Good for you. There's no such language in the US Constitution.

shanek

2nd May 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I already gave you all the necessary explanations; you simply don't undersatand them,

No, I understand them. I've shown you that I understand them. You simply refuse to consider my explanations of why I disagree with them. Your ego at work, yet again.

Have a life, and don't expect the rest of the world to follow your lunatic faith.

This "lunatic faith" is codified in the US Constitution. The world doesn't have to follow it, but I'm going to do my best to make sure the US government follows it like they're supposed to!

(By the way, claiming that someone says something they haven't is a strawman. When you continually represent the person's claim thus, even after numerous corrections, as you have done in this thread (and others), it becomes a lie. Sleep well, liar...)

WMT1

2nd May 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
It's like there is an ideologically created blind spot in your cognitive process -- you simply don't understand certain things, simple and obvious to everyone else though they may be.

Have a life, and don't expect the rest of the world to follow your lunatic faith.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

This from the guy whose own faith rests on the idea of consent being implied by not leaving the country!

Thanz

2nd May 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by shanek

How can that be, when the charge—that of inciting the riot—is only indirectly related to the speech? You're not arresting him for the speech itself! If that were the case, you would be just as justified for arresting him in case B! And as you seem to imply, arresting him in case B would not be justified. Ergo, the speech itself is not the offense!

No, the charge is directly related to the speech - it is the only basis on which they can arrest the guy. The man's actions in case A and case B are exactly the same. The only thing that makes the two different are the independent actions of others.

The speech has to be the offense, as it is the only action that the man took.

Your position is that if the speech has consequences, his freedom of speech is not abridged if we arrest him for that.

My position is that if we arrest him, his freedom of speech is abridged, but that abridgment is justified because of the consequences of the action.

I think that we would agree that one is free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not affect the rights of others. Where we disagree is that you seem to collapse this into your definition of "freedom", whereas I take a two step approach. My approach acknowledges that someone's freedom is infringed upon, but that there may be a reason for that infringement. We then have to examine the reason to determine whether it is sufficient to limit the freedom.

My position requires more examination of the justification - yours, by collapsing it into the definition, removes such analysis.

Lurker

2nd May 2003, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Not if my actions resulted in no harm. The policeman can't just up and arrest me. And the owner can press charges against me if my actions are harmful.

I just did a google search on ["attempting to start a riot" law] and a couple people have been arrested for just that when all they did was use their freedom of speech. No riot erupted yet they were charged.

So, we can see that you can be charged with "Attempting to start a riot" whether a riot ocurred or not.

Perhaps these laws are unconstitutional but they exist right now. Perhaps your interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect.

Lurker

shanek

2nd May 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

This from the guy whose own faith rests on the idea of consent being implied by not leaving the country!

Not to mention the guy thinks that lying is "perfectly legitimate"...

shanek

2nd May 2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
No, the charge is directly related to the speech - it is the only basis on which they can arrest the guy.

Wait a minute...

Let's go back to the "fire in a crowded theatre" example. I shout, fire, fire, there's a fire, run for your lives, etc., everyone panics, calls 911, the fire dept. comes out, etc., and then I'm arrested. You say, that speech is the only basis on which they can arrest me. Right?

Okay, so what if I didn't say a word and pulled the fire alarm instead, with the same results? Do I not get charged thus?

Of course I do, so it is not free speech that is being infringed on. It is starting a panic and wasting public resources, regardless of the method.

My position is that if we arrest him, his freedom of speech is abridged,

I think I just found the source of our contention...

You keep talking about "his freedom," as if he were the only one with freedom. But the other patrons have freedoms, too, freedoms which were abridged by my (hypothetical) actions.

Or, in your case, while your guy didn't directly infringe upon the crowd's freedom, the crowd turned around and infringed on the freedoms of others, and the guy is responsible for that.

Anything that infringes on freedom is not freedom. By definition.

I think that we would agree that one is free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not affect the rights of others. Where we disagree is that you seem to collapse this into your definition of "freedom", whereas I take a two step approach. My approach acknowledges that someone's freedom is infringed upon, but that there may be a reason for that infringement. We then have to examine the reason to determine whether it is sufficient to limit the freedom.

And I say that you're using the word "freedom" to be more along the lines of "ability." Just because you have the ability to do something does not mean that that is a freedom. Freedom is the absence of force, so anything that initiates force is, ergo, not a part of freedom.

My position requires more examination of the justification - yours, by collapsing it into the definition, removes such analysis.

I disagree; the analysis is there, just with a different focus. Mine focuses on whether or not the actions abridge the freedom of others. Whereas yours gets into an examination of which are justified infringements of freedom and which ones aren't. The problem I have with your view is that it makes it to easy to justify things that really are an infringement on freedom.

Make sense now?

shanek

2nd May 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Lurker
I just did a google search on ["attempting to start a riot" law] and a couple people have been arrested for just that when all they did was use their freedom of speech. No riot erupted yet they were charged.

Care to post the links?

So, we can see that you can be charged with "Attempting to start a riot" whether a riot ocurred or not.

Just as you can be charged with attempted murder regardless of whether or not the murder actually took place. I covered this above.

Valmorian

2nd May 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by shanek

This is where we disagree. As I've said several times in this very thread, freedom means you are responsible for your actions. You CAN get up in front of the crowd and speak; but if your actions result in a riot, you can be held accountable—FOR THE RIOT, not the speech.

So the speech is irrelevant? I mean, if the person hadn't given the speech that lead to the riot, would the riot have happened?

Seems like you're suggesting that I should be able to do anything I want, no matter how reckless, as long as I am lucky and it doesn't actually cause any harm to anyone.

Weaving back and forth through residental traffic at 100kph wouldn't be illegal, as long as I didn't cause any accidents, never mind that it was that action that put people in risk of danger.

Just like you have the right to own a hammer, you have the right to swing a hammer, but if you swing that hammer and it hits someone's head—deliberately or accidentally—you are responsible for the consequences of your actions.

Do I have the right to swing that hammer around in a crowd? Where there's a good chance that I WILL hit someone in the head? Do the actions not count at all, and only the results?

How can that be, when the charge—that of inciting the riot—is only indirectly related to the speech? You're not arresting him for the speech itself!

Eh? If the speech was the cause of the riot, how could you call it "indirectly responsible" for it? If it WASN'T the cause of the riot, how could you hold him responsible?

I've never seen you participate in such bizarre behavior, Shane. It's plainly obvious that Victor is correct in this case. These ARE restrictions on free speech, justified or not, my speech is restricted in certain circumstances.

If it's only the RESULTS of my actions that count, then you would have the same punishment for someone who accidentally commits a crime (or even commits a crime under coercion) as someone who deliberately plans it.

shanek

2nd May 2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Valmorian
So the speech is irrelevant? I mean, if the person hadn't given the speech that lead to the riot, would the riot have happened?

The speech was a tool, just as a gun is a tool. That's why I maintain that laws against inciting a riot are no more an abridgement of the First Amendment than laws against murder and armed robbery are an abridgement of the Second.

Seems like you're suggesting that I should be able to do anything I want, no matter how reckless, as long as I am lucky and it doesn't actually cause any harm to anyone.

No, you should be able to do anything you want as long as you don't infringe upon the rights of others. You ARE held responsible for your actions, and what you said above implies that you wouldn't.

Weaving back and forth through residental traffic at 100kph wouldn't be illegal,

Yes, it would, because of the danger and threat you pose to others.

Do I have the right to swing that hammer around in a crowd?

As long as you were doing it in a way that didn't endanger others, then yes.

Eh? If the speech was the cause of the riot, how could you call it "indirectly responsible" for it?

For the same reason a gun is "indirectly responsible" for a murder.

If it's only the RESULTS of my actions that count, then you would have the same punishment for someone who accidentally commits a crime (or even commits a crime under coercion) as someone who deliberately plans it.

Explain how that logically results from my arguments please.

Victor Danilchenko

5th May 2003, 05:26 AM

shanek

No, I understand them.if you do, then you argue very dishonestly, by trying to simply define our way to the conclusion. You asked for my definition of "freedom", and what i gave you supports my contention -- but you seemed to have let is quietly lapse; instead, you appear to secretly use the definition of freedom that excludes, by definition, the acts which you consider to be underserving of constitutional protection, and/or refusing to acknowledge that punishing the consequences of the act implicitly abridges that act itself. Instead of acknowledging that no freedom is absolute and that therefore Constitution cannot be reasonably read in a literal manner, you play your ridiculous little definition games -- as if changing the definition will change anything about the real world!

This "lunatic faith" is codified in the US Constitution.No, Shane, this lunatic faith is codified in your interpretation of the Constitution. This is the point that you refuse to acknowledge, because your entire house of cards rests on the rejection of the fact that your interpretation of the Constitution is just that -- your interpretation, affected by your biases and colored by your ideology. Only by pretending that your biases, in effect, don't exist, can you reconcile within yourself the cognitive dissonance that would have otherwise been inescapably obvious even to yourself.

What's more, if we stick only to literal interpretation of the Constitution, then any amendment passed is legitimate -- 'cuz Constitution codifies the amendment mechanism, without placing ideological restrictions on it. Do you still have a problem with the 16th amendment, Shane?

(By the way, claiming that someone says something they haven't is a strawman. When you continually represent the person's claim thus, even after numerous corrections, as you have done in this thread (and others), it becomes a lie. Sleep well, liar...)Oh shane, this is such an old and disingenuous card to play... :rolleyes:

Not to mention the guy thinks that lying is "perfectly legitimate"...<claps his hands> Oh, what a fun game! Can I play?

Shane, you are a guy who thinks that lying should be a crime.

How about adultery? No, wait, you don't think adultery should be a problem; unless of course me cheating on my wife would cause her to harm my financial interests, in which case I can sue myself for the damages... What would we call this crime -- adulander? Libeltery? lend me a helping hand here, Shane!

Victor Danilchenko

5th May 2003, 05:29 AM

shanek

The speech was a tool, just as a gun is a tool. That's why I maintain that laws against inciting a riot are no more an abridgement of the First Amendment than laws against murder and armed robbery are an abridgement of the Second.The difference, Shane, in that in literal reading, 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, not just the right to use them; in contrast, the 1st amendment protects the right to free speech, not the right to access to free speech. This is why laws punishing gun abuse are congruous with the literal rerading of the Constitution (because there is no clause 'congress shall make no law abridging the right to free use of arms'), but laws punishing abuse of speech are not.

shanek

5th May 2003, 06:34 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
if you do, then you argue very dishonestly, by trying to simply define our way to the conclusion. You asked for my definition of "freedom", and what i gave you supports my contention

No, it doesn't, because as I pointed out, your definition:

The condition of being free of restraints

obviously doesn't apply in a situation where you're restraining others!

What's more, if we stick only to literal interpretation of the Constitution, then any amendment passed is legitimate

We've had this conversation before, Victor, andf now here you are trouting out what you now KNOW to be a lie, as if we'd never discussed it. Saying that the Constitution means what it says does not mean that I agree 100% with everything in the Constitution.

shanek

5th May 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The difference, Shane, in that in literal reading, 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, not just the right to use them; in contrast, the 1st amendment protects the right to free speech, not the right to access to free speech.

I think this is the first thing you've said right! Yes, you must pursue your own means of access to free speech. You have no right, for example, to force a newspaper to print your article. If they refuse to print it, it's not a violation of your right to free speech.

And again, giving you the right to something does not absolve you from responsibility for the consequences of your actions—quite the opposite. Why do you continue to ignore this?

Reager

5th May 2003, 07:22 AM

Originally posted by shanek

No, it doesn't, because as I pointed out, your definition:

obviously doesn't apply in a situation where you're restraining others!

I have to jump back into this thread here, bc this is the point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to get across earleir. Shanek, you are using a particular, non-dictionary, definition of freedom (it says nothing about excluding acts that harm others). Your definition is based on assumptions and ideas (probably natural rights, etc...) that everyone may not share. Hence, they may not agree that your definition of freedom is appropriate or even correct. I hope you can at least concede this.

It's pretty clear that if we use the dictionary definition of the word freedom, then rights (the freedom to do X) are not absolute. It's therefore your job to convince us why we should accept your definition of the word freedom. Thus far you've done a poor job. Simply saying it "obviously doesn't apply in a situation where you're restraining others!" is not an explanation. Frankly, I don't see the connection. I'd like to know why it doesn't apply, and why your definition it better.

I am not disagreeing with your ideology, and I'm not agreeing with it. I'm simply asking for an explanation.

Mike