God Hates Fags

[DC_DEEP]

The problem is that's how he's able to travel to all these places and do all these demonstrations. He and most of his children are attorneys (though he's been disbarred). They make their money by suing anyone and everyone who crosses their paths.

You are right, I probably would not spit in his face. But my other statement I WILL stand by... I wouldn't throw the first punch, but I would have no trouble throwing the last one.

 

[dong20]

Ha, I've done it too. If you have a complaint specific to that merchant, that's a whole different ball of wax from what I'm discussing though.

Yes, I know. It just made me smile to remember it.:smile:

What I'm saying is people taking their specific issues ala Phred and acting like they have rights to express it EVERYWHERE, which they do not. If they were standing on the property of a person who owned guns, it could get nasty, and the "freedom of speech" issue wouldn't hold an ounce of water.

Indeed, it does have some serious practical limitations.

Our personal freedoms are limited to what we are willing and able to support. Start with finances- you can say ANYTHING you want in a book you publish yourself. Still, the government has a say in what you can sell- you can't write things about making atomic bombs, for example. You could say anything you want on a website YOU created, but then YOU would be under the scrutiny of a government agency to determine if anything you published was in violation of ANY law or statute- or COULD be interpreted that way. On a side note, it's comical to me that people drop turds here on our site, knowing we have a gallery and are *this close* to being considered a pornographic site, then whine about "freedom of speech" not realising that it only applies to government interferance. The crucial twist in all of this is that the ONLY agency to which it applies wholly disregards it!

In Europe a parallel is the convention on Human Rights. Incredibly many believe it means it somehow protects them from being exploited by employers and each other. Whereas in reality while it does afford some basic key rights the key ones only provide protection from Public Authorities and even then there are 'get outs'. Interestingly it does provide an explicit right to privacy which has been tested in the courts.

For example:

If I kick in your door without warninf, take you away against your will, lock you in a room and kick the crap out of you - I would be guilty of Criminal damage, kidnap and assault. If the police do it: Unlawful arrest, detention and torture.

The former is a straightforward judicial matter, the latter may easily end up in Strasbourg.

If you're interested, here is an extract from Section I, Article 10 which I think is relevant here (my bold) :

The whole text is here : http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. this right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary."

In other words you have the right to freedom of expression unless we (read Blair) don't like what you say.

It's far too subtle a distinction for many. I agree with you and JA in believing the real understanding of what freedom of speech really means for you in practice is similarly misunderstood.

I posted this in another thread:

Well said. The concept of free speech (to me) as I once expressed to someone is :

"While someone may say things that make my skin crawl, my blood boil and even induce a desire to kill...I will fight to the death in the defence of his right to say them."

That's the theory anyway, but, as with so many things, reality is its pale shadow. I think we do pretty well here...mostly.:biggrin1:

While I stand by the ethos of my words, I am fully aware that practical limitations make it largely untenable in real life.