10 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauder1. Funny - I could say the same to you. After all, it was you who started with the "Since you dont understand ..." bit which, as I said, sounds like an SDR defence.
1. Your "Decoder Ring" crap was an insult and you know it. Stick with discussing the matter or stop playing the martyr when you get back what you dish out.
2. We most certainly DID NOT start there. We started with some claim that the RCC or Opus Dei or somebody could maintain an action to stop the showing of a film because its content displeases them. ...[text shortened]... article on the right to privacy was REALLY concerned with libel/slander! Amazing but typical.
2a. Follow the sub-thread, no1.
2b. My restatement is a logical synthesis of the arguments you've put forward. If you want to backtrack and change any of your assertions, feel free to do so.
3a. Thanks for the link, I guess.
3b. US law may be far more protective of speech (which is debatable - considering it seems to have no problems regulating an "inalieanable" fundamental right for economic reasons) than my interpretation (have you been using your telepathy again? You seem to have a very good idea of what's in my mind) is; but it certainly does not seem to respect the equally fundamental right to privacy much.
11 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI wouldn't mind reading the arguments of the case without arguing over the legality of it.
1. Funny - I could say the same to you. After all, it was you who started with the "Since you dont understand ..." bit which, as I said, sounds like an SDR defence.
2a. Follow the sub-thread, no1.
2b. My restatement is a logical synthesis of the arguments you've put forward. If you want to backtrack and change any of your assertions, feel free t ...[text shortened]... ; but it certainly does not seem to respect the equally fundamental right to privacy much.
13 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerA) You don't know what you're talking about and constantly show a profound ignorance of Fundamental Rights theory, even though I have tried to explain it to you and, more importantly, have cited to the relevant important works. Saying YOU don't understand Fundamental Rights theory isn't a SDR; that's sooooooooooo stupid it could only come from your keyboard.
1. Funny - I could say the same to you. After all, it was you who started with the "Since you dont understand ..." bit which, as I said, sounds like an SDR defence.
2a. Follow the sub-thread, no1.
2b. My restatement is a logical synthesis of the arguments you've put forward. If you want to backtrack and change any of your assertions, feel free t ...[text shortened]... ; but it certainly does not seem to respect the equally fundamental right to privacy much.
Your restatement is idiotic. I won't waste any further time with it.
You need to buy a dictionary; you seem to be confusing an "inalienable" right i.e. one which can't be voluntarily surrendered or transferred with an "absolute" right. The latter does not exist. If you had ever bothered to read any of the Fundamental Rights literature I have cited to, like Paine's Rights of Man, you would know the difference. I generally don't expect that every time I use the term "Freedom of Speech" I'm going to have to rehash the "What about yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument. If I'm going to have to, please simply say you have no understanding of Fundamental Rights theory in general and Free Speech rights theory in particular and I guess we can proceed from there.
I've already explained that merely labelling something as "private" doesn't make it so. Slander and libel laws were routinely used against those who criticized public officials in England and the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect against such abuses. Again, your claim that there is some vaguely defined "right to privacy" that overrides Free Speech is inconsistent with a free society. Under your apparent view (and if you refuse to specifically state your views I have no choice but to make educated guesses on what it is), we could break out the stocks for the village gossips and it would be consistent with the First Amendment.
15 May 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIn RC theology, as I recall, contrition for a sin and a sincere desire to try to avoid it
You know this is wrong, yet you do it anyway. Are you sorry for this sin?
in the future are required to have an efficacious confession.
So, he better not fall into the Doctor Faustus trap and try to repent on his deathbed
(without sincerity).
Nemesio
16 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderIf I'm as ignorant of Fundamental Rights theory as you claim - then educate me. So far, all you've given me is "Freedom of Speech ain't very free if Big Daddy can say you're allowed to say this but not that". Tell me, who's confusing 'inalienable' and 'absolute' rights now?
A) You don't know what you're talking about and constantly show a profound ignorance of Fundamental Rights theory, even though I have tried to explain it to you and, more importantly, have cited to the relevant important works. Saying YOU don't understand Fundamental Rights theory isn't a SDR; that's sooooooooooo stupid it could only come from your keybo ...[text shortened]... he village gossips and it would be consistent with the First Amendment.
What's more, you're conveniently forgetting that Bid Daddy can and does tell you what not to say when economic interests are at stake. If you want to claim that your law degree gives you an SDR to make sense of this clear inconsistency - then just be honest about it.
You're claiming that the First Amendment was specifically intended to protect critics of public officials from prosecution. I agree - but I also recognise a difference between legitimate criticism and slander. There are clearly legal systems worldwide that permit the one while restricting (to the extent possible) the other. Jurisprudence was not invented, nor perfected, by the United States, you know.
Btw, do you think freedom of speech entitles a person to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre?