Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (42009)	6/27/1999 1:39:00 AM
From: Father Terrence	Respond to of 108807

How far will the people of these United States allow federal government abuses before what has gone before sinks in? Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. FT

To: Dayuhan who wrote (42009)	6/27/1999 3:44:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<I understand the feelings of the veterans who saw their comrades die for the United States. I also understand their feelings when they grandly announce "my country, right or wrong". Understanding their feelings does not keep me from believing that this is a more subversive statement than any that ever crossed the lips of a flag-burner. Our government is not automatically right because it is ours and because people have fought and died for it. Knowing when it is wrong, and protesting when it is, is not only a right but an obligation of citizenship.>> Thank you for saying something sane and sensible, Steven. I think honest criticism of your country when you feel it is wrong is the duty of a true patriot.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (42009)	6/27/1999 3:51:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

The protection of speech has nothing to do with its content, with three exceptions: a.)When the primary purpose is arousal, rather than the advancement of a point of view, which is the reason that pornography is treated differently; b.)Commercial speech, which is afforded fewer protections due to its strictly utilitarian nature and the fear of fraud; c.) And speech that aims at immediate incitement to violence and/or illegal action. Political speech is protected, no matter how hateful, so long as it does not aim at immediate incitement. Therefore, if cross- burning is speech, it does not matter what the associations are, as long as it is not at the time being used to incite to violence. If flag- burning is speech, because of its symbolic nature, then cross- burning is speech. Therefore, if we ban one, we should ban the other, or we should protect the right to both...Or, I suppose, we could re- examine First Amendment law from top to bottom...Sorry to join in, but Michael is a pal, and he had a good point...

To: Dayuhan who wrote (42009)	6/27/1999 1:25:00 PM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 108807

Steven, no it wasn't late at all Steven. And well said. If I can summarize from the many thoughts on the matter, I believe you all came to a consensus late last night. 1. History, (in a cultural sense) 2. Threatening (which has elements of history within it) 3. Toward an individual instead of toward a government. (of which elements of historical significance play a role) I still wonder whether some smart lawyer couldn't argue those same points with regard to flag burning in a specific instance. But in general it makes sense. And as Cobalt has said, the courts have moved to protect cross burning in some states. Michael