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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (19945)	8/26/2002 3:07:40 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

"No. We don't. Those rights guaranteed in the 1st 10 amendments are not subject to be (legally) abrogated by the government or by majority vote." I am not advocating the revocation of free speech. Free speech entitles you to express your thoughts, opinions, and beliefs without fear of retribution from the government. It is no more license to commit harm to another human being than the right to bare arms is. If you go shooting of your pistol in my face with the intent to do harm, that is actionable. If you go shooting off your mouth with intent to cause personal harm that is actionable in most cases. I think it should be actionable in all cases according to the categories I've proposed. That does not restrict your freedom to speak. It prohibits you from using your pistola or your mouth to commit harm to me personally. I see no loss of freedom in that. "Slandar is not gray, libel is not gray, harrassment is not gray. Slander and libel can be quite murky and gray. And harassment quite commonly is not illegal. We've had examples of that on SI. More than one." The only grayness comes under the qualifiers. Is it truly (slander, libel, harrassment)or just an opinion? The statement, "Bill Clinton is a womanizer" is a gray area statement. There may be evidence for and against the arguement that he has been promiscuous in the past. But is he a womanizer today. If I know that he has cleaned up his act; but I want to keep him from getting his talk show position, so I spread false rumours about him, then my behavior qualifies as slanderous. On the other hand if I am just stating my opinion about him based on his history, my behavior does not qualify as slander even if it does keep him from getting his talk show. That is black and white. If I think he is a womanizer and you argue that his level of experience doesn't measure up to the typical NBA Star or Rock star, so he is not a womanizer; That is arguable and so represents a gray area. Behavior whether physical or verbal that is based on intent to cause harm should be thwarted and I fail to see how that limits anyone's freedom; unless you think we should be free to damage one another as long as the damage was initiated verbally. I would welcome an arguement to show how any one of your examples represents healthy freedom of expression.