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.

Politics : The Castle -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (1929)	8/24/2003 1:25:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7936

Then we agree.......I think the Liam Reid law is a paper tiger because I think the worst that will happen is that the Vatican would get a slap on the wrist. For the Irish, just opposing a Vatican edict is major. No we don't agree unless you also consider most sodomy laws in the US to have been a paper tiger because people where so unlikely to be prosecuted based on the law. As for "the Vatican getting a slap on the wrist", we aren't talking about the Vatican, we are talking about individual people who might run afoul of the law, some of whom may be priests or bishops, but it doesn't just apply to Catholics and in any case priests and bishops should have free speech rights as well. You keep ignoring the fact that preventing someone from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not considered a violation of freedom of speech. You keep ignoring the fact that the things I am talking about are in no way like yelling fire in a crowded theater. The laws I am arguing against are laws regulating speech by content. There is no law that says you can't use the word fire, or the phrase "fire in a crowded theater", or even that you can't say "there is a fire", in a crowded theater when it really is on fire. In the same way, not allowing someone to call a minority a derogatory term is not a violation of freedom of speech. It is most clearly and directly a violation of free speech. The speech doesn't put anyone directly at danger. People might get angry and violent in response to such speech but people might get angry and violent in response to speech about a political idea, party or candidate. The fact that people might get angry in response to certain words doesn't take away the fact that the responsibility for their reactions to the words is entirely theirs. Also any law against denigrating a minority would be regulation of speech by content. And it would be discriminatory because it would only protect minorities and so it would set them up as a special privileged class. "At this point its more likely that the Bishops would get prosecuted and imprisoned then a gay couple in Texas." I don't believe that's accurate. As I understand it, the whole reason that the TX sodomy laws were on review was because a gay couple had been arrested and treated badly. And now the law has been struck down. Hence no more convictions on the law even if someone actually does make an arrest. Also the arresting department could be sued for false imprisonment. And please don't tell me the Church was not aware of all the hush money payments that were made over the past 40 years. The Church, despite being a hierarchical organization, isn't a monolith. There are organized groups, many informal and not officially recognized, even covert, within the church who oppose the church official positions in some cases and/or cover things up for each other. The church as a whole is probably guilty of not making enough effort to investigate the problems in the church, but not making an effort to clean up the diseased and sick parts of an organization, while a moral failing, is not the same as an official policy of covering things up. "Denigrating a group of people in a letter to the editor in a newspaper isn't even vaguely like yelling fire in a crowded theater, and if someone takes it as if it was and acts violence the problem is entirely with the person who becomes violent." I don't believe the law agrees with you. Then you misunderstand the law. The closest it comes to agreeing with you are judical interpretations, that confrontational words can be "fighting words", and that they are not protect speech. However even under those interpreations, writing those words in a letter to the editor, or posting them on SI would not be fighting words. Also most examples of denigrating minorities, even saying something like "black people are stupid" would not be an example of "fighting words", whatever the context that they where uttered in. The fighting words would have to be soemthing like racial epethets or profanity yelled at someone's face in a provocative way. "Should you be locked up because you "yelled fire in a crowded theater" when you denigrated neocons or the Bush administration? Of course not, the very idea is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that." Neither the Bush administration nor neocons are in a minority position nor have experienced years of discrimination. It doesn't matter. The "fighting words" limitations on free speech don't rely on the target of the speech being a minority or having been the target of years of discrimination. And if the denigration (of Bush, or minorities or whatever) doesn't run afoul of the "fighting words" exception then it is protected free speech. Also neocons are a minority in the US. He said gays should not be applauded. Does that tell you he likes gays? It tells me he DOESN'T like them. Whenever your biases determine your liking as opposed to your experiences of a particular person him/herself, then you are a bigot. 1 - Its his own business if he doesn't like them. Unless he has discriminated against them in the conduct of his job his private opinions are irrelevant. I was only partially serious about "thought crime", but you seem to really support about enforcing the idea. 2 - Saying that "homosexuality is not something to be applauded", may have been in response to such applause or to the suggestion that it should be honored and applauded. Opposing say a "day of celebration for homosexuality", doesn't make you a bigot. Minorities can not disparage other minorities. That's got to be one of the most nonsensical statements I have ever read in one of your posts. Disparage - "dis·par·age ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-sprj) tr.v. dis·par·aged, dis·par·ag·ing, dis·par·ag·es 1. To speak of in a slighting or disrespectful way; belittle. See Synonyms at decry. 2. To reduce in esteem or rank." dictionary.reference.com Minorities can most definitely speak in a slighting or disrespectful way about other minorities, or majorities for that matter. And they can convey ideas or information that reduces the esteem that other people are held in. My point was that there are issues for which we all can't agree. You feel that people should be able to disparage minorities publicly while I feel gays should be allowed to marry if they want. Neither are allowed in these united states. The first is allowed in the US. The 2nd may in a few years. So we have special protected groups that can not be insulted, and speech allowed or not allowed based on content? Why should you be allowed to insult minorities? What could you possibly thing that that will accomplish. I didn't say I wanted to, I just support the idea of free speech for those who do. And then others can exercise their free speech to verbally defend the minorities, or to just call the person who is insulting them an ass. I think its scary that you want to have the right to disparage minorities in public. After all the problems this country has had with discrimination and race riots and school busing and integration, its shocking to me that you think this is a major violation of the first amendment. Its shocking to me that you don't. Its a direct violation of what the first amendment says and of court decisions. You assume that it will go to court. People have a way of 'disappearing' in TX or getting killed in prison before they have time to go to court. That isn't something that happens a lot in TX or elsewhere in the US. Also when it does happen it is a crime, and at least the criminals can be punished. When the whole legal structure decides that abuse of your rights is acceptable and abuses them all over the place it is worse for the state and the country then isolated criminal incidents by police officers. There have been any number of laws that separate church and state. That is a given. But more importantly, we are hardly a nation of one religion but a rather a nation of many religions. Why should one religion predominate in our public buildings? Who said it should. The "seperation of church and state" is specifically a prohibition of the establishment of a religion. It doesn't set out any legal penalties for people who pray or read the bible in the school, it prohibits the school as a school, or any government organization from formally recognizing or supporting religion (or declaring religion false for that matter). Maybe so but there has been a recent resurgence in the past few years that is very disturbing. "?!?! The religious right is getting their heads handed to them time and time again. They are losing just about every court battle, and many political ones." That's because the religious right refuses to get it! Maybe but whatever the reason the point is that the religious right is losing quite frequently not winning and epanding its power. It seems to me that if whole universities can restrict the freedom of speech and not be held in contempt of free speech, than restricting verbal attacks on minorities can not be either. That speech code did not face judicial review. And now that it has been cancled it won't be. If it had not been abolished it would likely have eventually resulted in a lawsuit. If it had been a private university it would have a much better argument then a public university would have. A pulbic university is part of the government and it can not restrict free speech eccept in very specific ways "fight words", fraud ect. Tim