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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (20538)	6/20/2005 6:26:24 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"Is it absolute or is it limited?" Philisophically...the answer is "yes". But I will not bore you with advanced logic. The right to free speech is NEVER limited. The restriction on free speech (in order to conform to the principle that EVERY individual has that right) has restrictions. The speech and the RIGHT are not the same. "Free speech" must be understood in the conglomerate in order that rights DO remain inviolate. Your right to free speech may not violate my inalienable rights. Otherwise the concept and principle would be feckless. "Society has allowed speech to be limited" More accurate and to the point...no rights may be allowed to subvert or diminish the rights of another. You are a smart person. You are going to understand this, yet! "So, it seems the difference in our positions is that what I describe as society's laws determining the precedence of rights in conflict, you describe as a "limitation" on rights that prevents them from conflicting. You are simply defining away the problem." YOU are defining away the philosophical accuracy. Inalienable rights are independent of interpretations by you, me, or society. They may NOT conflict. The appearance of conflict is merely a difference of interest and opinion. "I say society decides, through it's laws. You say ... what? I say everybody capable of rational thought decides. And I say that the decision of "society" will carry. Rights are not "limited". They are simply interpreted and constrained to their logical parameters. Inalienable rights remain inalienable in spite of all the yammering of children and adults. The whole point of the courts is to appeal to the sense and logic of INALIENABLE rights as espoused in the CONSTITUTION.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (20538)	6/21/2005 11:20:32 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

”Let me ask you - where do the "limitations" come from? Who decides where my right to freedom of speech ends … “ You two made a logical leap that did not compute for me. Inalienable rights are, by my understanding, a given state of being that helps define what a human being is; and whereas, speech is an innate quality of humanness, its expression has to do with conduct, which may well be limited and rightfully so. Individual rights are human centered and although they are recognized as individual, they exist within the larger context of humanness which recognizes human beings as social creatures with responsibilities for others. In that context it is right for human beings to consider the well being of one another, other creatures, and the biomes of the Earth and to act accordingly. I see no contradiction or inconsistency, which would bar the government from providing sanction to individuals who, by their conduct, are choosing to harm others.