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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mph who wrote (52503)	10/28/2006 11:06:09 AM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"Again: If the First Amendment or privacy rights apply to a given situation, it applies whether I agree with the speaker or whether the speaker lied to me or others about his motivation." This is an interesting question, and I've enjoyed eavesdropping the conversation. The question in my mind is WHO is responsible for protecting 1st Amendment speech. In a private discussion board, should the owner/moderator have that responsibility? Or does the 1st only apply to governmental protection? Do we, as individuals, have the responsibility to protect offensive speech?

To: mph who wrote (52503)	10/28/2006 5:11:22 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

>>It seems that you would not hesitate to "give someone up" if you felt that they did not share your political persuasion or if you thought they deceived you as to that persuasion. If so, you regard Constitutional rights quite cheaply. I don't think they should be applied like situational ethics.<< mph - No, that's not quite correct. I would not "give someone up" just because I didn't think they shared my views. In my hypothetical example, the speech involved is not necessarily protected by the First Amendment as you pointed out, since it involves threats against government officials. It seems that you and I agree on that point. >>My simple answer is that if speech and privacy rights are to be respected they have to be applied across the board regardless of motive or subterfuge. First Amendment law was not made just for ideas YOU advocate. It usually comes up in contexts like flag burning or Larry Flynt.<< I completely agree that First Amendment rights apply regardless of whether or not I agree with the speaker/writer/publisher/whatever. For example, I agree with the ACLU that Neo-Nazi groups should be allowed to have marches, as long as they don't threaten anyone. Naturally, I abhor what they stand for, but I believe they have a right to speak and demonstrate. But I'm not sure I agree that they should be applied regardless of motive or subterfuge. If they were, then slander and libel wouldn't be illegal. Then there's the question of fraud, which might apply in a case like the one I described. Thus, the question of motive becomes relevant, because it could determine whether or not fraud was involved. - Allen