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 : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (2646)	5/8/1999 3:36:00 AM
From: Dave Reed	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13060

I believe that people have the right to arouse each other as well as to exchange ideas. Although this view differs from the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment, I personally believe that people have a right to free speech that transends the Constitution. The writers of the Declaration of Independence certainly felt this way. They believed that people were endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. The authors of the Bill of Rights wrote that the listing of certain rights was not meant to exclude any other rights not listed and that in fact all powers not explicitly designated to the federal government were reserved to the states and to the people. It didn't turn out that way but they deserve a lot of praise for trying. However, my rights are neither spelled out nor granted by the Constitution, in my opinion, but are truly mine by right as the word implies. Acts of abuse, by the way, should be swiftly and severely punished. Not because of harm to the community, but because of harm to the affected individuals. This type of abuser has a mind-set that says that other people exist only to serve his own pleasure. I see this same type of world-view reflected in many of the calls for various government actions. This way of thinking is morally repugnant to me. Dave

To: Neocon who wrote (2646)	5/8/1999 7:18:00 AM
From: Mama Bear	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13060

Neocon, I'm not one of the folks that believes that pornography leads to violence. I rather think that pornography is more likely used an alternative outlet to violence. Just because all rapist look at porn does not mean that all who look at porn will become rapists. To me the test should be one of containment, i.e. if the activity takes place completely contained within the walls of a private residence there is no right to suppress it. Those that act on impulses and move outside that boundary become legitimate targets for prosecution. But it is reprehensible to punish those that would not move their activities outside of these boundaries. Drunkeness is a great example. I see nothing wrong with punishing a drunken driver, or putting an abusive drunk in the 'tank' to sober up. Both have moved their activities outside of being self contained. But it would be reprehensible to punish someone for drinking, because they might drive drunk, or cause a public disturbance. Barb