In a message dated 7/21/01 5:46:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<<
Well, something that is covered by the bill of rights
*twice* is usually treated more delicately. By your
lack of response, do you agree that it's a violation
of our 1st and 4th amendment rights? I'll assume no
and continue.
No I don't agree that it violates the 1st or 14th amendments. Free speech is
not the same as freedom to say anything you want whenever you want. You
cannot yell fire in a movie theater or bomb in an airport. You cannot lie
about someone in print deliberately in order to harm them etc.
Saying bomb while walking through an airport
> is not and should not be
> protected speach because it has no political
> context.
Mmmm, protected speech in a political context? So
your mindset is that we can't say anything unless the
constitution says we can? Please say i'm wrong. That
is backwards, in any case. There are only exceptions
to freedom of expression.
What I am saying is that freedom is explicitly protected because the founding
fathers wanted to protect political speech. This has been reasonably extended
to include things like artist expression. This includes some things that
other people find offensive and that is fine. It is ok for Nazi's to march
through Skokie. This protected. This is the price we pay for our political
system. Explain to me how saying bomb in an airport is serves the overall
good. It is potentially dangerous. Panic, distraction from searching for real
bombers etc. It provides the nation with no benefit. Freedom of speech is not
some philosophical ideal, it is what our founders thought was necessary for
the type of political system they hoped to create.
The first thing I found applicable (on just the
*first* amendment, mind you) after doing a google
search was a page done by the NEA, the guys who use
our tax dollars to make pictures of a whip up a guy's
*ass* and call it art. Nevertheless, they seem to
have a grasp of the First pretty solidly:
It is art. It is protected. If ever there was going to be a slippery slope
this would be it. The supreme court has ruled that there is a difference
between obsenity and art. The definition is so vague (I know it when I see
it) as to be laughable but by and large this works. It protects art but not
pornography. We prosecute people who produce and peddle child pornography but
are much more tolerant of adult porn. Would you argue that you have the
freedom to produce child porn and to sell or trade it? We restrict people's
freedoms in all sorts of ways. We try to keep the important stuff free.
http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
skip on down 1/3 of the page and look at item C.
Under which heading does our issue fall? Sedition,
perhaps!
To say "bomb" or any
> iteration of a statement implying a bomb has only
> one purpose - to get a
> response from someone. Either to frighten others in
> the airport or to play
> games with the security guards. Do it and you get
> what you deserve.
<snip>
Detain your ass
> until they can be sure
> that all you are is an immature jerk.
According to Bemmzim, immature jerks don't get
constitutional protections.
Yes they do get constitutional protections. You can be a jerk all you want.
You just can't do it in a way that endangers others. You can get as drunk as
you want but you can't drive when you are drunk. There are many perfectly
constitutional ways for you to be a jerk. There are a few that are not.
Yelling bomb in an airport would be one of the prohibited ways.
<snip>>
> Slippery slope arguements are too easy. What is the
> next step (or slip) down
> the slope? What additional freedoms are being
> impinged upon?
I'm just dealing with them one at a time. Any
suggestions?
dean
i'm an immature jerk and I vote!
Me too
_______ >>
