Blaine wrote: > ... I think the answer lies in the degree to which > free speech is allowed.
Already you are setting yourself up to take out the word "free" in the word "free speech." If speech is restricted, it is not "free speech." Think about it. Blaine wrote: > Most if not all communities have regulations that put > limits on how far the concept of "free speech" may be > carried. That is because men like to control others and local government ALWAYS seeks to eliminate free speech. Most if not all communities have passed ordinances which have illegally infringed upon the right of free speech. Blaine wrote: > As one UofU political science professor put it, > "your right to throw a punch ends where my chin > begins." This also applies to freedom of speech. No it does not apply to free speech. Speech cannot physically hurt a person the way that a punch can. Blaine wrote: > To use another analogy pointed out by the supreme > court itself, freedom of speech does not include > the right to yell "fire! in a crowded theatre. Carefully about taking statements out of context. First of all, in the context of the Supreme Court, this concerns distinguishing between PUBLIC areas and PRIVATE areas. Free speech is not granted in PRIVATE areas such as in theaters. Now if you are going to wrench this statement out of context, at the very least you ought to recognize that if there really was a fire, a person may indeed yell fire within the theater. Right? Blaine wrote: > Neither should it include the right to be provocative > or abusive in speaking to others. Wrong. The Supreme Court has rule time and time again that the content of free speech cannot be restricted. One can be as provocative as he wants to be in public areas. Now there might be some moral considerations for us concerning the subject of "abusiveness." No Christian should abuse others with speech, but in most situations, all prophets have been considered abusive by those within the community who did not accept their message. Blaine wrote: > As the article pointed out, calling young brides > whores was in this category. A person cannot use words to incite a riot. In this context, I grant you that once a person is involved in stirring people up to commit violence, then he has crossed the line. For example, if a man stands up and urges others to stone the whore, that would be crossing the line. However, if a man hears a woman confess her own promiscuous sexual behavior, and he points out that the woman is a whore because she is engaged in such sexual behavior, that is acceptable. If his goal is to call the whore to repentance, what is wrong with clarifying her need to repent? Blaine, do you think it should be illegal to use words like "whore" in public? Do you think that words like "queer" or "faggot" or "homo" or "homosexual" also should be made illegal? What about the word "fornication"? I had a student this week tell me that he thinks this word (fornication) should not be used by preachers. I asked him what alternative word he would suggest we use, but he couldn't think of one. I was not surprised. :-) Blaine wrote: > These guys were just out there screaming obscenities. I don't believe that for a minute. What obscenities did you personally hear out there when you talked with Ruben and Dean? Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
