Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy

[Dave Hansen]

free speech has limitations.  We recognize that. DAVEH:  Really!  Who determines those limitations?  In a theater, governmental law determines whether one can yell fire or not.  Same with going into one's house.  And...the same can apply to standing outside someone's house and disrupting the peaceful sanctuary of what goes on in that house.  There are many circumstances (such as the time of day, as well as the content AND the context) that determines what is lawful, and what is not.  The point is, that those things are determined by law.      On the other hand, it seems that some SPers have little regard for what others want to hear, and hence feel within the law to preach however they want, disregarding others' ears and what they want or not want to be heard.  However, when the shoe is on the other foot, it seems like the SPers want to forget the free speech protections, and only consider what THEY want to hear.     For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity to be posted on TT?  So far, nobody has made that claim.  There seems to be no rule beyond the ad-hom rule that applies....other than what the moderator makes up at his whim.  Sexual content would seem likewise applicable to the free speech edict, but not when a moderator wants to make his own rules, or a SP complains that he is offended.  At that time.......the free speech must stop, or one gets booted from TT.      But....when others don't want to hear the SPers preaching, and do something lawful to prevent such happening (such as buying a street to provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim their freedom of speech is being impinged.  Seems to me that if you want the right to bombastically assault others' ears, then one shouldn't complain when others do likewise.     However, when one respects the rights of others to hear what they want (or not want to hear something particular), then one might expect to receive the same treatment....whether legalities are observed or not.  I don't see that many SPers feel that way, though. They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside. DAVEH:  That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem with it being that way.  Kinda like you not wanting obscenities on TT, eh DavidM! buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say? DAVEH:   That's kinda how I perceive heaven.  Those who want to exercise free speech there to say whatever they want in an effort to offend others, may find themselves removed.  Isn't that the way it works in TT? The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue DAVEH:    Who says???   Why do you conclude that, DavidM?  Do you have Biblical support for that theory? I understand you guys invited James White.  Why not the Street Preachers too? DAVEH:   I'm not privy to what happened behind the scenes with JW, but I suspect one determining factor is the respect he gives, and receives like in return.  IOW....I don't think JW waved underwear in the faces of those he expects to listen to him.  My guess is that JW understands the real nature of free speech, based on his experience speaking to an LDS audience from within the Tabernacle, while some SPers prefer to demonstrate their right to free speech by waving underwear on the sidewalk. David Miller wrote: Dave, free speech has limitations.  We recognize that.  One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and one cannot go into someone's house, turn off his TV, and start preaching to him.  Obscenity also is not considered acceptable when we talk about free speech.    The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and gather assemblies together in public places.  I think I do understand why your religious organization wants to spend millions of dollars to privatize what would otherwise be a public area.  Nevertheless, such is very telling on your organization and the people who run it.  They want to regulate what is done outsides their buildings as well as inside.  What will they do next, buy all the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say?   The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue, not only allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those outside to come in and talk with them.  If I had homosexuals or others gathering outside and protesting, I would invite them in and give them a platform.  I'd say, "let's hear what you have to say."  Then I would discuss it with them.  I would ask if anybody else there wanted to address what was said.  The truth has no fear of being challenged.  Only people who embrace falsehood are afraid of the truth.   If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debaters out there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of dollars buying up land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them and the church.  Do you realize how much less money it would have cost if you guys had just offered to pay their expenses to come out and have a forum in one of your buildings, and debated them in a public forum?  I understand you guys invited James White.  Why not the Street Preachers too?   David Miller.     ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about free speech thingy DAVEH:  Why are street preachers such proponents of free speech when it benefits them...... You don't really believe in free speech, do you. ......yet are so opposed to it....... please do not forward posts to us that use the F word. ........ when it offends them?      When LDS folks take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during Conference time, the SPers do not seem to understand why LDS folks do not appreciate their offending tactics.  Then SPers cry foul when they perceive their rights to free speech being restricted when the LDS Church buys a city street.     David Miller wrote: Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F word.    David Miller I have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free speech, do you. David Miller. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.