Posted on 01/24/2017 1:49:50 PM PST by SSS Two
Again, look for ways to expand our #FirstAmendment rights, not ways to restrict them.
Exactly. Allowing people to threaten the President without consequences is a guaranteed method of getting our rights restricted.
Not if we can stop people like you from getting their way.
So is there anything that could be said that you consider not free speech. Or perhaps you could define political hyperbole?
Not really
Not a very thoughtful answer.
Threats of death to others, especially a President should not be considered free speech. There are some restrictions on free speech that need to be there; the old example of shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is a good example as is this. It is not an infringement of free speech to arrest someone for threatening a President; in fact if it is determined they were not serious they are always released- meaning it wasn’t their speech that was the issue, it was the perceived threat.
I will defend Free Speech law as it exists. I oppose attempts to restrict existing Free Speech.
Your interpretation of how it exists.
Someone can utter such speech, but they can also be arrested and prosecuted for it.
The Right to Free Speech has never included making threats of violence against another individual without facing legal liability. Such speech is, indeed, considered a form of violence itself.
Nobody is allowed to threaten someone else with violence, in the absence of a clear justification for doing so.
What this person did was a potential crime, at the very least, and is precisely the reason that the gentleman in question ended up spending the night in jail.
Cooler heads obviously prevailed on all sides, but speech which threatens criminal violence against another individual or group should result in arrest and/or prosecution, whether you consider it "Free" or not...
Stupidity at this level ought to hurt.
Okay, I see now why people don't feel compelled to waste time with you.
I am of the Burkean school of conservative thought, and anarchy begats fewer rights than does civilization. You cannot have civilization without inherent restraint of bad behavior, and as Burke said, "and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. "
more specific definition to your reply for others.
Legal term Assault and Battery
Two separate offenses against the person that when used in one expression may be defined as any unlawful and unpermitted touching of another.
Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat.
Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.
The main distinction between the two offenses is the existence or nonexistence of a touching or contact.
While contact is an essential element of battery, there must be an absence of contact for assault.
Sometimes assault is defined loosely to include battery.
I defend the COURTS' interpretation of the #FirstAmendment from people who want to constrict the Freedom of Speech.
It's quite debatable whether the speech in question was merely "crude hyperbole". It's certainly not cut and dried enough to justify your snotty antagonism.
You're skating on thin ice, and if you don't start displaying a little more civility, you're likely to not be around here much longer.
So if you'd like to remain a member in good standing in this community, I'd suggest you tone down your conceited, smart aleck insults...
Whatever. As long as you understand that you want to restrict Free Speech rights in pursuit of your civilized world. In my civilized world (USA c. 2017), we don't imprison people for their political expression, no matter how crude. Imprisoning people for political beliefs seems a little uncivilized to me.
It seems quite remarkable that the US Attorney dropped the case as fast as he could though, doesn't it? This case really wasn't a close call at all.
Great. Opinions differ. It doesn't mean you have to go around gratuitously insulting other members' knowledge of or reverence for the Constitution. Civility really is more effective when trying to educate someone...
No sir. I deny with your attempts to force a faulty and incorrect definition on me. It is *YOU* sir who are attempting to restrict freedom by attacking part of it's foundation.
You are trying to fabricate a false and deadly "freedom" to indulge what is obviously an extremist libertarian streak in yourself. You are the sort that will throw a rock at the Hornets nest and then blame the Hornets for stinging you.
"Freedom" is a civil construct, and within the scope of our society it implies a set of generally understood rules regarding personal space and bodily integrity.
Threatening the life of a governing official exceeds the framework we know as "freedom" within a civil society.
To give you a better grasp of the concept, only a King is "free" to do whatever he wants. Normal people must respect other people's right to live and be "free" too, and threatening to kill them is a breach of the implicit contract that civil society exerts on it's members.
If you want to behave like a barbarian, it is reasonable to treat you like one and toss you in a cage. You breach the social contract and your loss of freedom is on you.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've encouraged people to find ways to expand Freedom of Speech rather than restrict it. Is that insulting people's reverence for the Constitution? I'd argue that I'm encouraging people's reverence for the Constitution by advocating for the #FirstAmendment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.