I recognize from your later posts that you think we have a lot in common, but I would like to stress a point here. In my mind there is a clear reason why prayer in school is not free speech -- .....I just skimmed the first paragraph of your post. It doesn't matter what you think prayer is a form of. It matters what the people who are praying think it is a form of. They argue on 2 bases. 1. Free Speech 2 Legislative tradition going back to the Founders.(more BS) Aside from all of that, prayer is a form of speech. And there are plaintiffs before a court of law to suppress it. I feel particularly fortunate that you took the time to scan my first paragraph. Just because it is in a court of law does not mean it will win. But who cares. Arguing that a bunch of AHs argue something to be free speech does not mean they are correct nor does it support your position that you have the moral audacity to determine what is and is not free speech.
Quoting Volcanoman:Wow you are just too smart for me. I have been skewered by an impossibly brilliant argument. Look, you have already outed yourself as an AH so it is hard to take you seriously. But to answer your question, yes, I think the pledge of allegiance is an indoctrination program. Oral exercises in class - really do you even know what you are talking about.In my mind there is a clear reason why prayer in school is not free speech—because it is forced on those who participate in the classroom.Would this reason also apply to the required pledge of allegiance and to required oral exercises in class? Occam
I’m sorry if my question upset you so much that you had to resort to a personal attack. You may find that responding with rational arguments without insults and invective will be more successful in discussions. I’m not certain why you have such a severe anger problem, but you might find your life and relationships improve if you work on it.
Occam
I feel particularly fortunate that you took the time to scan my first paragraph.Well that makes one of us.
Just because it is in a court of law does not mean it will win.Do you remember me writing that it probably won't win just a few posts back?
But who cares. Arguing that a bunch of AHs argue something to be free speech does not mean they are correct nor does it support your position that you have the moral audacity to determine what is and is not free speech.No my point is perfectly made out. A group of people are taking their idea about what constitutes freedom of speech to the Supreme Court. The people and the courts determine what is free speech. The fact that it is going to court proves my point empirically. And when the day comes that we finally win...Presto! A form of "speech" suppressed! It's that easy. And down the road...suppressing hatred won't be that hard either. The only people who will miss hate speech are haters. Don't forget, we're halfway there. The court has already made rulings on some of the things that define hate.
Maybe if we didn't have the (what is the opposite of a fascist?) "equality enthusiasts" spreading their point of view, we wouldn't have to worry about the fascists spreading theirs.The opposite of fascist is liberal.
We accept a lot of things on principle alone, constitutionally. The countries that restrict speech are dull and lifeless.Yeah. We have free speech. Whatever that means? We also have the highest percentage of people in prison or jail in the world. We have a Defense Budget that is larger than the next 15 or so largest Defense Budgets combined. One Half of our Treasury.(Tax Dollars) Every Year. And we have 10% of the population controlling over 80% of the nations wealth. Ok, the 3 things listed above are indications of a system that isn't exactly the most Free. I myself am always wary of slackjawed myrmidons who banter the loudest about freedom whilst the rug is being pulled out from under them.Well, I guess I'm not offended, I've been called worse. Free speech means this http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Freedom+of+Speech. I don't know what the three things you listed have to do with free speech. Not that they are not big problems, obviously.
As far as the 1st amendment goes, I see people being carted off and arrested all the time for Peaceful assembly. It's all just a matter of degrees. Interpretations.Yes, I've see this before too. However, overly aggressive law enforcement is not an indication that all has failed. Being arrested is not the same as being convicted of a crime.
First, hate is impossible to categorize. That means anything can be "hate". Then, if we make "hate" unlawful and punishable, the entire society will be in a permanent state of litigation.No it's not. It's not difficult. Like I said there are plenty of laws on the books which define hate. And they stand up in courts. So by actual practice, hate can be defined. You're getting all hyperbolic. That means anything can be "hate" That right there...that's hyperbole. A monkey or a small child can be reasonably trained to determine between hate and reason. Let alone a group of distinguished lawmakers and scholars. It's not rocket science. Truth in advertising laws get bent up all the time. That's limitations on speech. And those rules get bent constantly. Awhile ago Listerine had to make good on a false claim that rinsing with their mouthwash was as good as flossing. It's all just a simple matter of how much BS society is willing to let float around in the air. And we need less BS floating around in my opinionWhat laws? This is the only one that applies to hate speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_present_danger
Quoting Volcanoman:Wow you are just too smart for me. I have been skewered by an impossibly brilliant argument. Look, you have already outed yourself as an AH so it is hard to take you seriously. But to answer your question, yes, I think the pledge of allegiance is an indoctrination program. Oral exercises in class - really do you even know what you are talking about.I'll jump in here, because I was in school more recently then many members of this forum, but the pledge of allegiance was almost completely ignored by students and teachers in my experience. There is no forceful recital of it in public schools, that I know of. And the only oral exercises in modern high school are the sexual type. :coolsmile:In my mind there is a clear reason why prayer in school is not free speech—because it is forced on those who participate in the classroom.Would this reason also apply to the required pledge of allegiance and to required oral exercises in class? Occam
Look, you have already outed yourself as an AH so it is hard to take you seriously.Volcanoman, what is an "AH"? I haven't heard that term.
Look, you have already outed yourself as an AH so it is hard to take you seriously.Volcanoman, what is an "AH"? I haven't heard that term. It's where the lava comes out when the volcano erupts. :-)
I don't know what the three things you listed have to do with free speech. Not that they are not big problems, obviously.Yes those are actually some real big problems. Are you getting the full value of your Free Speech Dollar? Oh but you can sleep good at night knowing you're free to yell "Fag" across the street at someone. Or go print and publish some Neo-Nazi publication! You're Free Mid Atlantic... You're Free!
What laws? This is the only one that applies to hate speech.Hate Crime laws. Keep up! I said there are plenty of laws on the books that already define some forms of hate. As in: progress is being made in that direction to begin delineating what constitutes hate and what constitutes say....passion, or emotion or expression. In a legal sense.
As far as the 1st amendment goes, I see people being carted off and arrested all the time for Peaceful assembly. It's all just a matter of degrees. Interpretations.Yes, I've see this before too. However, overly aggressive law enforcement is not an indication that all has failed. Being arrested is not the same as being convicted of a crime. Great, then certainly when people petition the legislation and the courts to define what free speech means it is an indication that things haven't failed, but an indication that the system is working properly.
I don't know if we can make modifications to this. But Yeah, I do think many people would be in favor bringing free speech, or as you consider it- "hate speech" back. If it was taken away.No I don't consider all speech to be Hate Speech. Don't twist my words around. And you're wrong. Nobody is going to march in the streets to bring back the Westboro Baptist Church or the American Nazi Party's right to march and carry placards etc...or any other hate or vitriolic speech. People in Canada or Germany aren't protesting and trying to get hate speech or inflammatory speech "free" again. Not in any meaningful numbers. Both of those nations like many others perceive "free speech" differently than we do. And they're doing just fine.
I don't know what the three things you listed have to do with free speech. Not that they are not big problems, obviously.Yes those are actually some real big problems. Are you getting the full value of your Free Speech Dollar? Oh but you can sleep good at night knowing you're free to yell "Fag" across the street at someone. Or go print and publish some Neo-Nazi publication! You're Free Mid Atlantic... You're Free!Damn right.
I don't know if we can make modifications to this. But Yeah, I do think many people would be in favor bringing free speech, or as you consider it- "hate speech" back. If it was taken away.No I don't consider all speech to be Hate Speech. Don't twist my words around. And you're wrong. Nobody is going to march in the streets to bring back the Westboro Baptist Church or the American Nazi Party's right to march and carry placards etc...or any other hate or vitriolic speech. LOLwut? Those groups didn't lose their right to demonstrate.
I don't know if we can make modifications to this. But Yeah, I do think many people would be in favor bringing free speech, or as you consider it- "hate speech" back. If it was taken away.No I don't consider all speech to be Hate Speech. Don't twist my words around. And you're wrong. Nobody is going to march in the streets to bring back the Westboro Baptist Church or the American Nazi Party's right to march and carry placards etc...or any other hate or vitriolic speech. LOLwut? Those groups didn't lose their right to demonstrate. Yeah! Not yet!
Nobody has defined hate speech. How can anyone decide what to do about it if we can’t decide what it is?
I challenge everyone on this forum to give a definition of hate speech --peferably in 25 words or less. Only if we can agree on one of them can we begin to debate what should be done about it.
This one should do among many other sites I looked up. They all pretty much say the same i.e. any speech that evokes or incites hatred toward a particular group, race, creed or sexual preference etc. hey, I’m just under 25 words if you count etc.
Cap’t Jack