Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you missed our conversations previously. i never said i agreed with it, i'm merely stating what the law says. i actually agree with you and STY.
House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines Read more: http://www
- Thread starter Cancel 2018. 3
- Start date
you missed our conversations previously. i never said i agreed with it, i'm merely stating what the law says. i actually agree with you and STY.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
yes we have had this discussion before, but the only counter you've ever given is that 'you don't have a right to drive'. I've given over a dozen court cases that says you do.
I go back to the question before, How can you have an inherent right to travel if the government gets to dictate HOW you travel? you simply can't, therefore you have a right to travel however and with whatever means you wish to.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
well this is a little different than our previous conversations......
so what I think you're saying is that if there's a law against something, then it's obviously not a right. Do I have that correct?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
according to the law. maybe i didn't make myself clear, but there are many times when i make points about what the law is or says, that doesn't mean i agree with it.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so a differing point of view on it......
If there's an inherent right to travel, and then there's a law that prohibits walking on the side of the road, but the road i want to walk down has no sidewalk, do i no longer have the right to travel down that road?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
highly unlikely scenario. but if the law says you cannot, then no, according to the law there is no right. for example, jay walking. rights are not absolute.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so in a country where the constitution was written to tell the government what they can do and what they absolutely cannot do, where all rights were inherent in the people, as in inalienable, you're mindset that rights are only rights given to us by the government and can be taken away by the government.
you don't see anything wrong with that?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
is the right to free speech absolute?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
despite what that horrible case said, yes. do they gag you when you walk in to a theater?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
so you have a right to caused a stampede when there is no fire? you really believe that? doesn't that interfere with other's rights?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I have the right to yell fire in a theater, especially if theres a fire. No, I do not have the right to harm others, so if exercising my right maliciously causes harm, I can be charged for endangering others. prior restraint cannot be used to limit rights if there has been no harm caused. we've allowed our government way too much power in our desire to control people so we can feel safe, especially when those laws don't stop anyone with that intent to begin with.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
of course you have a right when there is a fire, you know what i'm talking about....what about threatening someone? what about inciting a riot?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
again, whether there is a fire or not, i have the right to yell it. If someone is harmed through my actions, then I may be charged. I can threaten others as well, but acting on those threats is a crime. inciting a riot is perfectly within my rights, up until they actually riot. then it's a crime.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
if it is right, how can you charged for exercising it?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
this isn't too fine a line to draw with you, is it? If I yell fire in a crowded theater and nobody gets hurt, I don't get charged. If I yell fire in a crowded theater and someone does get hurt, I get charged for hurting someone. See the difference? I can exercise a right, but can be charged for bad results.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
i'm not being a smartass when i ask you this. i'm really serious, because i've dealt with others who have a hard time grasping absolutes.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
i think i see where you are coming from, you have a right to bear arms, but not a right to use those arms to murder. imo, even if no one gets hurt, every just runs out, you have ruined their happiness, caused disruption or whatever, by exercising speech that doesn't benefit anyone. in a society rights cannot be absolute because such a result would necessarily mean someone else's right would be trampled on. living within society means you give up some liberty in order to coexist peacefully. for instance, you don't have the liberty to run down the street and start punching everyone. however, in a society where you have absolute liberty, you could do that, because any restriction on that liberty means it is not absolute.
i know you're not a smartass, these discussions are fun. it challenges me and i learn from you. you're a smart guy.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
absolutely.
that's that very fine line again. Is my 'free speech' worthy of prior restraint if it offends someone? do you have a right to not be offended?
the framers disagree with this theory, which is why they limited the government so severly.
you're blurring the lines again. you're equating absolute rights with freedom from responsibility. It doesn't work like that. It's the old adage of 'my right to throw a punch ends where your nose begins'.
thank you, and to you the same.
Good Luck
New member
It amazes me how people have so grossly distorted the "fire in a crowded theater" example of how our rights work. The right to free speech IS absolute. We have the right to say anything we want at any time we want. What we can NOT do is hide behind our rights to do harm. If someone causes harm in their use of free speech (and this is where the example of "fire" comes in), they can not USE the fact that speech is a protected right to protect themselves from the consequences of doing harm.
It is not the SPEECH which is limited, but the INTENDED EFFECT which is limited. If the effect is harm, then the person is responsible to society for their actions. This holds true for ANY action, be it a protected right or not. But the principle is that protected rights still do not allow people to escape responsibility for their actions. (oooh, there's that R word! No wonder so many liberals have difficulty comprehending the idea of rights. It involves RESPONSIBILITY.)
It is not the SPEECH which is limited, but the INTENDED EFFECT which is limited. If the effect is harm, then the person is responsible to society for their actions. This holds true for ANY action, be it a protected right or not. But the principle is that protected rights still do not allow people to escape responsibility for their actions. (oooh, there's that R word! No wonder so many liberals have difficulty comprehending the idea of rights. It involves RESPONSIBILITY.)
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
the speech is limited. that is like saying your right to bear arms is not limited, but you can't use your arms to murder someone. the right is limited. else you could use that arm any way you want. if i lend you my car and place no limits on your use, you can do whatever you want to the car. however, as a friend you would know the unsaid limits and if i said, well, you can't drive more than 100 miles, then your use of the car is limited.
unlimited means exactly that, no limits. no consequences. nothing.
how do the framers disagree?
unlimited means exactly that, no limits. no consequences. nothing.
how do the framers disagree?