Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
I only have a few thoughts. First off, the thread title is a slippery slope fallacy:
|
no such thing as the 'slippery slope fallacy'. As soon as one allows the government to open the door with a 'reasonable restriction', it only emboldens it to restrict it further. History documents this quite well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
That's simply not true. Most if not all rights have had reasonable restrictions from day one, and today many still remain in place. It *can* lead to a loss, but not necessarily. To make such a statement is a gross oversimplification and massive exaggeration. It's also black and white thinking. Either a right is total and absolute (which is a theoretical state) or there is no right?
|
reasonable restrictions did not exist from day one. 'reasonable restrictions', or the 'no right is absolute' concept did not exist until the mid 20th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Also, I believe we already have a thread about "free speech zones".
|
I did a search for that a few days ago, couldn't find it.
-----Added 10/8/2008 at 02 : 49 : 19-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
You're right--I SHOULD have the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Otherwise we'll slip right down the slope to totalitarianism.  |
now THIS is the fallacy. I guess that some people think that americans are too stupid to know how to exercise their rights, so we need to restrict them instead of punishing acts of idiocy. So don't yell fire in a theatre, even if their is a fire. you don't have that right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Only idealists and militia people believe that the rights granted by the Constitution are god-given and must be preserved regardless of cost. That's a crazy position to hold in the real world.
|
moderation is the key. fuck absolute rights. whats next? population control by extermination at the age of 65? It will even save money by eliminating social security....after all, we don't want absolute rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
The question here that would actually be interesting to ask is whether it's the case that IN THIS INSTANCE, security concerns are grave enough to curtail freedom of expression in this way. But arguing that no such restriction is legal or constitutional is simply not borne out by precedent or common sense.
|
benjamin franklin said it best, those that would give up liberty for security deserve neither. I agree, fuck your liberty.