![]() |
when 'rights' are 'reasonably restricted',
you begin to lose them eventually.
balancing rights and security Judge: Denver can restrict protests at convention Quote:
your valued 'freedom of speech' has now fallen to the tyrants balance of security over rights. |
I only have a few thoughts. First off, the thread title is a slippery slope fallacy:
Quote:
Also, I believe we already have a thread about "free speech zones". |
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. :rolleyes:
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. 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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
-----Added 10/8/2008 at 02 : 49 : 19----- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Unless there's an active burning thread on a topic, starting another one with a different take is just fine. We see it all the time, including ones that you start. So let's dispense with the "repost" comments permanently. The staff will combine things if they need to be combined. If you want to help us, hit the warn button to make sure we see it. That goes for every single member of TFP, and Will's just the one who gave me the excuse to say something that needed saying. Thanks for that, Will. |
First smoking bans and now this. What's next? Piles of bodies in furnaces?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Open their eyes to what?
That some people will rely on outlandish scare tactics to justify their belief that compromise is evil? |
Huh, we went out to dinner on Friday night with Spec and Amonkie, and as we were walking home, both The_Wife and I commented how nice it was to eat in the bar area of a restaurant without having the overpowering stench of cigarettes around us. And I loved the fact that I didn't smell like smoke in the morning.
So maybe I am ready to start proceeding down the slipery slope. It certainly greatly improved my quality of life. Protesting, though, I think is different. It's a First Amendment issue, and I see these sorts of decisions as tough on everyone. There is no good solution since some of the protestors do actually represent a threat, if given the opportunity. |
Quote:
-----Added 10/8/2008 at 03 : 24 : 44----- Quote:
|
Quote:
Again, my quality of life has improved in a measurable way. I got to actually leave the house (1), eat a good meal (2) and NOT smell smoke before, during and after the meal (3). Why do a smoker's right trump mine to not have to smell their exhaust while indoors? Apparently the majority of folks in my city agree with me, as seen by both recent elections and polls. |
Quote:
|
Of course "rights" can be "reasonably restricted". It's been done for as long as we've had "rights". Slander and libel laws prevent people from saying anything they want about others. That is a reasonable restriction. The aforementioned "fire in a theatre" is another one, as it is mischief. Nothing new here, move along folks.
|
Quote:
-----Added 10/8/2008 at 03 : 36 : 43----- Quote:
it's very saddening, some of you, who are completely willing to surrender rights for 'security'. you all deserve to lose it all. |
This is nothing new, the precedence for this sort of thing was set by our current President and I didn't hear the right wingers clamor when they were doing it to the loony liberals. I guess what goes around comes around.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
i don't regard this as a well-framed thread.
i entirely oppose these idiotic "free-speech zones" and the shallow rationales given for restricting the right to protest. but i do not buy the absolutist line on this, and in particular want nothing to do with any potential linkage between this and guns. i have the feeling it's coming, and so there we are. but thought i'd say something to comrade jazz: i'm fine with cigarette bans in restos. i think most folk are. i'm less fine with them in bars--but at the same time, i smoke less when i go out now, which is an unqualified good so far as i am concerned. but i still am ambivalent about the bans. i was really really not fine with chicago's decision to implement the smoking ban at midnight on new year's eve, at which point it was around 15 below zero outside. if i could choose, there'd be a diversity of spaces--some where smoking is fine, others where it isn't. for all the reasons you adduce, too, in support of smoking bans. if there were clubs where one could smoke, and you didn't like it, you wouldn't have to go. it's not as though your "right" for potential consumer choices overrides everything that might appeal to others. btw none of this is terribly important in the summer, but in winter, it is. trust me on this. |
Quote:
I mean, I could easily adopt highthief's "rights can be restricted" position and then still agree with you on every individual question of rights infringement, couldn't I? Or am I missing something? |
Quote:
If you'd like, I can give you examples of absolutist interpretations of other amendments. I can even start with your favorite, #2. BTW, you should be careful throwing around the word fallacy when you don't understand what it is: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If the First Amendment was absolute:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Those are pretty good, will. :)
|
Quote:
|
Does Ron Paul know about these?
I ride my bike past the Target Center every day on my way home from work, maybe when he's in town this September I'll type up a list of these with "Ron Paul for president" as a heading and hand them out like I'm down with the cause and see if anyone figures me out. |
Actually, Ron Paul is a moderate among hard-core libertarians.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
seems to me that fool them all sums up the problem with this exercise pretty well in no. 19.
what is at issue here really is whether you (whomever) happen to approve or not approve of a particular regulation. nothing else. so the "logical" answer to any and all criticisms is either "i like it" in which case there's no problem, or "i don't" in which case there's a limitation. that means there's no basis for a discussion here at all. |
dk, your stubborn phrasing is getting in your way. If you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater, then there is a restriction on the first amendment. A GOOD restriction. If you can't use your firearm on another person without provocation, then there is a restriction on the second amendment. A GOOD restriction. That is NOT to say that the OP describes a reasonable restriction. That is NOT to say that handgun bans are a reasonable restriction. It is to say that even you believe in restrictions on rights. You'd just draw the line sooner than others here.
|
There are, of course, reasonable limits to your rights. However, I don't think this case is one. And it's pretty obvious to me that the real reason is *not* security. It is to restrict unwanted speech. If someone did want to cause harm at one of these things, they would be stupid to draw attention to themselves by waving a sign around.
On the other hand, the DNC should be allowed to have some reasonable methods in place to make sure, for instance, that delegates and attendees can enter and exit safely and efficiently. If this scheme is anything like the other recent ones, the 'protesters' will be kept well out of sight of the actual convention. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'll let you know when you make a credible argument. Quote:
-----Added 10/8/2008 at 06 : 49 : 58----- Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It comes down to this: "absolute" is ABSOLUTE, whereas "reasonable" is open to debate.
If you're going to have absolute rights (which the Constitution explicitly doesn't grant--you're confusing it with the Declaration of Independence, which was a political declaration, not a law-making document) then my right to swing my fist DOESN'T end at your nose. I have an absolute right to swing my fist all the way through your head. Since that's obviously a) not the law of the land, and b) ridiculous, you have to concede that there's no such thing as absolute (as in ABSOLUTE) rights. Now: should the definition of "reasonable" fall more on the side of the person exercising rights? Or more on the side of society being protected from the repercussions of such exercise? THAT'S something we could debate. But the OP as framed is nonsense. |
i wonder how you'd react to something like this, dk:
Quote:
since (a) it originates with a neo-fascist/far right government and (b) is directed against "illegal immigrants" and other such phantom "causes" of perturbation in the otherwise perfect body of the nation of Upright Citizens by sanctioning stuff like (c) spontaneous expressions of "populist" sentiment directed against these Outsiders like beating them up and burning where they live and all that kind of stuff that having no Evil Central Law can lead to, under the correct political conditions of course. naturally, this is not about depriving the Otherwise Perfect Body of Citizens of any "basic rights" now is it? i suspect that your support of this is a direct function of the extent to which you buy the line about the "illegal immigrant" as Problem, yes? |
Quote:
:shakehead: |
I deserve to be lorded over by dictators, but only if they're nice.
And as long as they're ladies. I love the ladies. |
If rights shouldn't be reasonably restricted does this mean that individuals should be allowed to carry nukes? That would be totally awesome.
|
I market fun and fashionable "nuke cozies". Hello Kitty and Hanna Montana are big sellers. Visit our custom shop to personalize yours today!
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:31 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project