Okay, so now I *am* going to United Fan Con. Apparently their money situation has sorted itself out (the fact that Aaron Douglas dropped out probably freed up some funds, I’d think) and I was reinvited.
Honestly, I toyed with the idea of saying forget it, but that didn’t seem fair to all the fans who’d written me expressing dismay over my not being there, especially since they’d purchased nonrefundable tickets.
So I’ll be there.
PAD
• 
“I don’t see how that doesn’t support Luigi’s observation the courts tolerate exceptions to “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” There are federal laws against threats made across state boundaries, whether by post, phone, or email, yes?”
Yes, because such laws enforce other rights and freedoms embodied within the constitution. The First Amendment does not contain some kind of super-trump of rights that all other aspects of American society must adhere to. While it is the ultimate form of legal expression, it is not the sum total of our jurisprudential system. The rights established by our common law heritage are pretty fairly subsumed within the legal history of our country, of which the Constitution is but a part.
The fact that laws abridge utterances or verbal actions do not constitute an abridgement of free speech. Rather, they emerge from the government’s authority in other areas…protection of life, liberty, keeping the peace, etc. Any individual’s rights can end when they encroach on the rights of another. Many laws that appear to abridge free speech truly don’t…they merely define when an individual’s actions cease to be protected, because they have intruded upon some other, and most importantly equal…right of another.
Hence, why libel is a civil action, because it encroaches on the rights of another. Or why treason is a capital offense, because it threatens the safety and integrity of the nation as a whole.
That’s a phrase that’s always struck me as quite odd. Are there actually any cultures in which dog hunting is that prominent? I know dogs are quite often used as aids in hunting, but can’t recall hearing any cases in which they were the prey. Anyone have any idea where this phrase originated and entered into our common vernacular?
I’ve also heard it as “hunted down like a wild dog” or “hunted down like a rabid dog”, which implies to hunt something to kill it as quickly as possible–pest control, essentially, rather than hunting that gets done for recreation or food.
“What are you absolutist about? You can say “The First Amendment!!! Get it? I’m not going to repeat myself, you!!” all you want, without clearing anything up”
That’s possibly because having explained something very simple over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, I’ve given up hoping of “clearing anything up.
PAD
PAD – no, I do not see anything you have ever written that explains how your position on the First Amendment is absolutist. You like it very much. You think it is important. You think that if it didn’t exist that would be a very bad thing. I suppose you are ABSOLUTEly certain the First Amendment is a great thing to have. I do not read your championing of it as absolutist in the sense of “This is it – the only thing of importance; Other factors do not enter into it: Free speech, free speech, free speech, hallelujah.” You value it very deeply, and that’s a good idea. If you can imagine any other factor affecting the permissibility of speech – intimidating threats, national security, personal prejudice, copyright protection or something else – you are not a free speech absolutist. If you are not 100% certain you know the precise application of the First Amendment in every possible situation, you are not a First Amendment absolutist. Much distinction is made between prior restraint (which you appear to oppose to an extremely broad extent) and liability for one’s actions afterward (which you appear to think is a slightly less outrageous thing). I would dispute that one is really a First Amendment absolutist if one allows retribution for the exercise of its rights, but we can set that aside for the moment. Take the situation of someone who wants to publicize atomic weapon designs – for reasons philosophical, economic or revolutionary: It is true that the government would take action against such publication if it saw print. Perhaps you see that as liability for endangering public safety, and certainly not prior restraint. That’s fine, but you know very well that action will, necessarily, have been taken much earlier, to ensure that the information that person wanted to release was never compiled in the first place. Before the book was written, it would have been stopped, if at all possible. That is prior restraint, but I haven’t heard of an absolutist named Peter A. David taking the government to task for it. He must be rational enough to recognize limitations on free speech and qualifications of First Amendment protection. He must not be an unreasonable doctrinaire.
You say that you have made your position on free speech and the First Amendment entirely clear, more times than you have the patience to repeat. That is so: We should know how you feel about them. What you have not done is suggest in any way other than selecting the term that your position is “absolutist.”
“If you are not 100% certain you know the precise application of the First Amendment in every possible situation, you are not a First Amendment absolutist.”
I’m sorry, Jeff, I slammed to a halt with this sentence and couldn’t get past it to the rest of your comments because this was just so freaking ridiculous.
You’ve created an impossible situation. You have decided that the only way someone can consider themselves a First Amendment absolutist is if they have more foresight, more knowledge of the law, more awareness of every possible ramification than the most educated lawyer or the most learned Supreme Court judge. That is the criteria you have determined all on your lonesome, the bar you yourself have set, which no sane person can possibly claim that they have met.
I’m sitting here saying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again that my definition of being a First Amendment absolutist is astoundingly simple: That when it says “Congress shall make no law,” it means “Congress shall make no law.” That I do not consider libel and slander laws (for instance) to be in violation of that for several reasons that I’ve already enumerated and will not bother to do so again because I’m utterly confident they’ll be ignored.
But apparently that’s not good enough for you. Apparently the only definition of “First Amendment Absolutist” that will cut the mustard is the impossible one that you yourself have come up with.
That being the case, what possible reason is there to continue discussing this with you?
PAD
Am I the only one that thinks people are just pretending to be incredibly stupid as humanly possible, in some sort of childish game to get PAD to say the same thing over and over again. I mean no one that is bright enough to be able to turn on a computer couldn’t be dumb enough not to get it yet.
He’s stated his believes in black and white with people yelling gray, gray, gray, long enough now it has to be a game.
It has to be a game to get PAD to waste his time repeating himself over and over so that they can pretend not to get it one more time.
If I were you PAD I’d close the thread and ignore it.
Tom Dakers
I think you’ve got it, Tom. I would have gotten it sooner if they’d found a way make him “root canal” instead.
In all seriousness, several of the people involved in this argument are not people I’d think would just jerk PAD around. I suspect that’s why he been so tolerant and tried again and again to get his point across. He knows serveral of these guys are rational people with adverage+ reading comprehension skills.
*inserts tongue back in cheek* However, Mr. David. In honor of the West Wing, might I suggest that you answer all 1st Amendment questions on this thread be simply replying “root canal” ?
I think this thread illustrates the accuracy of Bill Mulligan’s observation: displays of decency are offensive to those who lack such qualities, as it casts a spotlight on their deficiencies. Hence, when PAD announces a nice gesture towards his fans — traveling to UFC despite being jerked around — it is pounded on by trolls like no thread in recent memory.
The thing is, anything I could say to them would fall on deaf ears. It’s sad, it’s frustrating, but ultimately, it is what it is.
Oh, and to those of you trying to play “Stump the First Amendment Absolutist,” do any of you care how bad you’re making yourselves look? No? I didn’t think so. That’s unfortunate.
I believe PAD is misusing the term “First Amendment absolutist.” But in the long run, who gives a fûçk? Arguing endlessly over nomenclature — particularly when there is agreement in principle — is silly. Not every disagreement can or should be resolved. Somtimes you just walk away.
The only reason — THE ONLY REASON — why I am articulating my disagreement with PAD is to show others by example that, yeah, sometimes you just walk away. You let it the hëll go. I fear that those who most of you who need to profit from this example won’t, but it’s nevertheless worth a try.
I think PAD is wrong, he thinks I am wrong, and life goes on.
I hope UFC is a rewarding experience for PAD and his fans, despite the problems caused by the organizers’ poor business practices. I, for one, am traveling to Manhattan with increasing frequency due to new job duties at work. I hope one of those trips will coincide with a store appearance by PAD where I can get some books signed, talk to him briefly if time allows or simply say “thanks and nice to meet you” if it doesn’t, and go home having met one of my favorite authors.
THAT is how fans are SUPPOSED to act, God dámņ it.
OK – The PAD patented definition of “First Amendment Absolutist” is “‘Congress shall make no law…’ means ‘Congress shall make no law…'” Now I know what he means and why he means it. Perhaps by this definition PAD can feel confident he is, indeed, a First Amendment Absolutist. Unfortunately, that is a terribly narrow and useless definition. If it means nothing but “Congress shall make no law” then it’s perfectly fine for all but 535 people in this country to restrict speech in whatever way they wish (and it may be that any of those 535 may also do so, if they are acting in a private, non-Congressional capacity). This definition leaves it completely acceptable for free speech to be restricted by executive order, private parties acting on their own behalf, judicial edict, zoning boards, state and municipal government determinations or a thousand other entities. Oh Joy, PAD is determined to protect us all from the House and Senate’s depredations, but takes no notice of any other way speech may be suppressed. I’m not overwhelmed with gratitude, but I’d better be careful: PAD is not Congress, so he must be able to do just…anything.
I wouldn’t nag at this issue, except that a boatload of external evidence suggests PAD is literate and rather well-read: If he weren’t any good at English, I would expect very little from him. I think his steadfast defense of his credentials as a First Amendment absolutist comes from only two causes: At some point, being a bit linguistically lax, he said that’s what he was; Once that had been done, he was far too obstinate to correct himself, for any reason. Challenge may be too strong a word, so I…”ask” the regular posters here: Do you remember the last time PAD was persuaded to change his mind about an issue in the discussions on this blog? I am not enough of a regular to be certain, but I have never seen it happen. I have read quite a few instances of him getting testy that someone didn’t understand that he meant what he “meant” rather than what his words denoted – those IDIOTS just didn’t have the benefit of being him.
He is bemused, or outraged, or nonplussed, or something else, that I say one can only be a First Amendment absolutist if one is certain of every bit of meaning and application of the First Amendment. Well, if you don’t know exactly what it is that you are absolutist about, how can you be absolutist about it? If I were an absolutist about the truthfulness of Fermat’s Last Theorem, but couldn’t tell you just what it claimed, that absolutism would be pathetically stupid. It would be unfounded faith, rather than knowledge. It would be worthless in convincing anyone else to believe as I did. In the past, PAD cautioned me that no one is ever able to change anyone else’s mind about anything. I don’t know why he thought it was worthwhile to tell me that, since he was sure he couldn’t change my mind. I don’t know what could be the appeal of maintaining a blog if one knew it was nothing but solipsism, and I guess PAD will never be able to affect my opinion. That would take someone with more social skills than he assigns himself.
Bobb Alfred, Bill Myers and Jerry Chandler, thanks for providing exceptionally valuable and sensible insight into this subject. It could have been a worthwhile discussion, but it wasn’t. How unfortunate and disappointing.
“Oh Joy, PAD is determined to protect us all from the House and Senate’s depredations, but takes no notice of any other way speech may be suppressed.”
Okay, NOW you’re just acting like a jerk.
PAD
PAD:
Please stop wasting your time with this. I am unemployed, so I have all the time in the world to read this stuff (or ignore it as I choose), but you have many things to keep you busy, including a wonderful family.
There is a breed of person on the internet that I don’t think I have ever met in real life. Or if I have, I have walked away from them and forgotten about them. This breed of person doesn’t understand anything about discussion or doesn’t even understand the concept of…concepts.
All they are trying to do at this point is waste your time, and I think you are falling for it.
That you have many times had this same argument on this blog in the past 5 years and with some of the same people leads me to believe that you are being tempted by the Sirens.
Have a great and wonderful weekend.
“All they are trying to do at this point is waste your time, and I think you are falling for it”
I think you are right. I am officially done with this, to all comers.
PAD
What is the virtue in portraying what you say yes to as something other than an abridgment of free speech, which I’m taking your word for as the current conventional understanding of the 1st? What’s wrong with saying it the way Luigi said it?
Personally, no. But from what Bobb said, “freedom of speech” seems to simply be a misnomer.
I simply revived the NABJ/Imus issue because Peter seems to qualify as what he critcised the NABJ for being: one whose livelihood depends upon the coin of free exchange of ideas who is also what Peter called a “free speech but-head.” I don’t know why he continues to give me the slack to keep saying this (forever) by not simply retreating from his criticism of them indulging in the same privilege we all agree Peter is entitled to indulge in.
The former does not seem to presume an intolerance of criticism anymore than any other prohibited activity presumes an intolerance of, I suppose, protest as it may be portrayed by the activity. Any given vandalism in Boston Harbor is not automatically a protest against taxation.
If I take PAD at his word, he will not respond. OK. His description of “First Amendment absolutist” is very clear – One who insists that Congress never, ever restrict free speech. I would go along with this, but it is pitifully narrow – It leaves a nearly infinite amount of free speech restriction permissible: Because it ignores free speech restriction by any entity other than Congress, it is about as effective as saying “I don’t like repression on days that start with “W.”
I just realized Peter has given something in the direction of what I’ve been asking for all this time 2 days ago (check out the bolded text near the bottom):
What Peter has done seems a little bit more formal than misspeak. But if he has no reservation against describing his very basis for criticizing the NABJ as misspeaking, I see no reason for him continuing to deny he misspoke in criticizing the NABJ in the first place, other than narcissism in excess of what he attributed to me.
“If I take PAD at his word, he will not respond. OK. His description of “First Amendment absolutist” is very clear – One who insists that Congress never, ever restrict free speech. I would go along with this, but it is pitifully narrow – It leaves a nearly infinite amount of free speech restriction permissible: Because it ignores free speech restriction by any entity other than Congress, it is about as effective as saying “I don’t like repression on days that start with “W.” “
Jeffrey, take a look at what you posted there. Really go back and read it, because it contains a huge reason why it seems you’re not grasping what PAD has said, and doesn’t need to say again.
He’s not about opposing repression…or at least, his stance on the First Amendment has nothing to do, whatsoever, with total freedom from oppression. The First Amendment, by definition, ONLY applies to the Federal government, and in some cases, to state governments. It applies not at all to any private group or individual not acting under the authority of the goverment. You’re conflating First Amendment with Free Speech…the first covers the second, but the bounds of the second far exceed the limits of the first.
Yes, a strict supporter of the First Amendment leaves literally a world of people free to oppress and repress free expression…because that’s the way the First Amendment works. Honestly, can you truly not see how you’ve been arguing from a totally incorrect perspective?
If I take PAD at his word, he will not respond. OK. His description of “First Amendment absolutist” is very clear – One who insists that Congress never, ever restrict free speech. I would go along with this, but it is pitifully narrow – It leaves a nearly infinite amount of free speech restriction permissible:
I am done discussing my position as a First Amendment absolutist. I feel constrained to point out, however, the sheer audacity, the staggering ignorance involved, in claiming that someone who has spent the last seventeen years raising money for and working for the CBLDF–an organization that has fought free speech infringements at the state and local level every year since its inception–would consider free speech infringement outside of Congress to be permissible. Your post, as far as I’m concerned, is the final proof that there seems to be an almost unnatural interest in twisting my words and personal history in order to score some sort of bizarre points.
PAD
Mike: “What is the virtue in portraying what you say yes to as something other than an abridgment of free speech, which I’m taking your word for as the current conventional understanding of the 1st? What’s wrong with saying it the way Luigi said it?”
Luigi’s position is not concise. I’m pretty sure he’s addressing several complex ideas in his posts, so you’d have to help me in distilling what you think Luigi actually said for me to properly respond.
But looking over some of his posts, here’s what I think: Luigi’s approaching the discussion from a liberal, maybe literal, view of free speech. He’s not coming to the table to talk about the First Amendment’s meaning of free speech…he’s using a more philosophical approach. It seems Luigi is talking about the ideal of free speech…that all expressions should be allowed…when PAD’s talking about the Free Speech of the First Amendment.
While this may seem non-sensical, they are not the same thime. The First Amendment refers to a right held by the People…like all other such rights, that right is tempered by the other rights contained in the bundle of rights held by the People. In contrast, the ideal of free speech would trump certain of those other rights, rendering them subject to the superpriority of the ideal of Free Speech.
Such is not how the Constitution works. When the SCOTUS rules that libel laws are constitutional, it is in effect saying that the right of free speech as enumerated in the Constitution ends when false writings about a person are made with the intent to defame or injure a reputation. By Constitutional definition, such writings are NOT free speech, and as such, congress is free to make whatever laws they want about it.
The ideal of Free Speech fights against this view, because it fails to recognize that the Constitution does not view such writings as included in the right of Free Speech.
So, that’s what’s wrong with the way Luigi said it.
Luigi said Peter has been inconsistent, and I think Luigi should simply be given some slack because Peter has been nakedly contradictory:
What clearer qualification is there for a “free speech absolutist” than being “the first ones out of the box to declare, ‘We disagree with everything [one] says, but will defend to the death his right to say it,'” which is the kind of free-speech advocate Peter says everyone “whose livelihoods depend upon the coin of free exchange of ideas should” be and has himself taken credit for being? You tell me: How much more severe do you have to be to qualify as a “free speech absolutist?”
Bob, first of all, you are doing a very good job explaining this issue. I’m not sure you’ve characterized Luigi’s intentions (if I understand them correctly). Luigi does understand the difference between the first amendment and free speech. The difference seems to be to be semantic.
Since I’m precluded from saying anything concerning PAD’s thoughts, and he talked abou Libel, I’ll use the example of child pornography to talk about your and Luigi’s thougts. I hope you don’t mind.
Fact: child pornography is prohibited by law.
Your (Bob’s) interpretation: since child pornography infringes on another right it does not constitute free speech and is therefore not covered by the 1st amendment.
Luigi’s interpretation: since child pornography infringes on another right, the power of the first amendment is limited by that right.
The difference is purely semantic and is only significant with relation to the word ‘absolute’.
In your wording, you could say (although I’m not sure you would) that since child pornography does not fall under the 1st amendment, it’s power remains absolute. While Luigi’s wording says that, since the 1st amendment is limited by consideration of other rights, it’s power is not absolute. However, this distinction doesn’t seem to me to contribute anything in any way. It is only a game with words.
In any case, as Bill Myers shows, the boundaries of the 1st amendment are subject to debate regardless of the semantic question of wheather you’d call what’s beyond the bounderies exceptions, limitation, or not free speech.
My God. They were telling that one back in 3rd grade
“Simpsons” did it.
(Sorry, I know it’s belated, but it just occurred to me.)
PAD
PAD – I do not doubt that you are devoted to free speech, far beyond limiting what Congress is allowed to do. My criticism is not of you (If you can be so segregated from your words) but of your formulation of what “being a First Amendment absolutist” is. You do the right thing (I think) but provide and loudly defend a definition which is nearly useless. Let us assume that you are offended and threatened by just about any variety of free speech suppression, but that you come out with “Left handed men in Connecticut should NEVER quash free speech! I’ve thought it out and feel very strongly about this!! Let me repeat: Left handed men in Connecticut should NEVER quash free speech!” Well…no, let’s assume somebody else said it, so your pride would not be an issue. Wouldn’t you say something like “That’s pretty weak, useless stuff, don’t you think? Yeah, those left handed men in Connecticut [Congressmen] shouldn’t be allowed to get away with that stuff: Neither should anyone else, and I think weak rhetoric like that is useless.”?
bobb alfred: I would disagree that the First Amendment applies no farther than the Capitol steps. I’m no constitutional scholar (yes, PAD may well nod his head vigorously at that) but it is a fact that many constitutional protections have been read by the appeals and Supreme Courts as extending far beyond what Congress may and may not do. “Congress can’t do it, but somebody else is free to, and that has nothing to do with what we’re talking about” is neither good scholarship nor good policy. You have found something in my comments that you believe should abash me, should I just reread it: Could you be a bit more specific? I said PAD’s definition was weak and useless: That’s what I think. I suggested his ego was talking for his brain: I haven’t changed my mind, so I’m not very abashed here. What else has scandalized you? I don’t want to stand up for Mike here, by any means, but there is one strand of his arguments which seems valid: “Oh, you’re just terrible; You’re wrong, but I won’t lower myself to explain” is a rebuttal of nothing. It is a bit more work to formulate an argument than to merely curse one’s adversary, but there is no reason any opponent should stipulate to it if there is none.
Jeffrey, maybe you could give me some examples of how the First Amendment limits have extended to a non-governmental entity. Because from my plain reading of the First Amendment, it clearly says that Congress is restricted in its ability to abridge certain rights. I’m not a Constitutional scholar, either, but I don’t recall any of my classes in Constitutional or First Amendment law applying to private individuals’ efforts to censor anyone. While you cite it as fact, I’d like you to do a bit more than that.
And while the ideal of free speech and the protections of that ideal as contained within the Constitution are related by topic, it is entirely accurate and possible to discuss one without discussing the other. While PAD had demonstrated that he’s an advocate of free expression beyond and above the protections OF the First Amendment, that stance is largely irrespective of his stance ON the First Amendment. I don’t think it’s all all incongrous that a First Amendment Absolutist would oppose all governmental restrictions on free expression, while simultaneously defending the private individual’s right to control and limit…read censor…expressions made within their home. And I think that your suggestions of what a First Amendment absolutist should be would hold that such a person must tolerate any form of expression made anywhere. That concept, I think, is alien to the Constitutional idea of what amounts to Free Speech.
Perhaps such rights can be inferred from the extension of other rights – antidiscrimination, sexual equality, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and so on, to persons against authorities other than the federal government. A very strict interpretation of the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment might hold that, so long as it isn’t the Federal government breaking a suspect on the wheel or drawing his intestines out to where they have never been before, it is outside the ambit of such protection. Despite some conspicuous disagreement, this is not the current reading of the law. As regards the First Amendment, suppose that, say, Baltimore’s Chief of Police ordered the destruction of the presses of “The Baltimore Sun” after it published an editorial critical of his office. Besides the grand theft, trespassing and other state charges he faced, he might expect the U.S. Attorney’s office to file some federal charges as well, stemming from First Amendment and other violations of Federal statute. The First Amendment does more than limit the right of Congress to interfere with free speech. How much more it does is a matter for discussion by First Amendment relativists.
bobb alfred – on the matter of whether my formulation would require that private individuals tolerate abusive speech within their own homes, I hope that it would not. If it did, some modification would be needed. Perhaps anti-trespassing or other regulations could be used. This does require more thought.
Regarding cruel and unusual from the Eighth Amendment, the party inflicting the punishment must first have some grant of authority. So, for instance, I can’t go to my nieghbor, declare that they’ve stlolen my property, and toss them on the rack. I don’t have any authority to find the guilty or sentence them…the state does. Were I to take those actions, I’d be committing assault, battery, probably unlawful confinement or kidnapping, etc. The Eighth Amendment would never come into play because I lack the inherant authority to impose and deliver any kind of punishment. Those powers have been delegated or reserved by the government.
Regarding your Baltimore example and destroyed printing presses…unless there’s some tie from the Baltimore police to the Federal Government, the First Amendment might not apply. However, the Massachusetts constitution contains a general provision that states that the right of free speech shall not be abridged. Again, this is subject to other rights…such as the right of a property owner to control and limit what occurs on his property, including acts considered censorship. But as it applies to the actions of the police, it very much violates Massachusetts law.
Jeffrey, I don’t say this to be mean, but your comments suggest that you really don’t have a good grasp of what the legal limits of this topic are. Suggesting that the US Constitution limits the actions of a state/local policemant tells me that you don’t really understand what the US Constitution does and does not do.
bobb – reading your comments makes me think the same thing about you. The cruel and unusual punishment example is quite apt, because capital punishment is usually imposed for violation of state, rather than federal law, and yet the Supreme Court very frequently imposes its will by blocking the States from imposing it when the Justices deem the practice a violation of the Eighth Amendment. Of course, torture by a private citizen violates quite a few laws beyond the Constitution, and you may be right that there will be no Eighth Amendment issues raised. The Massachusetts Constitution does criminalize violation of free speech, I am sure, but that has nothing to do with whether the Federal Statutes may also be applied. Consider the occasional instance of city or state police officers being charged with federal civil rights violations (usually after they are acquitted of murder in the beating or shooting of civilians): These officers hold absolutely no federal authority, but their actions are deemed subject to federal jurisdiction. Nobody ever evaded punishment by saying, “No, I am a Miami-Dade Police Officer, not an FBI Agent: It’s my own business that I pushed this guy’s brain into his throat. Take it up with my Chief, Mr. ADA, but I don’t think it’s any of your business.” There are times that the Government has claimed more authority than it should, but it would be hard to argue that it has none over the the actions of state and local authorities and private citizens. Think of the various private citizens who went to the electric chair for treason. They had no success arguing that the Constitution bestowed no authority but that to rein in Congress: Federal treason statutes burned them alive.
Jesus H. Christ, who let the lawyers in?
PAD, I think you just need to go already! Go and come back, get it over with, so we can all move on to more important topics.
Speaking of more important topics, have they ever done a collection of your run on Captain Marvel? Man, that stuff was hilarious.
Jeffrey, whatever. If you’re going to make up my arguments for me…such as suggesting that I stated that the 8th Amendment doesn’t apply to state actions, when I only stated that it doesn’t apply to the actions of private citizens acting in a vigilante capacity…there’s no point in trying to keep up with you. You’ve expanded a discussion about the First Amendment into one involving the 8th Amendment, state constitutions, and now civil rights violations. You’ve failed to provide the facts you claimed existed showing that the First Amendment extends to actions outside of the Federal government.
However, as for you example of someone evading punishment because of a lack of jurisdiction, I can assure you that it has, does, and will continue to happen. Maybe not in the exact fact pattern you stated.
bobb alfred: No, when I say something, it is me saying it, and I do not claim it was you. I know myself pretty well, and I am not you. The Eighth Amendment has been expanded far beyond its application to Congressional conduct. The same could be said of many Amendments. The Third Amendment might be construed as only applicable to the federal government, as that is the source of the troops that Amendment forbids be quartered without due process in private homes. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure applies to federal, state and local authority, certainly, and perhaps to anyone else who would attempt to search or seize. Whether or not you accept that last part, you should be very clear that the local police department is barred by the Fourth Amendment from warrantless, baseless searches and seizures (which I think is a good thing). The Fifth Amendment is applied to all judicial authorities, federal or not (The state court is not allowed to subject you to double jeopardy or force you to give testimony against yourself – that it is not federal does not give it that prerogative). The Sixth through Eighth Amendments explicitly require state courts to provide trial by jury and respect certain rights of the accused. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve unenumerated rights to the states, but freedom of speech is enumerated in the First Amendment, so that has little relevance here. The Thirteenth Amendment imposes a federal authority over all of the states – the authority to bar all slavery in any of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment similarly imposes the authority of the federal government to ensure full citizenship for former slaves – whether that was the desire of the particular states involved or not. The Fifteenth Amendment similarly requires all states to recognize voting rights for all persons, regardless of race, color or previous servitude, and its Second Section reserves to the Federal government the power to enforce this. The Seventeenth Amendment takes out of the hands of the States the determination of how to elect United States Senators: If the States preferred another method, that was immaterial. The Eighteenth Amendment took away from 48 individual States the right to decide whether to permit the manufacture of intoxicating spirits: Individual preferences of the several states were overridden by Federal authority. The Nineteenth Amendment determined that all states were required to recognize the right of women to vote, rather than leaving such a thing up to each State. The Twenty fourth Amendment strips the States of the authority to impose a poll tax on voters, rather than leaving that to the States. The Twenty sixth Amendment decided (in place of the states) to require all states to permit voting at the age of eighteen, instead of twenty one.
So, there is quite a precedent for extending the authority of the Constitution far beyond Congressional conduct. The argument over how far the First Amendment should extend its protections is a matter for relativists, because very few would be willing to listen to any absolutist out there, unless they (by happy coincidence) happen to agree with that absolutist’s perspective.
bobb alfred – just to get back to one point you made before, you stated that when SCOTUS ruled that libel laws were constitutional that meant that libel was not speech. I expect you are right that SCOTUS did not believe libelous words were what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when writing the First Amendment, but it’s a stretch to say that untrue/unkind/unpleasant speech is not speech, or that “bobb alfred is a Chinese spy” is not somehow speech. It is speech SCOTUS does not think worthy of protection, but still speech. 200+ years of Supreme Court history suggest that the Justices are very content to read whatever they prefer into the Constitution – making the determination on ideological rather than linguistic grounds.
…uhhh, this must all be sort of RELATIVE, I guess. No, I’m ABSOLUTEly sure it is.
I really should have already brought up the Second Amendment:
“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What that actually SAYS is: because a well-regulated militia is necessary, there shall be no limitation whatsoever on the right of the people to have and hold weapons. Literally, that does not permit any form of restriction or limitation, nor does it assign the right to keep and bear arms to the militia, but to the people. That probably sounded like a very good way to do things when weapons technology and the U.S. population density were both low, but subsequent rulings by various courts, up to the Supreme Court, essentially declare “Hey, that really isn’t such a good idea – Let’s put on whatever restrictions we think are necessary. It’s just words, so we can say it REALLY means something else.” I can’t keep a straight face while defending the literal Second Amendment right to keep and bear whatever arms are available, because that is unlikely to be in the public interest.
It is not in the public interest to allow certain kinds of speech: hate speech, insurrectionist speech, treasonous speech, libelous speech, speech in violation of copyright, and so on; It is still “speech”: vocal, broadcast or printed words. I’m afraid the Constitution promises more than it can deliver, and more than it should.
Jeffrey, is there anything at stake other than your vanity that you can’t accept my reply that “freedom of speech” seems to simply be a misnomer as it is referred to in the 1st, that you have to flood a thread with your severe semantic-intolerance?
Words are not the things they represent, Jeffrey. You are a man who seems to be starving himself for eating the dollar bills with which he should instead be purchasing his nourishment.
“You are a man who seems to be starving himself for eating the dollar bills with which he should instead be purchasing his nourishment.”
Holy Fûçkìņg Irony, Batman!!!!!!!!
Your accusation does not apply to me. But don’t let that stop you from keeping the thread alive.
Mike – my comments regarding you are very simple, and go no further than this: When I read your posts it is very possible that I have no idea what you are trying to say – reminiscent of James Joyce sans the literary merit. For me to speak confidently of what you meant would be hubris.
Alan Coil – my comments are expressions of my opinions (and somewhat relativist) rather than feeble grasping for nourishment. Whether or not I am right, the strength of those opinions does not depend on finding agreement here. That I have so frequently dissented from PAD’s beliefs without finding agreement here does not signify that I am correct, but should demonstrate that my opinions are firmly-held.
Jeffrey, I didn’t ask you for your take on anything I’ve said. Since you say you don’t understand what I’m saying, I have no reservation against rephrasing for simplicity: is there any reason other than vanity for you to flood a thread with your severe semantic-intolerance?
Mike, I was telling you that I am generally unable to decipher your messages, not taking a position on whatever it is you believe.
“Severe semantic intolerance”? I am intolerant of semantic errors, not semantics. What you are saying (as I think I understand you this one time) is analogous to calling it “severe mathematical intolerance” to deny that three plus three equals eight. It is my own prejudice that semantic error leads to error of thought. The leading argument for calling PAD’s approach to the First Amendment absolutist is something like this: “The absolutist position is to require that Congress make no law abridging free speech. There are things superficially identical to speech (words, writing, transmission, codes, etc.) which we agree must not be tolerated (treason, violent incitement, libel, copyright infringement, violation of intellectual property rights, etc.) – but that’s OK! By decree, those do not constitute speech, so any infringement of them is not infringement of free speech!” It is irresponsibly lax to define free speech as the toleration of speech we wish to tolerate – Any infringement would be permissible with this mindset: “That speech? We don’t like that kind of speech – It ISN’T speech, you know, so it’s not a problem to ban THAT…uh, not “speech” – It must be “NONSPEECHTALK” – You know, the kind of stuff we can ban!” I know PAD has no desire to allow such abuse, but his definition of absolutism is useless to prevent it.
Alan Coil: It appears that I have tarred you with some of Mike’s opinions. I apologize: That is a monstrously awful thing to do, and I certainly would not want that to happen to me!
With no sense of irony:
Why did you feel the need to attribute a quote to me I never posted, Man-With-A-Generous-Tolerance-When-They’re-His-Own-Semantic-Errors
Mike: “…is there any reason other than vanity for you to flood a thread with your severe semantic-intolerance?”
Me: “Severe semantic intolerance?” (Yes, it would appear that I missed your hyphen, but there is no change in meaning.)
Mike: “Why did you feel the need to attribute a quote to me I never posted…?”
Ummm…because you did post what I attributed to you, maybe?
Mike, the only quotation I attribute to you is “severe semantic-intolerance,” which can be found by looking four posts above this one. You have a hëll of a time telling when people are speaking for themselves and when they are quoting you. I can offer some assistance there: When I quote you, that is a reference to you writing something. When I speak for myself, I am not deceived that it is you speaking: It is I who am speaking. This may be difficult for you, because so many of your own posts are endless re-postings of re-postings of re-postings, in which it is difficult to separate your original statements from the repetitions of previous posts (whose significance is known only to you.)
Jeffrey: “Me: “Severe semantic intolerance?” (Yes, it would appear that I missed your hyphen, but there is no change in meaning.)”
This is not the first time that Mike has claimed that somebody attributed a false quote to him when the only difference was with a quotation marks.
I wonder if it is simply just another trick in his repetoire to evade a question, or maybe it’s part of his wider cognitive disorder that he perceives a insignificant difference in syntax as altering completley the text in question. I can almost imagine an error message appearing in his brain as a result of the missing hyphen.
The stock phrase about the dollar bills was already used more than once, I think with the exact wording.
I posted waaaaaaay upthread, but I’ve been following the progress of this discussion ever since. And I don’t know if this contribution is going to be found useful, or deemed too dámņëd simplistic to be believed (if the latter…oh, well…). (And no, IANAL.)
There is, to my mind, a huge difference between Congress passing a law that states “No person or entity shall make a public statement, or publish or cause to be published any statement, which that person or entity knows to be materially untrue” and local/state/federal laws that state “If a person or entity makes public statements, whether verbal or written, which it knows to be materially untrue, that person or entity shall be liable for any damages arising from such statements.”
While the latter might be interpreted as abridging a right to freedon of speech, in reality it merely warns that telling lies has consequences–not the same thing as an outright prohibition. In the same way, telling someone that s/he has a right to protect hir home should not equate to allowing that person to shoot passersby from hir front porch on the off chance that one of those passersby might be a burglar.
Congress cannot–and should not–tell me what I can and cannot say…but if I cause an innocent party harm by publicizing a falsehood, I shouldn’t be able to get away with it.
(Hmmm…well, even if this doesn’t add anything to the general convertsation, it at least allowed me to clarify my thoughts on the matter. Clarity is a plus.)
Micha: If I were a nice guy, I would be thankful for Mike’s existence, because he makes run of the mill cranks look wise and patient.
I must not be a nice guy.
You did no such thing. You are literally trying to hold people to a standard you do not hold yourself to. How much more severe is lying and hypocrisy than being semantically wrong? You have been caught doing all three.
You will not find an example by me of what you are describing. Because it doesn’t exist. This is another example of how I play by rules, and you will abandon any rules that don’t get you what you want.
Dude, that’s literally untrue for the two quotes Jeffrey attributed to the same post by me. How can you stand to not tear off your own skin from the agony of being called on your stupidity? Whatever the answer is, it’s worth studying as a pain-killer.
Mike, when I quote you accurately that is not misquoting you.
“How can you stand to not tear off your own skin from the agony of being called on your stupidity?” (note: This is exactly what you wrote, Mike, so forget about claiming it is not.) Well, most normal people don’t want to tear of their skin, even when they are criticized. To personalize this a bit, Mike, consider this. You have been “called on your stupidity” many, many times, and yet you have not (and this is more than a guess) pulled off your skin (or at least not very much of it) yet. Do you have some rationale for Micha holding himself to a higher standard of self-abuse?
You are a not man starving himself for eating the dollar bills with which he should instead be purchasing his nourishment. Men don’t slither.
Mike: You asked Micha why he hadn’t torn his skin off at being called on (what you thought was) an error. I mentioned that you had not torn your own skin off, despite having frequently been called on error.
Are you sure you want to discuss “severe semantic-intolerance” and “severe semantic intolerance” being entirely different things? I suspect you are guilty of severe semantic intolerance and severe semantic-intolerance both! Since you ask for it, I am hereby accusing you of stupidity in thinking there is a semantic difference. You may proceed to pull off your skin now: Rigorous thinker that you are, I am sure you are doing so already.
“You are a not man starving himself for eating the dollar bills with which he should instead be purchasing his nourishment.”? Well, this is semantically meaningless. I am a man, not “a not man,” and my diet (which is not dollar bills, in any case) does not determine that. I think you have some difficulty with the concept of “representational” in characterizing this skin flensing obsession of yours. Perhaps you mean “metaphorical” – or perhaps you have no idea what you mean.