Actually very few really understand how it works today, which is why it will not be fixed, because the way that people think they understand it is wrong, they don't see the actual problem so the solution cannot be understood if people don't understand the problem in the first place.
all freedoms have natural, logical limitations: where they impinge on someone else's freedoms
Sure. Now, please, explain, whose freedoms were impinged by the speech in TFA...
It shouldn't be ok to incite mass panic (yelling fire in a crowded venue)
It shouldn't, huh? How about statements like "President is a war-criminal" or "He is not a natural-born citizen" — can such speech not some day be banned under the same doctrine? Because it does interfere with the government's efficiency and, consequently, the entire country's quality of life, does not it? We might think this ridiculous today, but many countries — including the various worker's paradises — consider insulting the Dear Leader a felony already. Don't you recognize a slippery slope while sliding down on it?
There is a movement to ban "hate speech" already. The entire Yik Yak app is banned on many campuses and today's students are being trained to accept such a ban already, so it can not be far away, that the thought-police spills out from those institutions into the rest of our world.
For the past 7 years, the number one rebuttal to any critics of the current President was that they are "haters". Do you think, we are far away from the sitting President becoming off-limits for criticism? We aren't — and it all started, when we were sold the bogus premise of "some speech ought to be illegal"...
It is naive to think that complete, and total, freedom of speech was ever intended.
Is it naive? Then I share my naivete with Benjamin Franklin, for example — a Founding Father — who considered any abuses of the freedom of speech to be a lesser evil than entrusting anyone the power to suppress them. For example:
Those abuses of the freedom of speech are exercises of liberty. They ought to be repressed; but to whom dare we to entrust the care of doing it. An evil magistrate intrusted with power to punish for words, would be armed with a weapon the most destructive and terrible. Under pretense of pruning off the exuberant branches he would be apt to destroy the tree.
Do you honestly believe, the fine magistrates of the 21st century Virginia would've helped calm Franklin's fears of that "the most destructive and terrible" weapon?
The Constitution isn't a suicide pact.
Meaningless maxim. Meaningless, but dangerous to all of our freedoms, for it allows discarding any part of the Bill of Rights at the moment's notice.
We are not obligated to ignore threats.
Irrelevant. We are obligated to not make them illegal. That's all.
Blonde is "race".
No, it is not. Two blonds can have a brunette child, for example.
There are thousands (if not more) of cases on race.
So cite one, where the accusation was based on the supposed victim(s) hair-color.
I will not respond again until you offer a valid link — you've made enough unsubstantiated claims already.
You vote for these kinds of people all the time, and they do run banks, and churches, etc.
First of all, please, provide citations.
Second, do you not agree, that, if true, such would be a sad state of affairs?
Do you also agree that he should have been, at his age, allowed to [...]
I do not agree with that and do not understand, why you accuse me of "hypocrisy" because of it.
That he is not an adult may affect his legal status and/or lessen the extent of the prosecution.
That his moral failings deserve strict censure — and can not be discounted as merely a "stupid mistake" — is quite different.
you can never expect to make a statement which is clearly a threat and people are just going to ignore it
Whether you ignore it or not is irrelevant. It should not be illegal.
The First Amendment makes no exceptions for "threats" — our understanding that shouting "fire" in a crowded place is illegal is flatly wrong, the Amendment protects that speech from government's actions like any other.
Well, if such a thing as "Harassment by Computer" should be illegal, this guy's actions seem to qualify for it.
But I don't think, it should be. In fact, too much speech is already considered illegal — and the list is likely to grow as the Illiberals are trying to add "hate-speech" to the prohibited list.
Moon, a 21-year-old senior majoring in business information technology, is being charged with Harassment by Computer, which is a class one misdemeanor. Tuesday night, April 28, a threat to the Virginia Tech community was posted on the anonymous social media app Yik Yak. Around 11:15 p.m., an unknown user posted “Another 4.16 moment is going to happen tomorrow. Just a warning (sic).” The Virginia Tech Police Department released a crime alert statement Wednesday morning via email informing students that VTPD was conducting an investigation throughout the night in conjunction with the Blacksburg Police Department. “Both departments are pursuing several active leads this morning,” the statement read. “At this time, the VTPD has not obtained any additional information that would suggest this is a credible threat.”
i dont know whats worse: the blatant bullshit this idiot spews, or the idiot who modded him insightful.
Haters gonna hate.
There are no laws defending blonds or red-heads against discrimination by brunettes either.
Yes, there are. If you discriminate consistently against blonds, then you will be open to legal action.
Please, cite the relevant law I'll be accused of violating and any existing precedents of prosecutions (successful or not). I'll wait.
Has there ever been a documented case of someone discriminating against a Mi based on name? No? Then why do you think you deserve special laws?
The point was, an absence of a law explicitly protecting any particular class of people does not by itself signify discrimination of the group.
I've seen some that explicitly list LGBT (as a non protected class).
Some day you'll learn to provide citations. Until then, I'll be patiently reminding you every time. Citations?
That's not an omission, but a license to discriminate.
Yes, many kinds of discrimination are perfectly legal. A girl can say "You are too old for me" or "I don't date Jews" — and even she does so "consistently", it is her right to do so. Businesses too can discriminate on a number of traits (including hair-color, yes, really) — only the explicitly-listed few things are off-limits for discrimination. The details vary by states.
The shooting happened at a partking lot at the Curtis Culwell Center where a "Muhammad Art Exhibit" event was held
Two men pulled up in a car and started to shoot, injuring a security guard
The Garland police force moved in and an exchange of gunshot between the Garland police and the shooters ensured
Two suspects have been shot dead
Although the "Muhammad Art Exhibit" event seemed controversial, the event itself is nevertheless protected by the 1st Amendment (Free Speech for the unintiated) of the United States of America
Apparently the moslems do not care about the Free Speech provision of USA, and this latest episode illustrates that all the moslems ever want is to scare and silence, and if they are given any chance, to hurt and kill all those they deem to be "Infidels
IThis shooting also tells us that America has been infiltrated by millions of moslems who will do everything, including terrorism, to establish a Reign of Terror over the freedom loving Americans, just like what they have done in places under their control
More links are at
[spam URL stripped]...
[spam URL stripped]...
[spam URL stripped]...
Link to Original Source
It's okay for global corporations to finance the election?
Your rhetorical question is the same as "is it Ok for child-molesters to roam the streets" — you need to seriously violate privacy rights of everybody to even learn, which money comes from "global corporation" or who is a known "sex offender".
And the answer to both questions is "Yes". You can ask a politician, who gave him money — and draw conclusions from answers or evasions — but you can not ban it outright. Certainly not according to Slashdot's prevailing opinion.
So universal health care is a bad thing?
It is certainly something USSR had — and it was as bad as the rest of what they had USSR.
Ultimately, it is unfair — a citizen pays taxes into the common pool, but, when he needs treatment, it is up to the pool's administrators to decide, what is and what is not "appropriate" treatment (or, maybe, he deserves only the end-of-life counselling). Sure, insurance companies have a very similar arrangement (except any of them would be torched to the ground for even mentioning EOL), but insurance companies compete with each other and people can switch between them as they see fit.
Didn't Romney try this somewhat in MA?
"Somewhat" is a qualifier, you can drive a truck through, is not it? Your question is irrelevant, though, and the answer is "No" — Romney did not introduce "Universal" healthcare in Massachusetts.
How about when a gay couple adopt children
Is a paraplegic being discriminated against, when he is told, he can not play volleyball or practice karate? If the law requires adoptions to favor married couples, then any unmarried couple is disqualified. It is not anybody's fault that (most) gays would not marry — any more than that the paraplegic can neither jump nor kick.
But "discrimination" it is not — and neither the gays' nor the paraplegics' predicament can be rectified by a politician or any legislation, only by, one hopes, some future medical breakthroughs.