From: Biolizard28 | #151
Solfadore posted...
How are these not speech? If you're saying freedom of speech is absolute and should be constitutionally protected in all cases, why are you fine with speech being trampled in the three instances I listed? Because even though these actions seem wrong and may well be qualified as 'crimes', they are only, in the end, speech.
Unless you think freedom of speech is NOT absolute, in which case I fully agree with you with the irrelevance of these examples.
You're taking the concept of speech entirely literally and ignoring the fact that all of your examples have tangible effects on others and their basic rights. You're like one of the know it all children who act out during recess because they learned in their history lesson that they live in a free country. Our right to free speech comes with certain responsibilities, the big one being that we don't use it to trample on the rights of others. That's common sense. Nobody has the right not to be offended, because what is considered offensive is entirely subjective, and the ability to regulate offensive speech has so much potential for abuse, that anyone who is capable of it should register as a super.
If you really think I'm bulls***ting you about the government abusing such a rule, look up the commerce clause. They will use the tools you give them. They're not stupid.
Dude, I agree with you. Reread my posts. I'm not saying regulating merely offensive speech is fine. It's not. It's ****ing stupid and dangerous.
I'm simply preaching against those that hold free speech to be absolute and that any restrictions on speech is entirely wrong and indefensible. Free speech, *outside* of offensive speech (which the State has no place regulating, period) - violent speech, for instance - is a complex and nuanced issue and should not be oversimplified.
--
When you have nothing to say, quote yourself ~ Solfadore