Board 8 > Speech - Where America is still the freeest [dwmf] [offensive tweets]

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
Biolizard28 03/28/12 11:51:00 AM #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. -- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy.* - foolmo Now this is entertainment! <cite>Biolizard28 posted [p:958957] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> 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. -- I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmoNow this is entertainment! </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
XIII_rocks 03/28/12 12:31:00 PM #152:	From: MrGreenonion \| #132 We do not. No American does. If this is true then it's pointless to continue; I'm a pretty stubborn guy but even I can't comprehend being that obstinate. -- "To be fair to Herman Cain, we can't all be as wise as Slowking when he's wearing the Shellder of knowledge. Look it up, b**es." - Jon Stewart <cite>XIII_rocks posted [p:958958] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> From: MrGreenonion \| #132We do not. No American does.If this is true then it's pointless to continue; I'm a pretty stubborn guy but even I can't comprehend being that obstinate. -- "To be fair to Herman Cain, we can't all be as wise as Slowking when he's wearing the Shellder of knowledge. Look it up, b**es." - Jon Stewart </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Psycho_Kenshin 03/28/12 1:03:00 PM #153:	*Aecioo posted...* XIII said that MGS4 is objectively the best game of all time. If anyone should be thrown in jail for offensive comments, it's that guy. MGS4 is the best. Also freedom of speech. -- One Piece: Pirates with style! -= Metal Gear Solid: Tactical Espionage Action =- <cite>Psycho_Kenshin posted [p:958959] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> Aecioo posted...XIII said that MGS4 is objectively the best game of all time.If anyone should be thrown in jail for offensive comments, it's that guy.MGS4 is the best.Also freedom of speech. -- One Piece: Pirates with style!-= Metal Gear Solid: Tactical Espionage Action =- </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ExThaNemesis 03/28/12 1:10:00 PM #154:	From: XIII_rocks \| #131 I think you may be the only person who cares about that, Aecioo. Literally obsessed? That's Aiecoo's schtick. He remembers one thing about a person and will only talk to them about that for years upon years. -- http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg "Neon lights, nobel prize. When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies." <cite>ExThaNemesis posted [p:958960] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> From: XIII_rocks \| #131I think you may be the only person who cares about that, Aecioo. Literally obsessed?That's Aiecoo's schtick. He remembers one thing about a person and will only talk to them about that for years upon years. -- http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg"Neon lights, nobel prize. When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies." </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solfadore 03/28/12 1:12:00 PM #155:	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 <cite>Solfadore posted [p:958961] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> From: Biolizard28 \| #151Solfadore 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 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foolm0ron 03/28/12 2:08:00 PM #156:	Any restrictions on speech that doesn't threaten the life/liberty of another person is wrong. Obviously this means you can't say anything you want in any situation. That doesn't mean that "freedom of speech" as described in the 1st amendment ISN'T absolute. If you define free speech with the caveat that it doesn't threaten life/liberty, then it IS absolute. This might seem like a cop-out or cheating semantics or something, but like I said, since elementary school we learn that "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can go into a crowded place and yell FIRE. Our definition of freedom of speech doesn't cover every sequence of words in any combination in any situation, but it's very clear in what it does and does not allow, unlike the british system. -- _foolmo_ 'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1 <cite>foolm0ron posted [p:958962] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> Any restrictions on speech that doesn't threaten the life/liberty of another person is wrong. Obviously this means you can't say anything you want in any situation. That doesn't mean that "freedom of speech" as described in the 1st amendment ISN'T absolute. If you define free speech with the caveat that it doesn't threaten life/liberty, then it IS absolute. This might seem like a cop-out or cheating semantics or something, but like I said, since elementary school we learn that "freedom of speech" doesn't mean you can go into a crowded place and yell FIRE.Our definition of freedom of speech doesn't cover every sequence of words in any combination in any situation, but it's very clear in what it does and does not allow, unlike the british system. -- _foolmo_'Illegal activities is a slight misnomer, most of it is not related to material that is actually illegal.' - nintendogrl1 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/28/12 5:52:00 PM #157:	I actually think it might be possible to make an argument that you SHOULD be able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater... Legally speaking, of course. If anyone was actually damaged by your action, a civil suit might be in order here. Just like how I'd invite someone to attempt to sue this kid over his racist tweets in court and attempt to prove to a jury of even twelve ENGLISH people how they suffered monetary damages as a result of his racism. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:958963] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> I actually think it might be possible to make an argument that you SHOULD be able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater...Legally speaking, of course.If anyone was actually damaged by your action, a civil suit might be in order here.Just like how I'd invite someone to attempt to sue this kid over his racist tweets in court and attempt to prove to a jury of even twelve ENGLISH people how they suffered monetary damages as a result of his racism. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VincentLauw 03/28/12 6:17:00 PM #158:	hahaha oh my god this topic again America - land of the free America - land of censorship somehow these are both supposed to be true -- http://i.imgur.com/i6lzJ.gif <cite>VincentLauw posted [p:958964] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> hahaha oh my god this topic againAmerica - land of the freeAmerica - land of censorshipsomehow these are both supposed to be true -- http://i.imgur.com/i6lzJ.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MrGreenonion 03/28/12 6:21:00 PM #159:	Besides the "fire in a crowded theater" example, there's also slander, libel, obscenity, and incitement to violence that are not protected. Obscenity is a very controversial one since there are no clear guidelines of what it actually is (the classic "I know it when I see it" ruling), and as a result it is, as far as I know, very rarely applied. I'd still prefer it weren't on the books at all, but at least we aren't throwing people in jail for swearing. -- SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name... But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion <cite>MrGreenonion posted [p:958965] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> Besides the "fire in a crowded theater" example, there's also slander, libel, obscenity, and incitement to violence that are not protected. Obscenity is a very controversial one since there are no clear guidelines of what it actually is (the classic "I know it when I see it" ruling), and as a result it is, as far as I know, very rarely applied. I'd still prefer it weren't on the books at all, but at least we aren't throwing people in jail for swearing. -- SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VincentLauw 03/28/12 6:21:00 PM #160:	seriously how can you rake on other countries for denying freedom of speech in one topic and complain about Ron Paul being censored in the media and SOPA/PIPA in other ones and complain about your government literally all posters in this topic going ''MERICUH' right now do this are you bipolar? -- http://i.imgur.com/i6lzJ.gif <cite>VincentLauw posted [p:958966] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> seriously how can you rake on other countries for denying freedom of speech in one topic and complain about Ron Paul being censored in the media and SOPA/PIPA in other ones and complain about your governmentliterally all posters in this topic going ''MERICUH' right now do thisare you bipolar? -- http://i.imgur.com/i6lzJ.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
WazzupGenius00 03/28/12 6:23:00 PM #161:	The first post literally admits that we have those problems and the point was that despite that we still have it better than any other place in the world when it comes to free speech -- (10:17:09 PM) Ed Bellis: i think pac-man just keeps repeating, for instance (10:17:26 PM) ertyu: ya well tell that to billy michtlle <cite>WazzupGenius00 posted [p:958967] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> The first post literally admits that we have those problems and the point was that despite that we still have it better than any other place in the world when it comes to free speech -- (10:17:09 PM) Ed Bellis: i think pac-man just keeps repeating, for instance(10:17:26 PM) ertyu: ya well tell that to billy michtlle </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MrGreenonion 03/28/12 6:24:00 PM #162:	From: VincentLauw \| #160 seriously how can you rake on other countries for denying freedom of speech in one topic and complain about Ron Paul being censored in the media and SOPA/PIPA in other ones and complain about your government? There's a pretty big difference "corporate media will not give anyone airtime to say these things" and "people will be thrown in jail for saying these things". -- SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name... But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion <cite>MrGreenonion posted [p:958968] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> From: VincentLauw \| #160seriously how can you rake on other countries for denying freedom of speech in one topic and complain about Ron Paul being censored in the media and SOPA/PIPA in other ones and complain about your government?There's a pretty big difference "corporate media will not give anyone airtime to say these things" and "people will be thrown in jail for saying these things". -- SuperNiceDog didn't have to reconcile his name...But Dauntless Hunter is now MrGreenonion </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VincentLauw 03/28/12 6:26:00 PM #163:	*WazzupGenius00 posted...* The first post literally admits that we have those problems and the point was that despite that we still have it better than any other place in the world when it comes to free speech Oh so it's just a wank fest to see who's the better 'nation' (the fact that in a global or at least western society we still do this seems petty but whatever guys!)? We're all nimwits anyway but let's see who's the best nimwit? Seems dumb but I can live with that. -- http://i.imgur.com/i6lzJ.gif <cite>VincentLauw posted [p:958969] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> WazzupGenius00 posted...The first post literally admits that we have those problems and the point was that despite that we still have it better than any other place in the world when it comes to free speechOh so it's just a wank fest to see who's the better 'nation' (the fact that in a global or at least western society we still do this seems petty but whatever guys!)? We're all nimwits anyway but let's see who's the best nimwit? Seems dumb but I can live with that. -- http://i.imgur.com/i6lzJ.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
VincentLauw 03/28/12 6:28:00 PM #164:	*MrGreenonion posted...* From: VincentLauw \| #160 seriously how can you rake on other countries for denying freedom of speech in one topic and complain about Ron Paul being censored in the media and SOPA/PIPA in other ones and complain about your government? There's a pretty big difference "corporate media will not give anyone airtime to say these things" and "people will be thrown in jail for saying these things". Yeah, one's influential on at least a national scale, guess which one but keep laughing at those odd few cases where another country's 'freedom of speech' is suppressed I guess? -- http://i.imgur.com/i6lzJ.gif <cite>VincentLauw posted [p:958970] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> MrGreenonion posted...From: VincentLauw \| #160seriously how can you rake on other countries for denying freedom of speech in one topic and complain about Ron Paul being censored in the media and SOPA/PIPA in other ones and complain about your government?There's a pretty big difference "corporate media will not give anyone airtime to say these things" and "people will be thrown in jail for saying these things".Yeah, one's influential on at least a national scale, guess which onebut keep laughing at those odd few cases where another country's 'freedom of speech' is suppressed I guess? -- http://i.imgur.com/i6lzJ.gif </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ExThaNemesis 03/28/12 7:59:00 PM #165:	Oh also the only reason SMuffin and SephyG are upset about this is because they both hate black people. Don't let them hanging their hats on Freedom of Speech fool you. -- http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg "You're only smoke and mirrors tonight." <cite>ExThaNemesis posted [p:958971] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> Oh also the only reason SMuffin and SephyG are upset about this is because they both hate black people. Don't let them hanging their hats on Freedom of Speech fool you. -- http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg"You're only smoke and mirrors tonight." </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/28/12 8:03:00 PM #166:	see, look at that, extha is purposely slandering me and I still dont demand he be thrown in jail because im not a sniveling euro coward -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:958972] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> see, look at that, extha is purposely slandering me and I still dont demand he be thrown in jailbecause im not a sniveling euro coward -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ExThaNemesis 03/28/12 8:10:00 PM #167:	Can you slander someone without it being on purpose? -- http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg 'If you've ever doubted me you don't have a clue, I'm here to show the world.' <cite>ExThaNemesis posted [p:958973] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> Can you slander someone without it being on purpose? -- http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v712/ExTha/10and14.jpg'If you've ever doubted me you don't have a clue, I'm here to show the world.' </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 03/28/12 9:49:00 PM #168:	<I actually think it might be possible to make an argument that you SHOULD be able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater... Legally speaking, of course. If anyone was actually damaged by your action, a civil suit might be in order here. If there is a big distinction, it's probably whether it expresses an opinion, not whether someone is damaged. You can give a scathing review to a product that causes lots of lost revenue, for example. And remember, false facts are not opinions. That's why libel and slander do not fall under free speech. Just like how I'd invite someone to attempt to sue this kid over his racist tweets in court and attempt to prove to a jury of even twelve ENGLISH people how they suffered monetary damages as a result of his racism. Pain & suffering.......probably not too hard if that's the standard. But you don't have the right to avoid being offended in the USA or under the old common law of England, which has been abandoned there. Sure there are damages, but there's still no liability. As it should be, because damages are really easy to incur, and indeed, speech that produces no damages probably isn't very offensive, is it? And we know that free speech is just the protection of offensive speech. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:958974] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> <I actually think it might be possible to make an argument that you SHOULD be able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater...Legally speaking, of course.If anyone was actually damaged by your action, a civil suit might be in order here.If there is a big distinction, it's probably whether it expresses an opinion, not whether someone is damaged. You can give a scathing review to a product that causes lots of lost revenue, for example.And remember, false facts are not opinions. That's why libel and slander do not fall under free speech.Just like how I'd invite someone to attempt to sue this kid over his racist tweets in court and attempt to prove to a jury of even twelve ENGLISH people how they suffered monetary damages as a result of his racism.Pain & suffering.......probably not too hard if that's the standard. But you don't have the right to avoid being offended in the USA or under the old common law of England, which has been abandoned there. Sure there are damages, but there's still no liability. As it should be, because damages are really easy to incur, and indeed, speech that produces no damages probably isn't very offensive, is it? And we know that free speech is just the protection of offensive speech. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
NeoElfboy 03/28/12 11:05:00 PM #169:	<I actually think it might be possible to make an argument that you SHOULD be able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater... Legally speaking, of course. If anyone was actually damaged by your action, a civil suit might be in order here. I don't think I agree with that. Excessively dangerous actions likely to result in harm to others deserve punishment, whether or not they actually cause harm to others. If a driver is heavilly intoxicated at the wheel, I want to see him in jail, even if nobody is hurt from his actions. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre doesn't feel terribly different from this. -- The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion <cite>NeoElfboy posted [p:958975] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> <I actually think it might be possible to make an argument that you SHOULD be able to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater...Legally speaking, of course.If anyone was actually damaged by your action, a civil suit might be in order here.I don't think I agree with that. Excessively dangerous actions likely to result in harm to others deserve punishment, whether or not they actually cause harm to others.If a driver is heavilly intoxicated at the wheel, I want to see him in jail, even if nobody is hurt from his actions. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre doesn't feel terribly different from this. -- The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.comAn unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kotetsu534 03/28/12 11:36:00 PM #170:	Why is it so easy to accept that a majority of people accept criminal liability for people who make false allegations, or incite violence, but never those who incite racial hatred? Two countries can surely take different positions on those concepts without showing no regard for the freedom of expression (speech being a subset of expression)? That's democracy in action, non? In fact, most European countries regard the UK's relative failure to protect people's private lives against newspaper investigations/reports as scandalous (i.e. that in a huge area of public discourse, the UK does not limit free expression enough). ...under the old common law of England... The common laws of England and Scotland are still extremely important in UK law. The only areas where they are not in force are where one of the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or the EU has legislated to overrule it (this position is the same as it was over a hundred years ago - it's just that lots more law is created today than was then). -- We are living our lives Abound with so much information <cite>Kotetsu534 posted [p:958976] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> Why is it so easy to accept that a majority of people accept criminal liability for people who make false allegations, or incite violence, but never those who incite racial hatred? Two countries can surely take different positions on those concepts without showing no regard for the freedom of expression (speech being a subset of expression)? That's democracy in action, non? In fact, most European countries regard the UK's relative failure to protect people's private lives against newspaper investigations/reports as scandalous (i.e. that in a huge area of public discourse, the UK does not limit free expression enough)....under the old common law of England...The common laws of England and Scotland are still extremely important in UK law. The only areas where they are not in force are where one of the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or the EU has legislated to overrule it (this position is the same as it was over a hundred years ago - it's just that lots more law is created today than was then). -- We are living our livesAbound with so much information </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
red sox 777 03/29/12 1:06:00 AM #171:	The common laws of England and Scotland are still extremely important in UK law. The only areas where they are not in force are where one of the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or the EU has legislated to overrule it (this position is the same as it was over a hundred years ago - it's just that lots more law is created today than was then). Certainly, of course. But this is one area where Parliament has seen fit to change things. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick your 7 time champion, Link. <cite>red sox 777 posted [p:958977] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> The common laws of England and Scotland are still extremely important in UK law. The only areas where they are not in force are where one of the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or the EU has legislated to overrule it (this position is the same as it was over a hundred years ago - it's just that lots more law is created today than was then).Certainly, of course. But this is one area where Parliament has seen fit to change things. -- Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pickyour 7 time champion, Link. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
foolm0ron 03/29/12 1:34:00 AM #172:	From: VincentLauw \| #160 seriously how can you rake on other countries for denying freedom of speech in one topic and complain about Ron Paul being censored in the media and SOPA/PIPA in other ones and complain about your government literally all posters in this topic going ''MERICUH' right now do this are you bipolar? Uh, the media can choose to talk about whoever they want. We are complaining that they choose to ignore RP, which is perfectly legal, but still extremely shady and wrong. SOPA/PIPA were shocking because they were clearly against the 1st amendment, but they didn't pass, so F YEAH MURCAH for that. The NDAA passed completely unopposed though, which is pretty disgusting, but the fact is that our government right now is trying really hard to undermine civil liberties and the Constitution, so we do have some pretty critical problems. Hopefully soon this terrorist scare will die out entirely and people will realize that we have to get our liberties back. And it's actually getting worse because now when the US fails to pass something in Congress... they just go as Europe for permission instead, which makes absolutely no sense, and is definitely not legal. You guys had better fight ACTA as much as we did SOPA/PIPA. Still, we are better than any country out there, so F YEAH MERCA. <cite>foolm0ron posted [p:958978] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> From: VincentLauw \| #160seriously how can you rake on other countries for denying freedom of speech in one topic and complain about Ron Paul being censored in the media and SOPA/PIPA in other ones and complain about your governmentliterally all posters in this topic going ''MERICUH' right now do thisare you bipolar?Uh, the media can choose to talk about whoever they want. We are complaining that they choose to ignore RP, which is perfectly legal, but still extremely shady and wrong.SOPA/PIPA were shocking because they were clearly against the 1st amendment, but they didn't pass, so F YEAH MURCAH for that. The NDAA passed completely unopposed though, which is pretty disgusting, but the fact is that our government right now is trying really hard to undermine civil liberties and the Constitution, so we do have some pretty critical problems. Hopefully soon this terrorist scare will die out entirely and people will realize that we have to get our liberties back.And it's actually getting worse because now when the US fails to pass something in Congress... they just go as Europe for permission instead, which makes absolutely no sense, and is definitely not legal. You guys had better fight ACTA as much as we did SOPA/PIPA.Still, we are better than any country out there, so F YEAH MERCA. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
SmartMuffin 03/29/12 7:53:00 PM #173:	The basis of common law is natural law. Natural law by definition cannot be overridden by any government regardless of how many people vote for it. Freedom of speech is a natural right. No government has any authority to deprive you of it, and any attempt to do so is tyranny. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ <cite>SmartMuffin posted [p:958979] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> The basis of common law is natural law. Natural law by definition cannot be overridden by any government regardless of how many people vote for it.Freedom of speech is a natural right. No government has any authority to deprive you of it, and any attempt to do so is tyranny. -- SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpghttp://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/ </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
XIII_rocks 03/29/12 8:12:00 PM #174:	F YEAH MERCA. ? -- "oh my god oh my god a spider just crawled INTO MY KEYBOARD" -pxlated "It just wants some web access." - Ness26 <cite>XIII_rocks posted [p:958980] in Speech - W... [t:62375729]...</cite> <quote> F YEAH MERCA. ? -- "oh my god oh my god a spider just crawled INTO MY KEYBOARD" -pxlated"It just wants some web access." - Ness26 </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Board 8 > Speech - Where America is still the freeest [dwmf] [offensive tweets] (+) Yeah! (+)

Board 8 > Speech - Where America is still the freeest [dwmf] [offensive tweets]