"Bill Sohl" wrote


Just some additional things to consider...it isn't just a black and
white issue. There's all sorts of grey areas in the realm of free
speech limits.


Hi Bill,

Long time, no see! Hope you're well.

Everything you've described is a PRICE, not a limit.

In accordance with the US Constitution I can say anything I want to say. The
price I pay may be that I lose acess to a particular channel communications
channel, but I am in no way limited in what I may say. The control freaks may
persuade the likes of "Consolidated" to decline to carry Todd's words to us, but
in no way can they prevent him from saying them. Unfortunately, rather than
engage in an honest two-way dialog with someone with the grapes to identify
himself, it is likely that Todd will become another of the many "Lloyd's" who
infest rrap.

"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution

I know that by pointing this out I stand in danger of the same treatment as
accorded to Todd, but let Steve do "his best" as he earlier alluded in relation
to a member of my family.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Sohl" wrote

A limit is unconstitutional on it's face, and imposing a limit CAN put you in
jail.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Yet we all know yelling "fire" in a theater is illegal and forbidden by
law.


Abridging freedom of speech means denying a person the right to express their
ideas. Yelling "fire" in a theater (when no fire exists) is not the expression
of an idea, but rather an act calculated to cause panic. The legal sanction is
not against stating the word "fire", but rather against "public endangerment".

I'm sure you can dig up all kinds of laws against "public endangerment", but I
challenge you to find one specifically against yelling "fire".

"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Bill Sohl" wrote in message
nk.net...

:
: Yet we all know yelling "fire" in a theater is illegal and forbidden by
: law...
:

Show us the law.

Freedom of speech gives you the right. That doesn't mean you -do- that, it
means you -have the freedom to do- that, which is an excellent freedom to
have available if you should happen to see a fire in a theater.

Practically, if you hear someone yell "FIRE!" then you have some decisions
to make. Are you going to believe that person or not, especially when you
see nothing? If you do believe this person, are you going to run for the
door like a crazed animal, or quickly make your way to the exit in a
civilized manner?

Whichever you choose, it's -your- choice and -your- responsibility. It
is -not- the responsibility of the person who yelled "FIRE!" that -you-
chose one direction or another.

Thinking that it is the responsibility of the person who yelled "FIRE!"
strips your power away from you and makes you not responsible for your
life. Is that what you want?

73,

M.A.N.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire

K=D8HB wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote


This liability for the effects of one's "free speech" are a limit
even though
it is not censorship.


There can be a PRICE for exercising free speech, but there is no
LIMIT.

"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution

A limit is unconstitutional on it's face, and imposing a limit CAN
put you in
jail.

And the very Constitution you quote, Hans, is a man made document
subject to the "Ammendments" made by those same men (and now women...).
It needs a re-vamping.

Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote

And the very Constitution you quote, Hans, is a man made document
subject to the "Ammendments" made by those same men (and now
women...). It needs a re-vamping.

There are mechanisms in place for citizens to work toward repeal of the 1st
Ammendment, Steve. Go to work on that. In the meantime, accept it as the law
of the land.

Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote


There is a very painful and delicate balance between the lattitude
permitted by what we call "free speech" and where your "right" to
be
abusive in public stops.


"As it is an ancient truth that freedom cannot be legislated into
existence, so
it is no less obvious that freedom cannot be censored into
existence."
-- Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th US President

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of speech and that cannot be
limited without
being lost."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd US President

I seriously doubt that Thomas Jefferson or ANY of the Founding
Fathers could have envisioned a society where thier cherished
principles would be so abused and misused as these.

Please, Hans...Show me SOME really GOOD reason why it's necessary
to allow the kind of conduct that Todd et al would shove down our
throats under the guise of "Freedom of Speech".

An entire nation was created without so much as one "MF", "GD" or
other profanity having made it into print or recorded as having been
said in any public forum.

Nor was it necessary for such "speech" to be recorded in history
duing the Civil War, the "War to End All Wars" or the Second World War.
We managed to save "democracy" from the Nazis, Communists and Facists
without worrying about whose civil rights we might be violating by not
allowing them to call someone a

The only valid limitation of free speech under our Constitution is
your
individual right not to listen.

There is no truly "free" society, Hans. "We" as a society decide
what standards we consider to be necessary for that society to be
judged a worthy entity.

There are valid limitations on "freedom of speech", Hans, and it
will be an ever-evolving concept.

I for one do not believe there's a single good reason to allow the
kind of profanity that spews forth from Taylorville, Illinois, to be
allowed in ANY forum.

Steve, K4YZ

"K4YZ" wrote

There are valid limitations on "freedom of speech", Hans, and it
will be an ever-evolving concept.

As much as I dislike the potty-mouth antics of Todd, he (and all citizens) are
protected by rights laid out in Ammendment I of the Constitution.

Until you repeal that Ammendment (pack a lunch, it'll be a long job) the only
limitation you can place on my Freedom of Speech is your right not to listen.
Feel free to start any time.

ZBM2,

de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote


There is a very painful and delicate balance between the lattitude
permitted by what we call "free speech" and where your "right" to
be
abusive in public stops.


"As it is an ancient truth that freedom cannot be legislated into
existence, so
it is no less obvious that freedom cannot be censored into
existence."
-- Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th US President

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of speech and that cannot be
limited without
being lost."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd US President

The only valid limitation of free speech under our Constitution is
your
individual right not to listen.

ZBM2,

de Hans, K0HB

The fifth amendment gives Steve the right to be silent, but he won't.
The only time he get's quiet is when it comes time to back up his
claims of MARS service or seven hostile actions, but he quickly fills
in the silence with more accusations.