«

Bill Unruh wrote:

> Olathe <> writes:
>
> ]Bill Unruh wrote:
>
> ]> Sorry, but your pleading can be used for any speech. "We are not
> ]> restricting your right to disagree with our president. You can say all
> ]> you want about him. You will just be shot on the spot for spreading lies and
> ]> defaming him." Under your arguments all countries in the world uphold
> ]> free speech.
>
> ]I realize that. Constitutions don't work at limiting governments (note
> ]all the people who say that the US would be much better to live in if
> ]the government actually followed the Constitution). Neither does
> ]thinking about things in a certain way.
>
> ?? That is the ONLY thing consitutions do. They are limitations placed
> on the government ( and just the federal govenment in the case of the
> US constitution).

I understand that limiting the government was the purpose of the
Constitution. But by redefining or ignoring the words in them (or using
other tactics), people have gotten around the restrictions. A piece of
paper can't stop anything, only people can.

> ]It IS a lot easier for people to stop a bill from being passed than it
> ]is to stop minor, easily-hidden policy changes for a law (or case law)
> ]that has already been passed. My way of thinking also requires the law
> ]to be worded so that defaming the president is clearly made a crime
> ]("Ruining the reputation of the President is hereby a crime punishable
> ]by..."), which makes it much more obvious to the common person what's
> ]happening.
>
> That is why the US constitution stated that no law shall be passed
> limiting freedom of speech. While the wording is a bit silly, it does
> place a huge burden on the govenment (assuming that the courts actually
> try to impose the constitution-- which they often do not have the
> courage to do).
> Your idea of defining freedom of speech so narrowly does the exact
> opposite of what you want. It allows any and all restrictions on free
> speech you want, since by definition the restriction is not on the
> speech.

I started thinking about that shortly after I wrote the above. You are
correct. Plus, there's always ways for lawmakers to obscure what
they're doing, so I suppose it wouldn't be a magic bullet for clarity.

Angela Kahealani wrote:

> Public Policy, Legislation, and the reputation of POTUS have WHAT to do
> with Open Source? Open Source is a voluntary contract in commerce, and
> is outside of all that.

Well, to be nitpicky, open source wouldn't be a factor without copyright
laws, which are public policy, are legislation, and are passed by the
President. Otherwise, we could have been working for a few decades now
on automated reverse engineering tools rather than free software.

We are being a bit off-topic, though.

In article < >,
wrote:

> (Bill Unruh) wrote in message
> news:<bpten0$omc$>...
> > Free speech where the speech itself attracts punishment, for whatever
> > reason, is not free. And the USA for example does not have unrestricted
> > free speech. There are limits to free speech, but the US
> > Supreme court has outlined tests that those limits should obey. The
> > govenment must make an overwhelming case that those limits are necessary
> > to prevent immediate and serious harm.
>
> But even "free speech" is not a right in the U.S. According to our
> Consititution, the First Ammendment to the Bill of Rights says (among
> other things) there will be no law abridging the freedom of speech.
> So, I have the right to post this message, but I don't have the right
> to incite panic or a riot.

Do you have the right to incite a revolution? I have to presume that
one of the types of speech that the framers had in mind would include
the Declaration of Independence. That one-page document resulted in
many more deaths than anyone yelling "fire" in a theatre.

--
Barry Margolin,
Woburn, MA

In article <bqe2jk$4uh$>,
(Bill Unruh) wrote:

> Olathe <> writes:
>
> ]Bill Unruh wrote:
>
> ]> Sorry, but your pleading can be used for any speech. "We are not
> ]> restricting your right to disagree with our president. You can say all
> ]> you want about him. You will just be shot on the spot for spreading lies
> and
> ]> defaming him." Under your arguments all countries in the world uphold
> ]> free speech.
>
> ]I realize that. Constitutions don't work at limiting governments (note
> ]all the people who say that the US would be much better to live in if
> ]the government actually followed the Constitution). Neither does
> ]thinking about things in a certain way.
>
> ?? That is the ONLY thing consitutions do. They are limitations placed
> on the government ( and just the federal govenment in the case of the
> US constitution).

First of all, only a small part of the US Constitution, mostly the Bill
of Rights, tries to limit the government's abilities. Most of the
Constitution defines the structure of the government and the republic,
and defines some basic processes.

Second, the operative words in Olathe's statement are "don't work".
Although the Bill of Rights attempts to be very restrictive, it doesn't
always work. For instance, there are probably many NRA members who
think that the 2nd Amendment has been trampled.

--
Barry Margolin,
Woburn, MA

There will always be Open Source.
Enjoy... download, upload, run it.
Penguins and GNUs everywhere.

--
Copyright 2003 Angela Kahealani. All rights reserved without prejudice;
UCC1-207. All information and transactions are non negotiable and are
private between the parties. http://www.kahealani.com/

Barry Margolin wrote:
> First of all, only a small part of the US Constitution, mostly the Bill
> of Rights, tries to limit the government's abilities. Most of the
> Constitution defines the structure of the government and the republic,
> and defines some basic processes.
>
> Second, the operative words in Olathe's statement are "don't work".
> Although the Bill of Rights attempts to be very restrictive, it doesn't
> always work.

You are correct about that.

Back when the Constitution was in debate, there were two sides of a
debate. The Federalists wanted the Constitution to be ratified. The
Antifederalists didn't. Both sides believed that rights were from
either the Creator (see The Declaration of Independence) or human reason
(Rationalist thought). Neither side believed that governments define or
choose which rights to give people.

The Antifederalist Papers made the argument that the Bill of Rights
would actually decrease rights: making an explicit list of certain
rights would cause people to think that governments (or government
documents) are what decide what rights people have.

Looking at how I've heard people in my lifetime talk about rights, I'd
have to say the Antifederalist Papers were correct. No one talks about
God-given or natural rights anymore. They only talk about
Constitutional rights. If Constitutional rights are all we have, then
all we have is a unwillingly lenient tyranny that can collapse into an
oppressive one by an amendment or two (or a law or two that the courts
don't strike down). That doesn't fill me with too much optimism,
especially considering the PATRIOT act.

I'd recommend the Antifederalist Papers for reading. At the very least,
they're interesting.

In article <>,
Olathe <> wrote:
:Looking at how I've heard people in my lifetime talk about rights, I'd
:have to say the Antifederalist Papers were correct. No one talks about
:God-given or natural rights anymore. They only talk about
:Constitutional rights.

I still see people talking about "God-given" or "natural" rights, but
I have not yet encountered anyone who has been able to enumerate them
in any meaningful way, or even set forth how we can recognize them if
we should encounter them.

For example, do we have a "God-given right" stone a rebellious
teenaged son to death, since Deuteronomy 21:18-21 says that should
be done? Is that what a "God-given right" is, those things that
the Old Testament (or New Teastament) says one may or must do?

--
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
-- Rich Kulawiec

In article <>,
Olathe <> wrote:

> Looking at how I've heard people in my lifetime talk about rights, I'd
> have to say the Antifederalist Papers were correct. No one talks about
> God-given or natural rights anymore. They only talk about
> Constitutional rights. If Constitutional rights are all we have, then
> all we have is a unwillingly lenient tyranny that can collapse into an
> oppressive one by an amendment or two (or a law or two that the courts
> don't strike down). That doesn't fill me with too much optimism,
> especially considering the PATRIOT act.

I see your point. The problem is that in a society ruled by laws, you
need things described explicitly. If you have to deal with God-given or
natural rights, then no one really knows what their rights are --
everyone has their own opinion about what these are.

We do make reference to "common law" in some contexts. I think this
refers to traditions that have passed through many societies, so we have
a strong concensus of what it is. But even these sometimes need
adjustment as times change (an example that's much in the news lately is
the definition of "marriage", prompting movements to get it defined in
constitutions).

--
Barry Margolin,
Woburn, MA