Re: End of all Open Source.

Barry Margolin wrote:

> Free speech is not an absolute, and there are limits. The usual examples
> are yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there's no fire and
> slander/libel. In this case, national security is presumably the reason
> for the limit.

I think that free speech is an absolute, but you can be held responsible
for other things that happen to be caused by speech. For instance, if
someone says they are going to hit me, I can charge them with assault.
They were free to say the words, but they aren't free to threaten me
with physical violence (by word or action) because I have the right to
self-defense (including asking a court to place them in jail).

In the case of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, it's not so much
that the speech is restricted as causing a panic/destruction of
property/etc. is restricted.

You might think that I'm making distinctions that don't matter, but it's
a lot harder for those in power to start restricting unharmful speech
(that they happen to disagree with) if they can't reasonably use the
argument you did. My reasoning takes the emotional focus off of the
speech and puts it on the actions that caused harm (assault, inciting a
panic, property damage, etc.) and STILL allows you to convict someone
based on what they said.

Olathe

Olathe <> writes:

]Barry Margolin wrote:

]> Free speech is not an absolute, and there are limits. The usual examples
]> are yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there's no fire and
]> slander/libel. In this case, national security is presumably the reason
]> for the limit.

]I think that free speech is an absolute, but you can be held responsible
]for other things that happen to be caused by speech. For instance, if
]someone says they are going to hit me, I can charge them with assault.
]They were free to say the words, but they aren't free to threaten me
]with physical violence (by word or action) because I have the right to
]self-defense (including asking a court to place them in jail).

]In the case of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, it's not so much
]that the speech is restricted as causing a panic/destruction of
]property/etc. is restricted.

]You might think that I'm making distinctions that don't matter, but it's
]a lot harder for those in power to start restricting unharmful speech
](that they happen to disagree with) if they can't reasonably use the
]argument you did. My reasoning takes the emotional focus off of the
]speech and puts it on the actions that caused harm (assault, inciting a
]panic, property damage, etc.) and STILL allows you to convict someone
]based on what they said.

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.

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.

(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.

writes:

] (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.

Sorry, in what sense is "free speech" not a right, if the consitution
states tha no law abridging it is allowed?

And the supreme court has stated that it is possible for Congress to
pass laws which do abridge the freedom of speech, but they must be
specific and in answer to an immediate and actual harm. Thus treason
laws are valid. Flag burning laws are not.

(Bill Unruh) wrote in message news:<bq5c1v$puo$>...
> Sorry, in what sense is "free speech" not a right, if the consitution
> states tha no law abridging it is allowed?

There's a difference, to me, between freedom of speech and free
speech. It's slight, and the two terms have been used interchageably
by many people.

I understand free speech to mean the ability to say or the action of
saying anything one wants, and freedom of speech as the right to and
responsibility for saying anything one wants without violating anyone
else's rights.

> And the supreme court has stated that it is possible for Congress to
> pass laws which do abridge the freedom of speech, but they must be
> specific and in answer to an immediate and actual harm. Thus treason
> laws are valid.

Accepted. There were few national security secrets two hundred years
ago that could do the kind of harm they can now.

> Flag burning laws are not.

Flag-burning laws would be against US Code. Traitor-burning laws
haven't been passed yet.

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.

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.

It's all about adding friction and clarity to the process, rather than
preventing it.

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).

]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.

]It's all about adding friction and clarity to the process, rather than
]preventing it.

writes:

] (Bill Unruh) wrote in message news:<bq5c1v$puo$>...
]> Sorry, in what sense is "free speech" not a right, if the consitution
]> states tha no law abridging it is allowed?

]There's a difference, to me, between freedom of speech and free
]speech. It's slight, and the two terms have been used interchageably
]by many people.

]I understand free speech to mean the ability to say or the action of
]saying anything one wants, and freedom of speech as the right to and
]responsibility for saying anything one wants without violating anyone
]else's rights.

And the US constitution proetcts the former, not the latter.
As interpreted, certain forms of speech are restricted, but the
decisions of the US Supreme court go way beyond " as long as noone elses
rights are violated".

]> And the supreme court has stated that it is possible for Congress to
]> pass laws which do abridge the freedom of speech, but they must be
]> specific and in answer to an immediate and actual harm. Thus treason
]> laws are valid.

]Accepted. There were few national security secrets two hundred years
]ago that could do the kind of harm they can now.

Sure there were. You have heard of Benedict Arnold haven't you?

]> Flag burning laws are not.

]Flag-burning laws would be against US Code. Traitor-burning laws
]haven't been passed yet.
?? And what do you call the outcome of the Rosenburg trials?

Bill Unruh wrote:

> ]Flag-burning laws would be against US Code. Traitor-burning laws
> ]haven't been passed yet.
> ?? And what do you call the outcome of the Rosenburg trials?

I don't know, justice?

But they were electrocuted. While they may have singed and smoked a bit
(Ethel especially), they weren't turned into Pres-To-Logs.

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.


--
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/