Any limits to freedom of speech?

[Wall-E1]

I don't think I understand you, or maybe I do. Are you trying to say that logic does not apply, and that when you feel something is morally appropriate the issue should just stand on its own and the rationale shouldn't be expanded outward beyond the scope of your own particular uses? That's whats coming across to me anyway.

No, you don't understand me. Try rereading the earlier posts. Maybe that will help.

 

[Wall-E1]

I guess it depends on what you think are 'peoples'. Some people do believe that abortion is stepping on a babies rights. And they feel they are doing the right thing, by daily/weekly/whatever picketing saving someone's rights. The OP asked if their are limits. Pretty much short of yelling fire in a crowded theater (where there isn't a fire..now that might be someone a bit of a loon), nope.

Doesn't make them loons, anymore than the previous example of slaves made those people loons, or those who fought for the womans rights to vote, or people protesting war (and until he died we had an older man protesting daily at what used to be our city recruitment office). There are people on both 'sides', and I'm sure the oposite side had trouble understanding why people didn't agree with their 'side'.

But calling people loonie for picketing or protesting, I just don't understand what makes them looney (and of course there are always the exceptions, such as someone killing a doctor, but we weren't talking about those).

looney \looney\ (l[=oo]n"[y^]) n. someone deranged and possibly dangerous.
Syn: crazy, loony, weirdo. [WordNet 1.5]
Source: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

After reading the definition you provided, it reinforces my thought that I was using the correct term. Some of them are possibly dangerous (not all of them). They have been known to kill doctors, blow up clinics, etc. And the ones that are so passionate about this issue and would take the time to protest week after week are most likely the ones who would resort to violence to get people to "understand" them. Again, I don't think ordinary people with views on either side of this issue are looney. It's all in the way their views are presented. I'm not against protesting, picketing, etc. I just happen to think their tactics, imagery, messaging; etc. makes them appear looney.

 

[DMRick]

Oh please..you are talking about a very very small percentage...two out of thousands upon thousands over the years? Most of what I have read, have been very against violence and certainly would not advocate killing the doctor or anyone else. In their minds that is what they are protesting.

When someone puts the thoughts into others minds about any protestor, that they are dangerous, that's when fear begins. My husband had to cross a picket line for 12 weeks. It got pretty rough, but no one wanted the GE management dead. 12 solid weeks people protested, and they were angry, but my husband never feared they would kill him. Were they upset, especially when their union money ran out? Did they hold up very inappropriate signs? You betcha, but they weren't looney. Was there an occasional spat on the line? Yes, but not from 99.999% of the people.
Would the person who killed the doctor be considered looney? Probably but just because someone is picketing and doing it often, by itself does not IMO and most others.

After reading the definition you provided, it reinforces my thought that I was using the correct term. Some of them are possibly dangerous (not all of them). They have been known to kill doctors, blow up clinics, etc. And the ones that are so passionate about this issue and would take the time to protest week after week are most likely the ones who would resort to violence to get people to "understand" them. Again, I don't think ordinary people with views on either side of this issue are looney. It's all in the way their views are presented. I'm not against protesting, picketing, etc. I just happen to think their tactics, imagery, messaging; etc. makes them appear looney.

 

[palavra]

After reading the definition you provided, it reinforces my thought that I was using the correct term. Some of them are possibly dangerous (not all of them). They have been known to kill doctors, blow up clinics, etc. And the ones that are so passionate about this issue and would take the time to protest week after week are most likely the ones who would resort to violence to get people to "understand" them. Again, I don't think ordinary people with views on either side of this issue are looney. It's all in the way their views are presented. I'm not against protesting, picketing, etc. I just happen to think their tactics, imagery, messaging; etc. makes them appear looney.

I think you don't understand that there are many, many people in this country who are of perfectly sound mind that think abortion is murder and, therefore are supporting the rights of the unborn child. And, yes, i know this is now too political, but I really get irritated when people throw around the idea that someone is "mentally unstable" because he or she supports or defends a cause that said person is against it.

 

[Wall-E1]

Oh please..you are talking about a very very small percentage...two out of thousands upon thousands over the years? Most of what I have read, have been very against violence and certainly would not advocate killing the doctor or anyone else. In their minds that is what they are protesting.

When someone puts the thoughts into others minds about any protestor, that they are dangerous, that's when fear begins. My husband had to cross a picket line for 12 weeks. It got pretty rough, but no one wanted the GE management dead. 12 solid weeks people protested, and they were angry, but my husband never feared they would kill him. Were they upset, especially when their union money ran out? Did they hold up very inappropriate signs? You betcha, but they weren't looney. Was there an occasional spat on the line? Yes, but not from 99.999% of the people.
Would the person who killed the doctor be considered looney? Probably but just because someone is picketing and doing it often, by itself does not IMO and most others.

Yes, it is rare. Yet it fits the definition. And I feel constant picketing with the types of signage some of them use is bizarre and abnormal behavior for a normal adult. This is where we disagree, and there is nothing wrong with that. If I see a person week after week holding a sign with a bloody fetus and "murder" written on it in fake blood - to me, that's not normal behavior. To you, perhaps it is. So, that's about it. We both agree they have a right. You have a right to think that type of behavior is normal for an adult. I have a right to think it isn't.

 

[Wall-E1]

I think you don't understand that there are many, many people in this country who are of perfectly sound mind that think abortion is murder and, therefore are supporting the rights of the unborn child. And, yes, i know this is now too political, but I really get irritated when people throw around the idea that someone is "mentally unstable" because he or she supports or defends a cause that said person is against it.

Yes, but as I have repeated over and over again throughout this thread, I don't think opinions on either side are loony, and I don't think people are loony just because I don't agree with their views. It's all in the way the person chooses to deliver their opinions. I am not and have not thrown everybody on one side of the issue into the loony category, although many posters are trying to portray me as doing this. It's just the creepy protesters that I find loony (the types I described in earlier posts). Again, in my view there is nothing normal about a grown adult spending week after week displaying signs like that. I don't and will never find that normal behavior.

 

[palavra]

Yes, but as I have repeated over and over again throughout this thread, I don't think opinions on either side are loony, and I don't think people are loony just because I don't agree with their views. It's all in the way the person chooses to deliver their opinions. I am not and have not thrown everybody on one side of the issue into the loony category, although many posters are trying to portray me as doing this. It's just the creepy protesters that I find loony (the types I described in earlier posts). Again, in my view there is nothing normal about a grown adult spending week after week displaying signs like that. I don't and will never find that normal behavior.

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

[DMRick]

I have seen signs such as the ones described. I also think they are loonies - not because of whether I agree with them or not. It's the content of their signs and the whole standing out there week after week. It may be legal, but it is definitely not normal adult behavior. .

This is where I got the idea that you thought all of the protestors at a PP type clinic were looney. Or maybe any protestors protesting anything week after week. Because you said it. The above does mention the signs, but also mentions them standing there week after week. And you are right, I don't agree with you. But lucky for us, we have freedom of speech and can both state that.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

See, I don't get the whole standing somewhere waving a sign as a constructive behavior to protest something you don't like. If you're doing it as part of a large crowd and it's part of an activity designed to get lawmakers and other influential people to realize that a large number of people hold a certain opinion, I get that. (Like a march on Washington.) If you're doing it to let people know that an organization engages in activities you're against because people in the community might not know that, I can see that. (Like protesting outside a corporation because you don't agree with a policy you feel is immoral, or Union members protesting non-union labor. In the end consumers decide if this is okay with them, but they do so with more knowledge.)

But, for example, if I were stand on a street corner holding a sign showing a cat being put to death, that wouldn't be constructive or do any useful purpose. A useful purpose is fostering kittens or doing adoptions of cats. A useful purpose is helping people spay and neuter cats.

The only people I've ever known who thought standing out somewhere holding any sort of sign day in and day out for no stated purpose other than proving a point about something they felt passionate about just weren't all there. (And I'm thinking of people on the Left and on the Right!) And generally, they were a bit scary.

 

[Wall-E1]

This is where I got the idea that you thought all of the protestors at a PP type clinic were looney. Or maybe any protestors protesting anything week after week. Because you said it. The above does mention the signs, but also mentions them standing there week after week. And you are right, I don't agree with you. But lucky for us, we have freedom of speech and can both state that.

Right, it's the combination of the two. My quote again - It's the content of their signs and the whole standing out there week after week. Those are my feelings on the matter. I said it before and I'll say it again. I find them to be abnormal. However that does not transfer to everybody with an opposing view of mine. I wouldn't think you to be abnormal. You seem like a well spoken, intelligent and normal person with an opposing view. Now, if I were to see you picketing with fake blood and graphic photos of fetuses week after week, my opinion of you might change.

 

[DMRick]

But, for example, if I were stand on a street corner holding a sign showing a cat being put to death, that wouldn't be constructive or do any useful purpose. A useful purpose is fostering kittens or doing adoptions of cats. A useful purpose is helping people spay and neuter cats.

Actually, since this is very close to my heart...many many rescue type groups (we don't happen to, but we do benefit by the true pictures) do use photos of cats and dogs staving to death, hit by cars, kittens with no mama to take care of them, and they show the mama's body after being hit by a car etc, to point out the plight of too many cats and dogs to find homes for. There is even a very very sad ad by the ASPCA on TV, showing cats and dogs not cared for, and what has happened to them. I have to turn away, and I've been there when they have been brought in.

I saw an ad once that showed cats and dogs being led to a gas chamber many years ago...that was a very successful ad, in terms of adoptions, however, it made people mad as well, that it was shown.

Does it help? Seems to. When these type of ads are run (or someone puts out an ad with a mama cat caught in a leg trap, and her babies starving next to her), our adoptions go up. Wish I could say we get lots of adoptions by just standing around at adoption clinics..but it's those sad ads (and our sad stories, of how we got the cats we are adopting out) that move the people.

Our shelters are full..we do what we have to do to move people to adopt. We (just the one Animal shelter) spay and neuter over 100 cats a week..and we have a month and a half waiting period. So, yes, some people are passionate enough to stand outside a pet store week after week holding a sign announcing we have kittens that need to be saved, if they must, to move people. And obviously, some people are passionate enough about other things, such as the OP, or the PP picketers to do the same.

 

[bicker]

Let's not get all loony here. Nobody said that all forms of protesting and picketing signal a mentally unstable person. I was speaking of people who display signs such as the ones I have described above.

In other words: You were saying that only the folks who qualify under the criteria that you get to set forth are mentally unstable. That's indefensible.

The experts make enough mistakes, in this regard, already; we surely don't need additional error driven into the system by starting to rely on the gut-feel of non-experts.

I don't think I understand you, or maybe I do. Are you trying to say that logic does not apply, and that when you feel something is morally appropriate the issue should just stand on its own and the rationale shouldn't be expanded outward beyond the scope of your own particular uses? That's whats coming across to me anyway.

Yeah, I felt that vibe too.

Now to be fair, once speech goes over into inciting action against people, then perhaps PP has a point. But as long as the speech is of the order, "Please agree with me and live like this," or "Please agree with me and don't live like that," then it is perfectly okay. That makes all the difference... what the speech is trying to accomplish: Changing people's minds is acceptable; prompting people to hurt others or to damage property is not.

 

[Wall-E1]

In other words: You were saying that only the folks who qualify under the criteria that you get to set forth are mentally unstable. That's indefensible.

The experts make enough mistakes, in this regard, already; we surely don't need additional error driven into the system by starting to rely on the gut-feel of non-experts.

Let me rephrase that quote to help you and other like minded people understand my opinion of those particular types of protesters. Here goes -

Let's not get all Sheldon Cooper here (character on the hit sitcom - Big Bang Theory, or is it a character driven comedy? Hmm... I don't want to say for sure. Let me leave that to the experts). Nobody said that all forms of protesting and picketing signal a Dr. House (character on the hit drama House - could also be classified under the sub group medical drama) type person. I was speaking of people that display signs such as the one I have described in an earlier episode of this thread.

 

[bicker]

How do you tell the difference between actual "signs such as the one..." versus just your perceiving it as such because of your own biases? That's the question, and that's what I believe folks are pointing out to you.

 

[Wall-E1]

How do you tell the difference between actual "signs such as the one..." versus just your perceiving it as such because of your own biases? That's the question, and that's what I believe folks are pointing out to you.

Actually, I found the other posters on this thread to be quite literate and comprehensible. I don't think they needed you to clarify what they were trying to point out. I understand their points. I simply don't agree with them, and they don't agree with me. Why didn't you clarify the point I was trying to make? You're not biased, are you?

I'm not sure what the point of your biased question is. That could be asked of any of the posters. How do they tell the difference between actual signs of sanity such as the one... versus just perceiving it as such because of their own biases. I think the answer for all of us would be life experiences and judgement. We are all individuals. In my life experience, scrawling messages in fake blood on signs and displaying photos or dolls of dead fetuses week after week is not normal behavior. Some other posters felt that was normal behavior. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. By singling me out, you have shown your bias by only asking me what criteria I use to determine abnormal behavior, while not asking how they determined that a protester displaying messages in fake blood and dead fetuses is displaying normal behavior.

 

[bicker]

Actually, I found the other posters on this thread to be quite literate and comprehensible. I don't think they needed you to clarify what they were trying to point out. I understand their points.

I'm not so sure, but it actually doesn't matter: At the very least, you didn't answer my question, directly, so let's start there: How do you tell the difference between actual "signs such as the one..." versus just your perceiving it as such because of your own biases?

I'm not sure what the point of your biased question is.

The question isn't biased. I'm asking you directly how you tell the difference between signs that are really there versus signs that are just reflections of your own biases. It is a fundamental question, getting to the root of the issue.

That could be asked of any of the posters.

I've already answered it: I say leave medical diagnoses to the medical experts.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

That's not true, in this case: The issue is how to determine mental instability. That isn't a matter of personal lay-opinion, but rather is a matter of professional opinion. Unless, as I was getting at earlier, you're claiming special privilege that would have your personal lay-opinion trump professional opinion, or would identify yourself as a recognized expert on mental instability.

By singling me out, you have shown your bias by only asking me what criteria I use to determine abnormal behavior, while not asking how they determined that a protester displaying messages in fake blood and dead fetuses is displaying normal behavior.

Are they saying that? If so, then surely my question would apply. I think, though, that most of them are simply saying you can't say what you're saying. There's a difference, and I pointed out, very clearly, what that difference is, earlier in this reply.

 

[cm8]

In other words: You were saying that only the folks who qualify under the criteria that you get to set forth are mentally unstable. That's indefensible.

The experts make enough mistakes, in this regard, already; we surely don't need additional error driven into the system by starting to rely on the gut-feel of non-experts.


Yeah, I felt that vibe too.

Now to be fair, once speech goes over into inciting action against people, then perhaps PP has a point. But as long as the speech is of the order, "Please agree with me and live like this," or "Please agree with me and don't live like that," then it is perfectly okay. That makes all the difference... what the speech is trying to accomplish: Changing people's minds is acceptable; prompting people to hurt others or to damage property is not.

 

[LuvOrlando]

WOW, that was some fancy foot work back to solid ground. In a word impressive, obvious but impressive nonetheless.

 

[Wall-E1]

I'm not so sure, but it actually doesn't matter: At the very least, you didn't answer my question, directly, so let's start there: How do you tell the difference between actual "signs such as the one..." versus just your perceiving it as such because of your own biases?
We don't need to start anywhere. I already answered the question and I don't feel that I can simplify the answer for you any further. I understand that reading comprehension is sometimes challenging. Try rereading.

The question isn't biased. I'm asking you directly how you tell the difference between signs that are really there versus signs that are just reflections of your own biases. It is a fundamental question, getting to the root of the issue.

I've already answered it: I say leave medical diagnoses to the medical experts.
I'm sorry, but I will need to know what expert qualifications you possess that qualifies you to determine what the root of the issue is.

That's not true, in this case: The issue is how to determine mental instability. That isn't a matter of personal lay-opinion, but rather is a matter of professional opinion. Unless, as I was getting at earlier, you're claiming special privilege that would have your personal lay-opinion trump professional opinion, or would identify yourself as a recognized expert on mental instability.
Here we differ. I believe everybody has a right to an opinion. I would be interested in hearing what expert qualifications you possess that allow you to determine what subject matter people are allowed to have opinions on and what subject matters they are not allowed to. Perhaps you are new to the Disboards, but regular people give their opinions to a variety of medical inquiries almost daily. Perhaps, you should begin pulling up every thread related to a medical issue or condition and let them know that they are not allowed to offer their opinions, as they are not all medical professionals.

Are they saying that? If so, then surely my question would apply. I think, though, that most of them are simply saying you can't say what you're saying. There's a difference, and I pointed out, very clearly, what that difference is, earlier in this reply.
I don't think anyone said I can't say what I'm saying. They have said that they don't agree with my opinion, but until you showed up, there wasn't any talk of not allowing opinions.

.

 

[snarlingcoyote]

Actually, since this is very close to my heart...many many rescue type groups (we don't happen to, but we do benefit by the true pictures) do use photos of cats and dogs staving to death, hit by cars, kittens with no mama to take care of them, and they show the mama's body after being hit by a car etc, to point out the plight of too many cats and dogs to find homes for. There is even a very very sad ad by the ASPCA on TV, showing cats and dogs not cared for, and what has happened to them. I have to turn away, and I've been there when they have been brought in.

I saw an ad once that showed cats and dogs being led to a gas chamber many years ago...that was a very successful ad, in terms of adoptions, however, it made people mad as well, that it was shown.

Does it help? Seems to. When these type of ads are run (or someone puts out an ad with a mama cat caught in a leg trap, and her babies starving next to her), our adoptions go up. Wish I could say we get lots of adoptions by just standing around at adoption clinics..but it's those sad ads (and our sad stories, of how we got the cats we are adopting out) that move the people.

Our shelters are full..we do what we have to do to move people to adopt. We (just the one Animal shelter) spay and neuter over 100 cats a week..and we have a month and a half waiting period. So, yes, some people are passionate enough to stand outside a pet store week after week holding a sign announcing we have kittens that need to be saved, if they must, to move people. And obviously, some people are passionate enough about other things, such as the OP, or the PP picketers to do the same.

Actually, my last bottlefeed litter just got adopted out (empty nest syndrome right now! DH is working 7 days a week right now and I'm working 80 hour weeks - we won't do any fosters until we're both working more reasonable hours.) and I spend my weekends helping out with adoption fairs at crowded locations. My money and my time go into rescuing cats.

And no, I still don't see that standing on street corner or, going back to the OP, a rotary carrying a picture of a dead cat does a great deal of good. I really don't like those Sarah McCloghlin ads either. They hit the heartstrings and maybe people donate, but do they even know where their money is going or if they agree with the ASPCA philosophically? (I'm in Winograd's camp. ) Do they think about it long-term? Do they make a commitment to making the lives of animals better?

Educating people, real work with real money behind it, that changes things long term. I just think shock and awe has both a limited function and it's usually manned by folks who. . uhm. . .tend to be a bit off kilter. JMHO.