Any limits to freedom of speech?

[bicker]

I don't think the philosophies the US was based upon

Are you really saying that our nation is based on the idea that everyone does what they want without regard to what anyone else thinks, and without regard to people's qualifications and credentials? Wow, if you believe that, then we have no common ground on which to discuss the issue.

I think if the elitists who think the underclasses aren't fit to govern themselves ever get a chance to push the majority out of the way THEN we'll be undone.

So you're effectively saying that President John F. Kennedy would have been just as correct in appointing the brother of the CEO of Philip Morris as Surgeon General in 1961, instead of Dr. Luther Terry, a pioneer in cardiovascular clinical investigation. That makes no sense.

Don't you see how polarized people are?

A lot of the polarization stems from people believing that they are personally more important than everyone else. The "ME" generation has taken hold.

 

[moburg]

No matter what a person's political stance is, I think that is just wrong

Popular speech needs no protection. The First Amendment is there to protect unpopular speech.

 

[perdidochas]

Just want to preface this thread that I am NOT writing to cause or discuss political opinions-I"m just wondering what the limits are on freedom of speech in this situation....

I live in a small town. As you enter the center of town you come to a rotary with some businesses situated around it and a small park and gazebo in the middle. The other day, I saw a man standing in the middle of the rotary (where the small park is) holding a sign with a picture of a certain political figure (I won' say who because that is not the point of this thread) and a picture of Hitler. Under it was a very hateful message comparing the two political figures. It was a very disturbing message & I'm hoping it's OK to express on this board that any large picture of Hitler is disturbing in itself. Anyways, the man remained there with his poster for the rest of the day and returned the day after. I have not seen him there since and I'm hoping he has made his point and will let it go.

Anyways, due to freedom of speech, nothing can be done to stop this man from standing in the center of town on town property with his sign, right? He was not yelling anything-he was waving and smiling as the cars were driving by

No matter what a person's political stance is, I think that is just wrong

What was wrong with it?

 

[perdidochas]

That's what I figured....now, if people who were driving around the rotary started slowing down and arguing with this guy, is that considered "civil unrest"?

The people slowing down are causing the problem. If they want to argue, they should stop to talk.

 

[bunkkinsmom]

So you're effectively saying that President John F. Kennedy would have been just as correct in appointing the brother of the CEO of Philip Morris as Surgeon General in 1961, instead of Dr. Luther Terry, a pioneer in cardiovascular clinical investigation. That makes no sense.

A lot of the polarization stems from people believing that they are personally more important than everyone else. The "ME" generation has taken hold.

Bicker why would you take such a general statement and narrow it down to ONE instance. THAT makes no sense.

If you believe that the polarization stems from what you stated above, you are entitled to that belief. I believe that as Americans we all have the freedom to express our opinions, and frankly, our individual opinions seem to make people angry. My opinions, if I expressed them passionately, would make lots of people on these boards angry. As I know that some of yours have (I read your posts! ) That sort of snowballs, gets people talking, and voila! POLARIZATION!

You really don't need to have several college degrees and use big words to see it. It's day to day life, and in MY case, it has nothing to do with the ME generation, it has to do with my kids' generation.

 

[Sanchez]

Yup, and I suspect that's what's going to eventually knock nation down from its place of primacy - everyone deciding that their way must be the way, going so far as to place their own perspectives over everyone else's, even when it is a question between one's own personal preference and the medical expertise of a medical professional regarding a medical issue. We see so much of that, in action, already today. Sad, really.

Yet so many wish for govermental control of medical decisions. Why is that okay?

 

[Wall-E1]

Yup, and I suspect that's what's going to eventually knock nation down from its place of primacy - everyone deciding that their way must be the way, going so far as to place their own perspectives over everyone else's, even when it is a question between one's own personal preference and the medical expertise of a medical professional regarding a medical issue. We see so much of that, in action, already today. Sad, really.

Well, that's an interesting theory to say the least. I don't see our nation falling from primacy because of that. It just doesn't make much sense and doesn't seem entirely based in reality. I don't fully understand your example. I don't know of anyone who puts their own perspectives over the expertise of a medical professional. And I don't understand how you seem to be connecting your theory of large numbers of people ignoring doctor's advice/diagnoses as contributing to the fall of our country from primacy. You say that you see so much of that. Where do you see that? Can you give examples?

 

[perdidochas]

I don't think it depends what side of the issue you stand on. The protesters certainly aren't fighting to expand peoples' rights by what they are doing.

If talking about PP protestors, of course they are. They are fighting to expand the rights of the unborn child. Yes, it takes away from the rights of the pregnant mother, but then again, ending slavery did the same thing. Giving rights to the slaves took away from the rights of the slave holders.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Are you really saying that our nation is based on the idea that everyone does what they want without regard to what anyone else thinks, and without regard to people's qualifications and credentials? Wow, if you believe that, then we have no common ground on which to discuss the issue.

So you're effectively saying that President John F. Kennedy would have been just as correct in appointing the brother of the CEO of Philip Morris as Surgeon General in 1961, instead of Dr. Luther Terry, a pioneer in cardiovascular clinical investigation. That makes no sense.

A lot of the polarization stems from people believing that they are personally more important than everyone else. The "ME" generation has taken hold.

No, quite the opposite, the fact that every entity is allowed to pursue whatever he/she feels is in their best interest, coupled with the tendency of those 'self interests' to congregate as a cohesive group (group membership demands co-operation/bending), virtually guarantees that no one particular 'ME' or small group of 'ME' ever gets control, no matter how right the 'ME' thinks they are or how foolish they believe everyone else is... that's the beauty of Democracy.

The system of checks and balances, our system, is a blend which acts as much a safeguard against special interests as it is a safeguard against incoherence. We have the Executive Branch driven by the Electoral College, Congress elected by the huddled masses, and the Judiciary, who get voted in mostly by the masses and then appointed by various extensions of the Executive Branch. If people can't unify they stagnate, as well it should be because the wild swings are rendered powerless by the, patient, tolerant, careful majority.

Personally, I think the system I am lucky to live under is an exquisitely constructed system which moves as an elegant pendulum that swings back & forth, always spending most its time in the middle. To me it's a beautiful thing BTW, it's ok with me that some disagree, and I'll even listen but chances are I'm never going to be convinced a better system exists. Philosophically, the system is very much where I am.

 

[bicker]

Bicker why would you take such a general statement and narrow it down to ONE instance. THAT makes no sense.

Of course it make sense. If someone presents a generalization, then all that is necessary to disprove it is one counter-example. That's actually codified in the generally-accepted rules for "sense".

Regardless, my reply was a representative reply. It was not the only case in history where some decision that affected the course of our nation's overall health policy benefited from having a medical expert making the decision, instead of someone who was not a medical expert.

Remember, LuvOrlando's comment followed my reply to Wall-E1's indefensible assertion that we should defer to his declaration-by-personal-fiat of medical unfitness of the person discussed in the OP. What you're probably bumping up against is that what you want is for what LuvOrlando said to be valid. I can sympathize. But its not. Medical determinations are best made by medical professionals, fully-informed medical professionals. Calling them "elitist" because you want to have free reign to insult people with impunity is ludicrous.

I believe that as Americans we all have the freedom to express our opinions

Everyone does. The issue we're discussing (perhaps you jumped in late) is the matter of relative legitimacy of those opinions. Medical determinations are legitimately those made by medical professionals.

It's day to day life, and in MY case, it has nothing to do with the ME generation, it has to do with my kids' generation.

Not to pick on you, but everything always does seem to be someone else's fault.

 

[bicker]

Yet so many wish for govermental control of medical decisions. Why is that okay?

First, I never said it was okay, so why are you asking me?

Second, from what I remember of what what said by those who wish for the government to take a stronger role in medical decisions, their changes would ensure that medical professionals have the preeminent role in injecting the medical determinations into the process, so your concern, in that regard, is unfounded.

 

[bicker]

I don't see our nation falling from primacy because of that.

That's the problem.

It just doesn't make much sense and doesn't seem entirely based in reality.

A sentence without content. Since I'm speaking about what will be, references to reality is ridiculous. You were better-off sticking with your first point, that you just don't see the practice of placing one's own personal opinion over all others having negative impact. That, at least, we can agree to disagree about.

I don't fully understand your example. I don't know of anyone who puts their own perspectives over the expertise of a medical professional. And I don't understand how you seem to be connecting your theory of large numbers of people ignoring doctor's advice/diagnoses as contributing to the fall of our country from primacy.

It's not just a matter of ignoring doctor's advice. The example that started this discussion was your declaration of a medical determination regarding the person referred to in the OP. You put yourself in the position of making a medical diagnosis, without the credentials, and without access to adequate information for even a professional to make that determination. That's shameful.

 

[Wall-E1]

If talking about PP protestors, of course they are. They are fighting to expand the rights of the unborn child. Yes, it takes away from the rights of the pregnant mother, but then again, ending slavery did the same thing. Giving rights to the slaves took away from the rights of the slave holders.

Yes, but I don't agree with those views. I'm talking about the rights of existing citizens (the ones with names and social security numbers). I know some will disagree and I'm not interested in a debate. I respect and understand their views. I just don't agree with them. I also do not think them loony or unbalanced. Those comments were reserved for the extreme protesters that have been described several times throughout this thread. As to the slaves, here is what I said earlier in the thread...

Of course, most adults realize that we were not taking away rights, but instead we were righting a wrong

I would like to add that using the viewpoint of slave owners losing their rights in your example is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard. Except for a racist minority, all Americans would agree that by the slaves being freed, a great injustice was corrected, and this country became a stronger and more just nation. It was not a case of one group losing rights, except in the minds of the truly twisted.

 

[Wall-E1]

That's the problem.
So, because I stated a preference to the colors red and green, you think that is part of the problem as to why this country will fall from primacy. Well, that makes perfect sense. Do you not see how bizarre your posts are becoming? Let me try to bring you back to reality. You asked me to consider using in a different text color. I politely declined. You see Bicker, when you suggest something to a person, they might take that suggestion or they might not. I think you're just pouting for not getting your way. Sorry, grow up.

A sentence without content. Since I'm speaking about what will be, references to reality is ridiculous. You were better-off sticking with your first point, that you just don't see the practice of placing one's own personal opinion over all others having negative impact. That, at least, we can agree to disagree about.
I was just stating my opinion that your theory does not seem based on reality. You may think that our nation is going to be knocked down from primacy because of people choosing their own preferences over medical professional's advice. Most people would not agree with you and find the entire theory odd. I'm sure it all makes sense in your head though. I'm sorry that the rest of us can't understand it.

It's not just a matter of ignoring doctor's advice. The example that started this discussion was your declaration of a medical determination regarding the person referred to in the OP. You put yourself in the position of making a medical diagnosis, without the credentials, and without access to adequate information for even a professional to make that determination. That's shameful.
Even though we've never met, I think I can come up with a pretty accurate diagnosis of you just based on this thread and your behavior in other threads. I know, it's shameful. I'm just that good.

 

[DMRick]

Just wanted to go on record saying that again, just because you don't agree with those views (do you really think that at the time most everybody was for the freeing of slaves? Do you have any idea just how many people had slaves?), does not make the people (protestors you called them, other's think they think they are protecting babies, even if they don't have a social security number..heck my grandmother died without having a social security number..yet she was very real, just ask any of the 22 kids she birthed. She also lost a few before birth, and they were named and burried) holding signs daily, or weekly looney.

I can't believe that you would post something like this, and then think that just because you said you didn't want a debate, nothing more would be said. I actually laughed out loud at that.

You are allowed to have any opinion you want, of course,however it doesn't mean that your opinion is correct...it's just an opinion, just like the rest of us.

Yes, but I don't agree with those views. I'm talking about the rights of existing citizens (the ones with names and social security numbers). I know some will disagree and I'm not interested in a debate. I respect and understand their views. I just don't agree with them. .

 

[Wall-E1]

Just wanted to go on record saying that again, just because you don't agree with those views (do you really think that at the time most everybody was for the freeing of slaves? Do you have any idea just how many people had slaves?), does not make the people (protestors you called them, other's think they think they are protecting babies, even if they don't have a social security number..heck my grandmother died without having a social security number..yet she was very real, just ask any of the 22 kids she birthed. She also lost a few before birth, and they were named and burried) holding signs daily, or weekly looney.
Yes, it makes them loony.

I can't believe that you would post something like this, and then think that just because you said you didn't want a debate, nothing more would be said. I actually laughed out loud at that.
I'm glad you found it funny.

You are allowed to have any opinion you want, of course,however it doesn't mean that your opinion is correct...it's just an opinion, just like the rest of us.
Look at that! You have a firm understanding of what an opinion is. Good for you!

 

[DMRick]

Unfortunately it makes it very hard to quote you, when you post inside a quote, but I think you know who I would be quoting if I could.

It's only your opinion that it makes them loonie. You seem to have a lot of difficulty with that. Many have said it over and over on this thread..but still, you just keep saying it like it's a fact. I wonder, if you think all the doctors inside the PP bulding are also loonie, based on the one doctor that was charged with murders of babies (with no social security numbers or names) this week. Because I don't. I recognize that not all doctors inside a PP building commit murder, and not all people picketing outside the building holding a sign you don't like are looney. I happen to believe that in both cases it's a small percentage of either:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=7906881

 

[bunkkinsmom]

Of course it make sense. If someone presents a generalization, then all that is necessary to disprove it is one counter-example. That's actually codified in the generally-accepted rules for "sense".

Regardless, my reply was a representative reply. It was not the only case in history where some decision that affected the course of our nation's overall health policy benefited from having a medical expert making the decision, instead of someone who was not a medical expert.

Remember, LuvOrlando's comment followed my reply to Wall-E1's indefensible assertion that we should defer to his declaration-by-personal-fiat of medical unfitness of the person discussed in the OP. What you're probably bumping up against is that what you want is for what LuvOrlando said to be valid. I can sympathize. But its not. Medical determinations are best made by medical professionals, fully-informed medical professionals. Calling them "elitist" because you want to have free reign to insult people with impunity is ludicrous.

Everyone does. The issue we're discussing (perhaps you jumped in late) is the matter of relative legitimacy of those opinions. Medical determinations are legitimately those made by medical professionals.

Not to pick on you, but everything always does seem to be someone else's fault.

1. I'm so glad you said "probably".
2. I didn't jump in late.
3. Most of the time it is.

 

[Wall-E1]

It's only your opinion that it makes them looney.
Yes, very good!
You seem to have a lot of difficulty with that.
I do? I think I have made my opinion very clear. You were even able to restate it above.
Many have said it over and over on this thread..but still, you just keep saying it like it's a fact.
I believe the problem is perhaps a comprehension issue. Will it help you if I put a disclaimer before each statement?...

(disclaimer - The following is an opinion. It is not a fact. If this had been an actual fact, it would have been preceded by a disclaimer stating that it was indeed a fact)Protesters that scrawl messages in fake blood and display dead fetuses week after week are loony.
Does that help?

(disclaimer - The following is an opinion. It is not a fact. If this had been an actual fact, it would have been preceded by a disclaimer stating that it was indeed a fact)After 8 pages of this thread, there should be no reason why you would not know that the above is my opinion. You've read the previous posts. It seems silly that I should have to do this, but I will help you in any way that I can.

I wonder, if you think all the doctors inside the PP bulding are also looney, based on the one doctor that was charged with murders of babies (with no social security numbers or names) this week. Because I don't. I recognize that not all doctors inside a PP building commit murder, and not all people picketing outside the building holding a sign you don't like are looney.:

http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=7906881
(disclaimer - The following is an opinion. It is not a fact. If this had been an actual fact, it would have been preceded by a disclaimer stating that it was indeed a fact)No, only the people picketing outside week after week are loony.

 

[bicker]

What you've written is of so little value that I won't bother to make up for your slothfulness regarding quoting. Perhaps your manner of posting, so disrespectful to the reader as to use colors to differentiate your pointless replies to valid and strong points that you simply don't like, is perhaps indicative of your disrespectful manner in generally, as evidenced by your callous and careless labeling of the protester referred to in the OP.

Unfortunately it makes it very hard to quote you, when you post inside a quote

I think that might be the deliberate intention. PP appears to want an unrebutted soap-box, and will stoop to ridiculous depths to try to avoid being held accountable for what PP posts.

It's only your opinion that it makes them loonie. You seem to have a lot of difficulty with that.

I've noted the same thing, that the issue isn't whether there is a legitimate difference in views, but rather that the PP is simply not qualified to assert his own personal opinion as truth, when it comes to a determination of mental instability.

1. I'm so glad you said "probably".

I try to look at the situation as charitably as your posting would allow me. You were defending the indefensible, so my assumption was that there was a legitimate reason.

2. I didn't jump in late.

That would mean that your comment was simply ridiculous, implying by saying what you said that someone actually didn't believe what you were presenting as your idea. You were, what? Presenting an argument against something nobody said? Why?

3. Most of the time it is.

No... and this is the point: With maturity we realize that, in life, stuff happens, and most of the time no one is at fault. Things are most often just the way they are.