Any limits to freedom of speech?

[DMRick]

It may not work for you guys, but heartstrings does for us. We've had a fair share of people who come in and talk about the sadness of those types of ads, and while they thought they would wait a bit to adopt, they see the real need, because of those ads.

I don't know how it is in LA, but here in NY, we are inundated with cats needing homes, and we have to take advantage of everything we've got. I'm had well over 350 kittens in my home in the past 7 years (almost 400 if I count the really short term babies that I hold for other foster homes) that I have kept track, and while the kittens are very easy to adopt, the older, not so cute or friendly cats can be tough..even more so those who are FIV or FeL positive.

At any time you can go on petfinder and see thousands of cats just in my area up for adoption. We have people also at our adoption centers, but often they already have several pets, and are coming in for food for them, not for more adoptions. While we have adopted out a fair share, it's never enough to stop the local shelters from having to make hard decisions.

If all your foster homes aren't filled to the brim and cats and kittens (usually because they have URI, and choices have to be made) aren't being put down daily, you wouldn't know what people have to do to get them homes. While it may not work in your area, it does in ours, thank God.

As for those that donate..I don't care if they think about it for long term, I just care about what they are saving for now. If just 10 people a week get how important s/n is, in my area, because of an ad, and make appointments for their cats or cats they happen upon, I'm happy. If those ads touch 10 people to not wait to adopt, I'm happy. And since all of our s/n appointments (as well as neighboring areas) are filled, even those s/n ads showing how many cats we end up with, from unneuttered/unspayed cats are working.

If the ASPCA ads put money in our collection box, for us to use to save another cat or kitten, I'm good with it. And they do talk about the ads, so again, they are working. I don't have to like them, but I like the results.

According to what you have written, there are a lot of off kilter people out there trapping and slepping and giving out material that gets us the funds to save cats. And they won't care that you feel that way, but are happy it's working for us. We put our money where our mouths are all the time in my house, but it can never be enough, so we are thankful that others feel differently from you, and the ads generate help for those who can't help themselves.

OK, off my soapbox LOL...well almost. Edited to add, that we do have education, but it's slow going with people who thinks it's 'cute' for their kids to see a birth, or people who just couldn't neuter their poor little boy cat. Or even worse, people who only like kittens. When they grow up, they put them on the street and try to adopt a kitten again.

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.

 

[AuroraSheasMom]

I have to say that I find sign carrying week after week to be "abnormal" behavior as well. But I don't know that I'd call every sign toter loony, either.

In the OP's case, the man in question doesn't seem to be totally off his rocker, but is a few bricks short of a load, IMHO. By putting Hitler's picture next to anyone's, he was obviously going for shock value. Had he used a big X, a label (liar, cheat, etc) I would say he was a concerned citizen trying to get his view point.

But by using the picture of a dictator who incited war, and directly caused the imprisonment in concentration camps and deaths of millions of people, he had to be either deliberately HOPING to incite others into a frenzy or or so ignorant of the implications that he is

But, in our great country, he is free (mostly) to carry his sign, shout through his megaphone or pass out his pamphlets as he sees fit. And I 100% support his right to do so. At the same time, I'm free to my own opinion that he's crazy to do so. And I wasn't aware that I had to posess a medical degree to do so.

 

[DMRick]

I agree with this 100%. Especially the part that says it's your opinion. I really appreciate that I have the right to hold up a sign to try and convince you to change your opinion

I
But, in our great country, he is free (mostly) to carry his sign, shout through his megaphone or pass out his pamphlets as he sees fit. And I 100% support his right to do so. At the same time, I'm free to my own opinion that he's crazy to do so.

 

[bicker]

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.

You know very well that I've understood every word you've written. Your abusive answer just reveals the lack of substance of what you're trying to say.

Answer the question directly: 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? Don't equivocate. Don't try to hide from the question by posting a bombastic personal attack. Just answer the question, directly.

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.

I think almost everyone can see how ridiculous your implication is, and I think that almost anyone other than you would have no problem granting that medical experts make better medical decisions than random posters on the Internet, like you. Why you cannot admit that is bewildering, but I suspect, actually, that you do understand that that is the case, and you're just posting this reply implying that there is reason not to, solely to try to distract attention away from a sound and valid point that you don't like. Consider yourself caught in that deception.

Here we differ.

Only there?

I believe everybody has a right to an opinion.

Which opinion? What I wrote was that the opinions of medical experts prevail in cases of medical decisions. Again, I think everyone knows that, including you, and you're just trying to make it sound like you have a legitimate rebuttal to my points, when in reality you don't.

I don't think anyone said I can't say what I'm saying.

Then you're mistaken. You've come across blinded to the reality of the words you used to describe someone peaceably projecting their views.

If you're consistent, you're probably going to feel like disagreeing with everything I've written, without regard to whether you disagree with it, and without regard to whether you have a legitimate rebuttal to it. If you would, please, while you're doing so, please also explain why you would do so. It the only part of your replies I don't understand very well.

 

[JCJRSmith]

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

One part of my personal philosophy is "I may dislike what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[bicker]

One part of my personal philosophy is "I may dislike what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Me too... and that's really come to the fore in this case, since even though I firmly disagree with the pro-life perspective (for example), I object to labeling non-hostile pro-life speech, no matter how melodramatic, as mental instability.

 

[LuvOrlando]

One part of my personal philosophy is "I may dislike what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Absolutely!!!!!!!!

 

[Wall-E1]

You know very well that I've understood every word you've written. Your abusive answer just reveals the lack of substance of what you're trying to say.

Answer the question directly: 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? Don't equivocate. Don't try to hide from the question by posting a bombastic personal attack. Just answer the question, directly.
I don't think you understood every word I've written. I merely told you that I had already answered your question, and to reread the post. I will suggest it again. Go back to post #55 and take the time to read it a little slower. Sometimes when we read too fast or are agitated, we don't comprehend everything that has been written. Perhaps one of these reasons is impeding your understanding of my answer. So, I would suggest taking a few deep breaths and then calmly rereading that post. I would like to add that I am sorry that you have feelings of being attacked. Sometimes something as simple as sharing your feelings with a family member or close friend will make you feel better. I do wish you the best.

I think almost everyone can see how ridiculous your implication is,
My implication that you would need to provide credentials was ridiculous. I'm glad you were able to see that. I made that statement as an example for you, hoping you would see how ridiculous it was. Now perhaps, you can look back at your earlier statement in which you stated that I would need to provide evidence showing myself to be a "recognized expert on mental instability" in order to voice my opinion. My hope was that after recognizing my statement as ridiculous, you would then be able to view your prior statement as being just as ridiculous. I hope my learning tool was effective.

and I think that almost anyone other than you would have no problem granting that medical experts make better medical decisions than random posters on the Internet, like you. Why you cannot admit that is bewildering, but I suspect, actually, that you do understand that that is the case, and you're just posting this reply implying that there is reason not to, solely to try to distract attention away from a sound and valid point that you don't like. Consider yourself caught in that deception.
Only there?
I don't know where you think you read any of this. I never said anything like that and would have no problem admitting that medical experts make better decisions than random posters. I merely said that everyone is entitled to their opinion. You disagreed and said, "That's not true...". You seem to have embellished upon my statement and twisted it into something else. Honestly, this post is concerning to me because you seem to be reading things that have not been written. And I don't understand what "deception" you are speaking of. I am not able to make sense of some of these statements.

Which opinion? What I wrote was that the opinions of medical experts prevail in cases of medical decisions. Again, I think everyone knows that, including you, and you're just trying to make it sound like you have a legitimate rebuttal to my points, when in reality you don't.
No Bicker - after I stated, "I believe everybody has a right to an opinion", you responded by saying, "That's not true, in this case..."(post #56). There was never any debate from me on whose advice carries more weight. I don't know where you are reading these things.

Then you're mistaken. You've come across blinded to the reality of the words you used to describe someone peaceably projecting their views.
I'm not mistaken. There was nobody on this thread that said to me that I "can't say what I'm saying". I'm not sure where you thought you read that. Many on this thread voiced opposing views to mine and expressed their opinions. Everybody though, acknowledged that we are all entitled to our opinions. Until you joined this thread, there was no talk of not being allowed to express opinions.

If you're consistent, you're probably going to feel like disagreeing with everything I've written, without regard to whether you disagree with it, and without regard to whether you have a legitimate rebuttal to it. If you would, please, while you're doing so, please also explain why you would do so. It the only part of your replies I don't understand very well.
If I may, I would suggest that you reread this statement that you made. Try to think about if anything in it applies to you. I am saying this because I feel you may be projecting. Projecting is when a person is exhibiting a certain behavior, but is in denial. Instead they try to pass this behavior onto others and accuse them of exhibiting it. I hope that by rereading the statement and applying it to yourself, you may see things in a different perspective. I have seen you exhibit this behavior on other threads. So please, take a moment. Reread the statement and reflect.

I do appreciate your opinions and hope you find happiness in your life.

 

[PebblesMK]

What I wrote was an incoherant piece. I will fix it up and put it back in the morning.

 

[PebblesMK]

Oh dear, that sure wasn't as clear as it was in my mind. I'll swing through in the morning to declutter my post and make it easier to understand.

 

[DMRick]

What's the point of holding a sign continuously? If you're oppinion is so strong, why not get out there and do something or try to inform people in a positive manner. .

I'm not sure people who are picketing are holding the signs continuously, or that they aren't doing something to inform people in a positive manner. I also don't get where you think because someone spends time picketing, that they don't have lives LOL.

I've never understood any animal activists that let animals 'free' which leads to certain death to the poor animals (or destroying other people's property as has also happened with a few PETA people). I don't happen to believe that would mean all animal activists are mentally incompetent or loonie, however. Many have great material to read/pass out and have the animals wellbeing in mind. Some animal laws like our Buster law here in NYS are about to have changes made, thanks to those who lobbied, sent out brochures and walked with a sign. So, the next person who sets a live cat on fire to spite his girlfriend may actually spend real time in jail. There are always a few in any type of people who act differently than the most. There are people in all walks of life who feel strongly enough about things to picket to hope to draw attention and maybe make changes.

But when it's all said and done, the OP wanted to know if there are limits to free speech, and the answer to that is mostly no. Releasing animals that aren't yours really has nothing to do with free speech.

Just as they are entitled to label me a sinning, knocked up, (insert political figure) supporter who lives off welfare, supports gays, eats caged up animals and is endangering the planet by not recycling kind of person. In all likelyhood, we have each mis-labeled each other, but when all is said and done, both I and the sign holder will go about our merry way and will give nary a thought to the other one.

I have no idea where you were going with this. I don't know what that has to do with holding a sign out in public LOL.

 

[PebblesMK]

I'm not sure people who are picketing are holding the signs continuously, or that they aren't doing something to inform people in a positive manner. I also don't get where you think because someone spends time picketing, that they don't have lives LOL.

I've never understood any animal activists that let animals 'free' which leads to certain death to the poor animals (or destroying other people's property as has also happened with a few PETA people). I don't happen to believe that would mean all animal activists are mentally incompetent or loonie, however. Many have great material to read/pass out and have the animals wellbeing in mind. Some animal laws like our Buster law here in NYS are about to have changes made, thanks to those who lobbied, sent out brochures and walked with a sign. So, the next person who sets a live cat on fire to spite his girlfriend may actually spend real time in jail. There are always a few in any type of people who act differently than the most. There are people in all walks of life who feel strongly enough about things to picket to hope to draw attention and maybe make changes.

But when it's all said and done, the OP wanted to know if there are limits to free speech, and the answer to that is mostly no. Releasing animals that aren't yours really has nothing to do with free speech.




I have no idea where you were going with this. I don't know what that has to do with holding a sign out in public LOL.

Hahaha, forgive me. I run on next to zero sleep and realized that not much of the post made sense. I'm working on fixing it. I assure you, in my mind it made complete sense.

The comparison was that while I may think the sign holder is looney (the popular term tonight), they may think of me in a certain way as well and it's nothing more than our own personal opinion that we form of a person without knowing them.

 

[bicker]

I do appreciate your opinions and hope you find happiness in your life.

What an inane thing to say. I must have really struck a nerve. I'm sorry that you felt driven to post such an extreme bit of ridiculousness. I'll make my point very clear, so there is no similar confusion driving you down a similar path:

Medical experts make better medical decisions than random posters on the Internet, like you.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

I agree that the situation does not warrant public censorship, but if I were the guy that he was comparing to Hitler, I think I would have a few personal issues and would see him in court asking for damages to my reputation. Unless, of course, I had a small mustache and wore a swastika and sent people I disagreed with to internment camps. Then he might have a point, otherwise it is just plain foolish to compare a politician you disagree with to someone as insane as Hitler. I certainly think that slander fits that situation perfectly.

Like yourself though, I'm sure that he didn't convince you that his message had any sanity to it or anyone else that saw it. He just made himself look like the jerk that he probably is.

This type of thing, with the Hitler sign, etc., is becoming the "norm". There are average people now, people we all know, that believe this type of thing such as certain people being Hitler, etc., etc., can't mention it here bc of the ban on this board, bc of so called "freedom of speech." It has crossed over into normal lives. That's what scares me. I get things like this forwarded around to me on a daily basis on my e-mail, we all do. Average people believing this same type of thing like I have never seen in my lifetime, crazy things. You ask yourself if you don't know someone who doesn't believe this same type of thing, and if you say you don't I think you're deceiving yourself. It is also being done from our radio personalities, tv fake news channels who make money off of this type of thing or have other agendas, and even our politicians! and it has crossed the line. Is this what we want in our country? Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. We all know that the line has been crossed. Think about it this way, advertisers make tons of money putting advertisements in our tv, etc. bc they know the influences that this can have on us. We need to have at least real info put out by our news channels, radio, etc. It has gone too far. It is not Freedom of Speech to say anything you want.

 

[bicker]

This type of thing, with the Hitler sign, etc., is becoming the "norm".

Digging deeper in to this truism... the reason why this is becoming the norm is because people, in general, are becoming inured to reasonable expressions of discourse. The only thing that holds any promise of carrying significant weight is discourse that verges, or goes over into, hyperbole.

There are real people now, people we all know, that believe this type of thing now bc of so called "freedom of speech."

Your blame is misdirected though. The fault rests with our apathy, the fact that Americans typically don't show reasonable concern about things unless they're presented in an over-the-top manner. It is so easy to blame the person projecting the message at you, but it is a cop-out. Things will only get better when we Americans finally accept that the root of the problem is ourselves, all of us, collectively. The fact that we aren't accepting that is a reflection of a related malady, our unwillingness to accept responsibility for our own role in things we don't like.

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility.

Yes, very true, but it is critical to understand that exaggeration and hyperbole are just nuisances. You're making them sound like evil. Evil is advocating harm to people or property. Even absent exaggeration and hyperbole, advocating harm is orders of magnitude worse than even the worst exaggeration and hyperbole that does not advocate harm.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

Digging deeper in to this truism... the reason why this is becoming the norm is because people, in general, are becoming inured to reasonable expressions of discourse. The only thing that holds any promise of carrying significant weight is discourse that verges, or goes over into, hyperbole.

Your blame is misdirected though. The fault rests with our apathy, the fact that Americans typically don't show reasonable concern about things unless they're presented in an over-the-top manner. It is so easy to blame the person projecting the message at you, but it is a cop-out. Things will only get better when we Americans finally accept that the root of the problem is ourselves, all of us, collectively. The fact that we aren't accepting that is a reflection of a related malady, our unwillingness to accept responsibility for our own role in things we don't like.

Yes, very true, but it is critical to understand that exaggeration and hyperbole are just nuisances. You're making them sound like evil. Evil is advocating harm to people or property. Even absent exaggeration and hyperbole, advocating harm is orders of magnitude worse than even the worst exaggeration and hyperbole that does not advocate harm.

I don't believe I'm misdirected, bc I do agree that it is us as a whole that need to change bc these so called news channels, radio, etc. are fueled by us watching them. And I totally agree, our apathy is mind blowing. As far as your mentioning that I make it sound evil, I think it is evil at times and many times it isn't, many times it is just irresponsibility. BUT is is very real and I think it is very dangerous and will become even more harmful if we don't rise against this. It's ironic bc Hitler did this and got people to follow him with this same type of thing. We all get these e-mails, we all all know someone who now does this. That is what I mean by dangerous. I think there are many people out there who say things in an irresponsible way for money, or whatever reason, they may not even mean it "evil" since u bring that up, the crosshairs issue comes to mind I don't want to get into politics but that is one example. It is really dangerous that many people get their so called "news" from channels that are not real news channels, they are opinion entertainment channels, that masquerade as something they are not and it is not a cop out to understand their power and influence. We know this bc we now see average people spouting things that they have heard from these places. I hope we as Americans stand up to it. I never used the word "evil" as u state, but it is important that we do not allow this to continue for many reasons, one is we don't want to incite harm to anyone, and another is we need real info and real news to make intelligent decisions from our news, radio, etc.

 

[bicker]

I don't believe I'm misdirected

To be clear, I didn't say that you were, but rather the blame you were putting forth was. Sometimes that distinction matters to folks.

I think there are many people out there who say things in an irresponsible way for money, or whatever reason, they may not even mean it "evil" since u bring that up, the crosshairs issue comes to mind I don't want to get into politics but that is one example.

However, this really demonstrates the distinction I was making: You're equating "say things in an irresponsible way for money" with the "crosshairs" issue, when the two are very different acts. The "crosshairs" issue was advocating harm to people or property, and it would make sense to label that as "evil". By contrast, saying that your product is "the best product ever and that it will change your life" is not evil. It's just comparatively innocuous hyperbole. I hope that makes the distinction clearer for you.

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

To be clear, I didn't say that you were, but rather the blame you were putting forth was. Sometimes that distinction matters to folks.


However, this really demonstrates the distinction I was making: You're equating "say things in an irresponsible way for money" with the "crosshairs" issue, when the two are very different acts. The "crosshairs" issue was advocating harm to people or property, and it would make sense to label that as "evil". By contrast, saying that your product is "the best product ever and that it will change your life" is not evil. It's just comparatively innocuous hyperbole. I hope that makes the distinction clearer for you.

WHAT? I don't think you understand what I said. What do you mean by comparing crosshairs and "best product ever and it will change your life" I'm not speaking about advertisements. I'm not speaking about that, what are you talking about. I'm talking about the negative dangerous vitriol and rhetoric that is being put forth as freedom of speech. You are not following, I cannot give exact samples bc of the political bans. I think you totally misunderstand. Also I am not relaying blame either totally on the rhetoric or vitriol, again misunderstand, I said it can influence us that's all. You totally are putting something into this I did not say or mean.

 

[bicker]

I think I did understand, but let's try to get clarification: Please provide examples of what you meant when you wrote, "say things in an irresponsible way for money".

 

[tinkerdorabelle]

To be clear, I didn't say that you were, but rather the blame you were putting forth was. Sometimes that distinction matters to folks.

However, this really demonstrates the distinction I was making: You're equating "say things in an irresponsible way for money" with the "crosshairs" issue, when the two are very different acts. The "crosshairs" issue was advocating harm to people or property, and it would make sense to label that as "evil". By contrast, saying that your product is "the best product ever and that it will change your life" is not evil. It's just comparatively innocuous hyperbole. I hope that makes the distinction clearer for you.

What? I never ever compared crosshairs and advertisements or was referring to advertisements as an issue. Ever. You are not following. Of course advertisements is not evil, I am referring to the fake news channels that put forth hatred and things I cannot say bc of the ban of such things on this site, putting forth this stuff as real news and real info and is hateful, ugly, inciting fear and hatred, etc.