Fire!

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Alohacyberian wrote in article
:

"Peter D" [email protected] wrote in message
...
"Icono Clast" wrote
Read The Constitution! It's all protected speech. In fact, the more
offensive it is, the more bigoted it is, the more hateful it is, the
stronger the protection provided by the First Amendment!

Not so. Speech is protected equally without regard to it's level of
offensiveness. Maybe you meant to say the more offensive it is, the
greater the need to protect it -- because it is only when dealing with
that and those we dislike the most that we discover just how committed we
the rights of all.

Not so. Much offensive speech is outlawed, otherwise it would be legal to
yell "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded theater and there would be no laws
against libel and slander. KM

Yelling "fire!" or "bomb!" in a crowded theater doesn't meet the
standard of "offensive speech".

[Begin]
Brandenburg v. Ohio: In this 1969 case, the Court explained its modern
incitement test, whereby speech does not create the classic ?clear and
present danger? to citizens unless it is ?directed to inciting or
producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce
such action.? The case centered around a videotaped and broadcast news
piece on an Ohio Ku Klux Klan rally, wherein the viewer could hear
racial and anti-Semitic epithets (such as ?Freedom for the whites? and
?Send the Jews back to Israel?) uttered in the background of the
newscast. Although not a ?hate speech? case per se (it dealt with an
alleged violation of a state criminal syndicalism statute),
Brandenburg?s per curiam opinion (all justices writing the opinion in
agreement together) made clear that for non-obscene speech to be
proscribed by the First Amendment, it must lead to ?imminent lawless
action.? The Court ruled there was no such imminence in Brandenburg
because the epithets were spoken at an earlier time than they were
received by its audience because of the television broadcast.
[End]

"Fire! " and "bomb!" fall much closer to "inciting . . . immanent
lawless action," not because of the content but because of the danger to
a panicked audience.

Slander and libel are outlawed not because of specific content but
because of the intended damage to the welfare, livelihood, or reputation
of the target.
--
Don Kirkman

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:05:45 -0700, Don Kirkman
wrote:

Slander and libel are outlawed not because of specific content but
because of the intended damage to the welfare, livelihood, or reputation
of the target.

And in the USA certain people, because of fame, position or
notoriety, are almost impossible to defame. Americans are free to
utter quite scurrilous things about leading politicians, for
example.

For the most part, defamation is not illegal in the sense of
violating a statute, but rather a tort, a civil action, in which
the claim must be commensurate with the losses actually suffered.

I'm not sure if any US jurisdictions have a statute creating
criminal defamation.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
memiki wrote:

On Oct 31, 9:38 pm, "sharx35" wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:50:46 -0800, Icono Clast
wrote:

But neither I nor the Dixie Chicks insulted the Office of the
Presidency. I have the greatest of respect for it, as I'm sure
most people on the planet do, even if held by the likes of the
incumbent.

The greatest insult to the office of the President is the
incumbent.

The terrorists just love it when assholes like you make posts like
that.

Forgive me, Ike, for saying.......but you are being
hypocritical.........the President IS the Office of the Presidency;
otherwise, it is just a room with a desk.. I reiterate that your
hateful words are disgusting and harmful to the country and to the
men and women fighting for us. Nothing seems to stop you from spewing
poison to the world where we are already out of favor. My hope and
wish are that when you feel the need to attack the Administration you
do so as a mature adult.
Miki

Describing the idiots as idiots is what patriotic adults need to do.

Aiding and abetting terrorists is what YOU seem to do.

sharx35 scribed:

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
memiki wrote:

On Oct 31, 9:38 pm, "sharx35" wrote:

Hatunen wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:50:46 -0800, Icono Clast
wrote:

But neither I nor the Dixie Chicks insulted the Office of the
Presidency. I have the greatest of respect for it, as I'm sure
most people on the planet do, even if held by the likes of the
incumbent.

The greatest insult to the office of the President is the
incumbent.

The terrorists just love it when assholes like you make posts like
that.

Forgive me, Ike, for saying.......but you are being
hypocritical.........the President IS the Office of the Presidency;
otherwise, it is just a room with a desk.. I reiterate that your
hateful words are disgusting and harmful to the country and to the
men and women fighting for us. Nothing seems to stop you from spewing
poison to the world where we are already out of favor. My hope and
wish are that when you feel the need to attack the Administration you
do so as a mature adult.
Miki

Describing the idiots as idiots is what patriotic adults need to do.

Aiding and abetting terrorists is what YOU seem to do.

You seem to be doing a lot more of that by trying to squelch others. Tell
us, why do you hate the American way of democracy? What is it that drives
you to be so un-American? And, why do you make an issue of publicly
displaying your transference?
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)

"Alohacyberian" wrote in message
...
"Peter D" [email protected] wrote in message
...
"Icono Clast" wrote
Read The Constitution! It's all protected speech. In fact, the more
offensive it is, the more bigoted it is, the more hateful it is, the
stronger the protection provided by the First Amendment!

Not so. Speech is protected equally without regard to it's level of
offensiveness. Maybe you meant to say the more offensive it is, the
greater the need to protect it -- because it is only when dealing with
that and those we dislike the most that we discover just how committed we
the rights of all.


Not so. Much offensive speech is outlawed, otherwise it would be legal to
yell "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded theater and there would be no laws
against libel and slander. KM

Libel, slander, and yelling "fire" or "bomb" isn't "offensive speech" as I
referenced. But I think you knew that. Or at least you shoulds have.

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:40:03 -0500, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:



Hatunen wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:05:45 -0700, Don Kirkman
wrote:

Slander and libel are outlawed not because of specific content but
because of the intended damage to the welfare, livelihood, or reputation
of the target.

And in the USA certain people, because of fame, position or
notoriety, are almost impossible to defame. Americans are free to
utter quite scurrilous things about leading politicians, for
example.

There are certainly two centuries of tradition there. Once the country
got past George Washington things have stayed pretty hot.

Even George got some nasty things said about him. Things got so
bad that John Adams' administration got the Alien and Sedition
Acts passed to throw the rascals in jail for lese majeste.



--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 20:50:36 -0500, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:



Hatunen wrote:

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 15:40:03 -0500, "Frank F. Matthews"
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:


On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:05:45 -0700, Don Kirkman
wrote:

Slander and libel are outlawed not because of specific content but
because of the intended damage to the welfare, livelihood, or reputation
of the target.

And in the USA certain people, because of fame, position or
notoriety, are almost impossible to defame. Americans are free to
utter quite scurrilous things about leading politicians, for
example.

There are certainly two centuries of tradition there. Once the country
got past George Washington things have stayed pretty hot.


Even George got some nasty things said about him. Things got so
bad that John Adams' administration got the Alien and Sedition
Acts passed to throw the rascals in jail for lese majeste.

And carefully arranged their expiration so that Jefferson could not use
them.

Uh, not exactly. Congress could have renewed the act, but didn't.
And the act was passed in 1798 and is suspected of providing
enough backlash to have gotten Jefferson elected in 1800, so the
joke was on the Federalists.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

From another forum:
Cambrasa wrote:
National pride is the root cause of the worst atrocities commited
in the 20th century. I don't think that national pride is such a
good thing.


Peter D said:
memiki said:
I am unable to separate the Flag, the Presidency and the
Country from each other......instead they are bundled up in
one package.

Icono Clast said
{Clarification in [brackets] added}
I regard each of them as distinct and separate. I think [your
position] resembles the Catholics' trinity [as opposed to] the
separateness thereof by other Christians.

What a strange statement! Are you suggesting the Catholic doctrine
of the Trinity is not shared by other Christians?

Yes.

?????? The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental Christian
belief. The Catholic Church is a sub-set of "Chrisitan", not
distinct and separate from it, and as such shares that fundamental
belief.

I wasn't ignoring you, Peter D; I was on The Road, dancing in Reno
and at Michelle's Mountain Magic at Lake Tahoe.

While at that convention, one who participates in one of these two
fora shoved me up against a wall, stuck his nose onto mine ('til I
exhaled) and gave me a biblical quiz that I perfectly passed.

He then told me that non-Catholics regard the trinity the same as
Catholics do (if I have that wrong, he'll let us know).

I think I was still a teen-ager when someone pointed out to me that
one of the big dif'rences 'tween the Catholics and other Christians
was that Catholics believe the three to be one and others the
Catholics' one to be three.

I was also under the impression that The Troubles in Ireland were
partly because of that, i.e., some good Irish Christians were killing
some other good Irish Christians because of some differences in the
interpretation of some Middle Eastern myth.

But they weren't alone: Good Jews were killing good Palestinian
Muslims and good Palestinian Muslims were killing good Jews.

And the Hindus/Muslims ought not be overlooked.

And, of course, 'though he'd deny it, because of a personal vendetta
the USA's Commander in Chief is leading a Crusade against Muslims
that he dubs "terrorists".

Ah, the peace preached by the godf's.

He's also ruining m'mother's death. In tears she screams "I want to
die. I HATE what that man's doing to my country". I wonder whether
being that angry's better'n being in pain. She's 94.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Nov 6, 4:51 am, Icono Clast wrote:




the USA's Commander in Chief

Thank you, Ike.............Miki

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:51:35 -0800, Icono Clast
wrote:

From another forum:
Cambrasa wrote:
National pride is the root cause of the worst atrocities commited
in the 20th century. I don't think that national pride is such a
good thing.


Peter D said:
memiki said:
I am unable to separate the Flag, the Presidency and the
Country from each other......instead they are bundled up in
one package.

Icono Clast said
{Clarification in [brackets] added}
I regard each of them as distinct and separate. I think [your
position] resembles the Catholics' trinity [as opposed to] the
separateness thereof by other Christians.

What a strange statement! Are you suggesting the Catholic doctrine
of the Trinity is not shared by other Christians?

Yes.

?????? The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental Christian
belief. The Catholic Church is a sub-set of "Chrisitan", not
distinct and separate from it, and as such shares that fundamental
belief.

I wasn't ignoring you, Peter D; I was on The Road, dancing in Reno
and at Michelle's Mountain Magic at Lake Tahoe.

While at that convention, one who participates in one of these two
fora shoved me up against a wall, stuck his nose onto mine ('til I
exhaled) and gave me a biblical quiz that I perfectly passed.
Wow Lew, you could get a job as a spin doctor for the democrats!
I am the person you refer to and let's just set some of the facts
straight....
1. I DID NOT shove you up against as a wall, as I recall the nearest
wall was at least 15 to 20 feet away from us.
2. I have no desires whatsoever to stick my nose onto yours, whether
you exhale or not.
3. I simply pointed out some things what Catholics seem to
practice of which no reference is in the Bible anywhere!

He then told me that non-Catholics regard the trinity the same as
Catholics do (if I have that wrong, he'll let us know).

You told me that your belief was that Catholics the Trinity as
being all encompassed into ONE entity. That is absolutely not true and
I even spoke to a Catholic priest today to verify that.
They believe the same as the Baptist Church I belong to that the
Trinity is 2 separate beings but all the same person. God the Father,
God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. This is a bit of a conflict to
what you wrote above....copied here just to make it easy for you.

Icono Clast said
{Clarification in [brackets] added}
I regard each of them as distinct and separate. I think [your
position] resembles the Catholics' trinity [as opposed to] the
separateness thereof by other Christians.

I am amazed that you posted this since you seemed to be nice and
friendly to me in person. Is there something that being behind your
keyboard empowers you to post things that are absolutely not true.

I will have to remember this and be much more careful in engaging you
in any further personal conversations.

I think I was still a teen-ager when someone pointed out to me that
one of the big dif'rences 'tween the Catholics and other Christians
was that Catholics believe the three to be one and others the
Catholics' one to be three.

I was also under the impression that The Troubles in Ireland were
partly because of that, i.e., some good Irish Christians were killing
some other good Irish Christians because of some differences in the
interpretation of some Middle Eastern myth.

But they weren't alone: Good Jews were killing good Palestinian
Muslims and good Palestinian Muslims were killing good Jews.

And the Hindus/Muslims ought not be overlooked.

And, of course, 'though he'd deny it, because of a personal vendetta
the USA's Commander in Chief is leading a Crusade against Muslims
that he dubs "terrorists".

Ah, the peace preached by the godf's.

He's also ruining m'mother's death. In tears she screams "I want to
die. I HATE what that man's doing to my country". I wonder whether
being that angry's better'n being in pain. She's 94.
Bob Ford
Images In Motion
www.imagesinmotion.com