Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
If nothing else we're being conned out of the tax dollars these clowns are getting paid to waste their time on this kind of nonsense. I'm just saying, that with all the hypocrisy and deceit practiced my both major parties, how is it that people keep voting for republicans OR democrats? Doesn't it irk you to vote for people who play these kinds of games rather than working on real solutions to real problems?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by WorkerOfEvil:
Opus,
I don't think NAMBLA has the right to publish something describing how to have sex with a child and get away with it. The reason is not because the idea is incredibly, incredibly reprehensible (which it is), but because they are encouraging a crime. You're not allowed to engage in speech that encourages criminal behavior. I wouldn't be allowed to stand up and tell people that they should form a mob and lynch NAMBLA members (although it's not a bad idea) because I'm inciting violence. Free speech can be limited if it poses a clear and present danger to others. Flag burning doesn't. I think it's ineffective because the message the protestors are trying to convey tends to get lost, but it's not dangerous.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Guess I'm just wondering why that makes it ok. Plus, I don't see any other parties doing it, besides the republicrats. You might argue that the only reason for that is that the other parties aren't in power, but why should would put up with it at all? Why don't we ask for more?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Free speech does not apply to Children. We sometimes like to talk about children having rights, but effectively they do not. So where is the freedom in defending NAMBLA’s right to freedom of expression if it adversely influences a segment of the population that do not even have the same freedom of expression? That’s not freedom. That’s tyranny. That the ACLU doesn’t seem to understand this makes me very suspicious of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Maybe. I think we need major voting reform. The winner-take-all voting system demands an 'other-of-two-evils' voting strategy that keeps us forever propping up the entrenched powers. I can't even get very interested in the process of democracy under the current system. It's a farce.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Guess I'm just wondering why that makes it ok. Plus, I don't see any other parties doing it, besides the republicrats. You might argue that the only reason for that is that the other parties aren't in power, but why should would put up with it at all? Why don't we ask for more?

---

Didn't say it was OK, just that that is the way it is and always has been.
As for other parties doing it, how about Rangel proposing to reinstitute the draft, a bill he knew wouldn't pass. The Dems opposing judicial nominations for purely political reasons, and Howard Deans recent remarks...well it could go on and on. It really has nothing to do if a party is in power or not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Guess I wasn't clear. By 'republicrats' I mean the one party system consisting of 'republican' conmen and 'democrat' conmen. I'm drawing no distinction between the two flavors. I'm asking why we keep supporting this nonsense.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
So you're willing to fight and die for the rights of Nambla, a pedophile organization who publish a book entitled "Rape and Escape"? The book tells how to lure, befriend and rape a child, then escape detection and or prosecution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G1223:
While I dislike this law I really dislike those who do burn the flag. I feel that while not excusable. I think anyone who sets the flag on fire takes their life into their own hands. And what happens happens.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
[What are you trying to say?
SergeantX

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
So why not go ahead and support the amendment? It sounds like you're admitting a preference to vigilante justice. I mean, you either think they have a right do it, and ought to be left alone, or you don't, right?

SergeantX

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Ok, so what you're saying is, even if freedom of speech is protected, there will be thugs out there ready to get violent when offended. I suppose that's pretty much always been the case. I'd imagine those daring enough to burn a flag in protest will be watching their backs.

SergeantX

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
So you're willing to fight and die for the rights of Nambla, a pedophile organization who publish a book entitled "Rape and Escape"? The book tells how to lure, befriend and rape a child, then escape detection and or prosecution.

---

As for me - Yes. Information is not action. If someone tries to actually do this sort of stuff, hang them out to dry. But if you can ban this book, what happens if the majority decides to ban books about safe sex, or contraception...or how to make home brew, or reload ammunition in your basement, or grow pot in your basement, or set up a grassroots organization to protest government actions, or raise funds for third parties, etc. etc. etc. It's that old slippery slope.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
So you're willing to fight and die for the rights of Nambla, a pedophile organization who publish a book entitled "Rape and Escape"? The book tells how to lure, befriend and rape a child, then escape detection and or prosecution.

---

As for me - Yes. Information is not action. If someone tries to actually do this sort of stuff, hang them out to dry. But if you can ban this book, what happens if the majority decides to ban books about safe sex, or contraception...or how to make home brew, or reload ammunition in your basement, or grow pot in your basement, or set up a grassroots organization to protest government actions, or raise funds for third parties, etc. etc. etc. It's that old slippery slope.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Well, how about NOT nonsense?

All it takes is a simple refusal to mark the little box next to the major parties' candidates. Unfortunately, most people are just too numb to realize they have a choice, or just don't care. I guess. I really don't understand why they'd keep going back for more.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
Changing the nature of the parties themselves from the inside is the only way. However, several thousand years of human history has shown there's no such thing as a politician or government that isn't corrupt.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
Changing the nature of the parties themselves from the inside is the only way. However, several thousand years of human history has shown there's no such thing as a politician or government that isn't corrupt.

---

That's just nonsense. It's NOT the only way. It will be the only way if we keep telling ourselves that. We have to reform the voting process first. That's where they have the stranglehold. You seem to be happy with the two major parties, but I think they're both steaming piles of dogshit. Rolling over and just accepting it is the surest way to maintain the status quo.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
So how would you change the voting process to make things better?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
So you're willing to fight and die for the rights of Nambla, a pedophile organization who publish a book entitled "Rape and Escape"? The book tells how to lure, befriend and rape a child, then escape detection and or prosecution.

---

As for me - Yes. Information is not action. If someone tries to actually do this sort of stuff, hang them out to dry. But if you can ban this book, what happens if the majority decides to ban books about safe sex, or contraception...or how to make home brew, or reload ammunition in your basement, or grow pot in your basement, or set up a grassroots organization to protest government actions, or raise funds for third parties, etc. etc. etc. It's that old slippery slope.

---

Opus, I answered this earlier post with an admittedly rather long reply (see above). Comments?

perfessergee

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
So how would you change the voting process to make things better?

---

I was so hoping you'd ask.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=11014

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
This doesn’t mean that we have to just sit there and listen and agree with the argument; we are certainly free to vilify the advocates of abhorrent ideas. And for that matter, kick their butts if you feel so strongly inclined *as long as you are willing to pay the full price of a criminal conviction for assault*. If you don’t think you should have to pay that price, please go live in some other country where they don’t believe in free speech. I’ve spent time in several of them, I prefer it here.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
And now, we finally get back to the notion of burning the current banner of the United States for purposes other than disposing of worn out specimens. I hope that by now you’ve now twigged to my point, and please forgive my shouting, but this needs to be shouted, and apparently from the rooftops because there seems to be way too few Americans who understand this: FREE SPEECH ONLY MATTERS WHEN THE SPEECH IN QUESTION IS THE MINORITY OPINION. Not just your own, not the majority of whomever you associate with, and most certainly not “society’s” majority. If you can’t understand this and you can’t defend the right of others to express speech you disagree with, then please, please, please move to some country where demagoguery and intimidation pass for righteousness and reasoned discourse. And please, please, please, let that not be the country that I live in and love.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Opus:
As I'm doing this before work I'll ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
This doesn’t mean that we have to just sit there and listen and agree with the argument; we are certainly free to vilify the advocates of abhorrent ideas. And for that matter, kick their butts if you feel so strongly inclined *as long as you are willing to pay the full price of a criminal conviction for assault*. If you don’t think you should have to pay that price, please go live in some other country where they don’t believe in free speech. I’ve spent time in several of them, I prefer it here.

---

Does this apply to children, the party directly affected by NAMBLA’s freedom of expression? Effectively it does not. Children are a special case; they do not have rights, necessarily. I agree with you that free expression should be its own regulation most of the time, but when a party does not have free expression then that regulation does not exist, giving predators like NAMBLA an advantage over a largely defenseless social class. Is free expression served by allowing a group such an advantage?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
Huh? This reply doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me, with respect to what you are quoting above. The rights of kids aren't at issue here (though I think most attorneys would be surprised at your assertion that they don't have rights - they most certainly do). Remember that we are talking about people who are *only* expressing an idea, not acting on it and not trying to incite it. Neither of the latter is remotely protected. Are you discussing the rights of children to vilify the SOB's who express these ideas? They already have that right. Please clarify.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
Free speech rights don't have to be defended for majorities because they are already defended by sheer weight of numbers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
Free speech rights don't have to be defended for majorities because they are already defended by sheer weight of numbers.

---

You assume. I doubt that’s necessarily true; particularly when one considers judicial legislation, but it’s an ethical issue. There’s something distinctly tyrannical about insisting that rights only apply to the minority.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
You're missing the point. You love doing that, don't you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
You're missing the point. You love doing that, don't you?

---

I don’t think so. I just don’t subscribe to the notion that freedom of speech is only important if the speech in question is a minority opinion, nor do I believe that the majority is necessarily guaranteed freedom of expression, especially if we adhere to the notion that the majority opinion is unimportant or less important.

Although if I am missing the point, then my apologies. If the point is to say that the minority opinion is at greater risk of suppression, then that is probably true. I don't see how that makes the majority opinion unimportant, but maybe I'm wrestling with semantics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
Freedom of speech is important for everyone, majority, minority, or even split. And nobody's version is more "important" than anyone else's (well, unless it's mine of course! - that's a joke folks). That's not the point at all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
Freedom of speech is important for everyone, majority, minority, or even split. And nobody's version is more "important" than anyone else's (well, unless it's mine of course! - that's a joke folks). That's not the point at all.

---

Yes, I got that part, but that’s not what you said. I don't doubt that the minority opinion is at greater risk of being suppressed. But the so-called “tyranny of the majority” is only a risk in democratic, “majority rule” societies. Tyranny of the minority is far worse and, traditionally, far more common. That’s the reason the founding fathers made us a democratic system in the first place, to get away from the tyranny of the minority. Free speech doesn’t only matter when the minority opinion is threatened, and a majority does not guarantee that an opinion will be protected. To say that the minority opinion is the only thing that matters is to say that you believe that the majority opinion doesn't matter; suggesting that suppressing the majority opinion is okay. When I asked you some questions to clarify your point, you became evasive. So perhaps you see my confusion?

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
I have to confess that I'm completely flabbergasted by this reply to my earlier post. I really wouldn't have thought that there could be anyone who lived in a democratic or republican society who didn't understand that the very notion of "freedom of speech" ONLY pertains to free societies.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by perfessergee:
I have to confess that I'm completely flabbergasted by this reply to my earlier post. I really wouldn't have thought that there could be anyone who lived in a democratic or republican society who didn't understand that the very notion of "freedom of speech" ONLY pertains to free societies.

---

Ah, you’re a condescending prick, how cute! You must be so impressed with yourself! Do you just not want to answer the question or are you just too dumb to know what I’m talking about? Evidently, you don’t even know what you’re talking about, since you can’t even repeat yourself with any degree of consistency.

Maybe you think this is funny or you’re twelve, I don’t know, but clearly you’re wasting my time.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

---