Discussion in 'Politics and Current Affairs' started by A.Nonymous, Nov 23, 2010.
ROTF - well - alrighty then.
Your probably right, but under that logic we've already lost our first. If circumstances can justify the limiting of free speech then we are just waiting to loose it completely.
What you are implying is that "we have a republic. As long as we can keep it". I wonder if the unrest in America is the economy or the republic dying?
As for your question YES. This thread is done.
Hey, if you will wait a few weeks, we can revive it. Christmas is drawing near as is the increased travel.
Unfortunately, we no longer seem to recognize what is reasonable and sensible and what is simply idiotic and not to be tolerated. Freedom of expression comes with a price tag and we simply cannot allow you (or me) to say and do whatever the bloody hell we want to do and claim it is constitutionally (or should be) protected.
All speech should be protected. Yup, it should. That said, should a speech that calls for the murder of the president; a call to pick up guns and kill every black child we see, perhaps a demand that we shoot homos on site
I favor hanging klan snowmen in effigy.
Yeah what's with my generation? My generation was the start of this entitlement crap. And the one behind mine? Forget about it. They feel the world owes them something. They get upset when mommy doesn't get them the newest hot iPod. WTF? Seriously? I remember when I got a hand me down Atari system I was stoked.
Every generation says that about the generations that follow.
One of my pet gripes is the functional and cultural illiteracy of today's high school students and high school graduates. I don't recall a time when so many knew so little about so much. It is obvious that very few high school students do any serious reading or writing these days. What reading they do do probably consists of perusing paragraphs on internet web sites. Most, I would guess, have never read David Copperfield or Tale of Two Cities or any novels by Jules Verne or Faulkner or Hemingway.
It's no wonder so many Americans are so susceptible to political demagogues.
Meh, I never really liked those books. I don't think people should be forced to read them either. But I always loved (and still do, in fact) Tom Clancy novels. The Giver was also a childhood favorite of mine. I don't think students should be forced to read certain novels, but they should be required to do some reading from an "approved list" and report on it.
I'd offer that required reading is quite valuable. One goal of education is enculturation - and that is planted by exposure to archetypes, customs and styles. You need not accept, like or value the specifics of that trio from those various books. In fact, the nature of individuality is such that we'd expect each student to come away with dissimilar values from those readings.
It's the exposure alone that shapes each of us, even with those books you or I disliked. It can even be argued that the dislikes shape critical thought, while the likes nurture the concept that any idea once shared gains foundation and can then evolve; moreso when the teacher encourages discourse or reporting.
Required reading is also a workplace preparation. It's quite possibly the beginning of learning that complaining and negotiating won't get you out of required tasks that you don't see the reason for, and that in the end, it's just easier to do the required work and get it out of the way - it's a survivable discomfort.
A trite response would suggest that letting students choose all of their required reading would be as disastrous as letting them choose to select from addition, multiplication or functions in math. While trite, that in itself might also be food for thought.
I think the required reading list for TSA-related decision makers ought to include the complete history of McCarthyism - not the Cliff's Notes. Short of that, I'd give them this for required reading and then require testing for comprehension - including a 20-page essay graded at the 600 level -
The Secret of Successful Despotism
Who decides what is on the approved list? And if you have an approved list, does that not suggest that children will indeed be forced to read this or that?
Perhaps those that want to edit Tom Sawyer and eliminate racial epithets or the character Jim can approve the book list? Or perhaps they can read books that rewrite our history to suit a jaded and slanderous view of America. Like a niece
Gosh, I hope not.
Or, maybe it was because I was the only person responding to the other poster on the topic... when you posted this.
That would be a much simpler explanation.
By giving away their own rights, they give away OUR rights as well. Not only that, but they are giving away something that people died for us to have. That DOES mean that they don't have respect for those that died for those rights.
If someone dies to give you something, and you throw it in the trash, that absolutely DOES mean that you don't have respect for those that died for it.
Serving our country? You may not agree with the wars they are fighting in, but if you throw away what THEY are actually fighting for, then you basically tell them... you died for this, and we appreciate it... but no thanks. That doesn't seem particularly respectful to me.
Nope, even if the TSA was a private organization and the airport was their property, that wouldn't be what they are doing.
They are detaining, fining, and jailing people. So, no... that is absolutely NOT what they are doing.
I thought I was clear, but I will try to make it a little bit clearer.
You have the right to ask me to leave your property.
You have the right to call the police to remove me from your property.
You do NOT have the right to attempt to silence me while I am on your property.
You do NOT have the right to attempt to remove my clothes while I am on your property.
You do NOT have the right to take my firearm while I am on your property.
Doing any of these things will end you up in jail.
My rights, are my rights, even if I am on YOUR property.
No argument. You can set whatever rules you want. However, you cannot violate my rights. The only thing you can do is escort me from YOUR property.
Being on your property doesn't remove any of my rights.
If you allow me onto your property, and you physically attempt to force me to leave, you have committed a crime. That's assault. If you tell me to leave, and I do not, then you can call the cops.
If you did not allow me onto your property, and you physically attempt to force me to leave (and I am NOT threatening you in any way), then you have committed a crime. That's assault. If you tell me to leave, and I do not, then you can call the cops.
If I am on your property, and you demand my firearm. I have a choice of whether or not to give it to you. You cannot take my property against my will, firearm or otherwise. If I do not hand over my firearm, you can ask me to leave. If I do not leave, you can call the cops. You cannot legally at any time put your hands on my person without committing a crime, unless I attack you first.
So, we're agreed. You cannot infringe on my rights. You can only exercise yours. You cannot stop me from speaking, or carrying a firearm. You can only determine that I will not do those things on YOUR property. That's fine. That's your right. That's why it's private property. At no point do I give up my rights simply because I entered your property though.
Let's look at your argument before we decide that.
He can ask you to leave. He cannot at this point have you removed (the police are not an on call bouncer service after all).
You can choose to simply walk off the property at that point. At no point have you given up your rights. Period.
The only thing that has been taken away is, your permission to be on his property. That permission can be conditional. That is not removing my rights at all.
If I leave willingly when asked, then there is no charges. I've simply moved the location that I am exercising my rights. My rights were never in doubt.
You have unintentionally made my point for me here.
None of my rights ever covered putting anything on YOUR property, so by not giving me permission to put it there, I have lost no rights. I still have the ability to put it somewhere else, or even on my own property.
I'm pretty sure he's got a case that his freedom of speech was violated. We don't have to like the speech, but it is protected.
This actually made me a little sick to my stomach. People like this... bah.
Further evidence that you don't understand WHY it's important to protect the rights of everyone.
It is hard to see the harm done by taking away someone's rights, when you are in the majority.
Let's put you in the minority. Let's say that the majority of people believe that talking ill of government taxation and spending is bad for the country. It's something that we should ban...
Would you feel that your right to speak should be protected then?
How is that different from the KKK situation?
And what standard would be used to determine when someone's speech should be banned, and who would apply that standard?
My personal opinion:
This comes from the requirement that schools do everything in their power to help students pass high school.
Make education the responsibility of the student.
We never take the training wheels off in our education system. Then when our kids graduate, it amazes us that they can't ride a bicycle.
The private property argument doesn't really apply here. Airports are paid for by public money for the most part. They are very much public property. Yes, there are private airports here and there built with private funds and to my knowledge, are not subject to these security procedures. I think it's safe to say that most of us do our travelling at the large, municipal airport closest to us and those are generally very much public property.
I agree, but I think the idea that somehow we check our rights at the door when we enter private property needs to be addressed.
One can respect a soldier's sacrifice and at the same time think the causes of the sacrifice, in this case the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, are not worthy of the sacrifice. There's nothing we are going to accomplish in Afghanistan that is worth the price of Americans coming home in body bags or missing limbs.