It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Would you consider constant verbal harassment to be an exception, or should somebody be able to tolerate even that without resorting to violence — even if it is likely they have already told the perpetrator that they will resort to violence if the verbal harassment does not stop?
(For this example, let us define verbal harassment as continually saying something at least 3 times minimum AFTER the person has clearly established they do not want to argue or be subjected to you shouting at them about something you disagree with? Which would include a situation where they either were going to physically restrain you or threaten your right to escape the harassment when you have clearly already asked them to stop doing it.
In the above situation, I personally WOULD classify violence as a just reaction because it would fall under the very reasonable self-defence exception.
originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Joe is just a bully and a coward, as is anyone who responds to words with violence.
originally posted by: usernameconspiracy
The "freedom of speech" you refer to in the OP does not exist, has never existed, and is certainly not a protected right. I'm not sure why some people think it is.
There are plenty of legal remedies to someone who thinks they are exercising freedom of speech, such as libel and slander lawsuits. There are plenty of administrative remedies to someone who thinks they are exercising freedom of speech, such as being fired from their job.
The ONLY protected freedom of speech is that which is very plainly outlined in the Constitution under the First Amendment as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's it. The end. Any argument about free speech which does not fall under the above IS NOT the exercise of free speech, and can come with consequences depending on said speech, as we have seen routinely, especially if the content of said speech can be construed as harmful to said person's place of employment.
So if a court can prove that you incite imminent lawlessness by falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, it can convict you. If you incite an unlawful riot, your speech is "brigaded" with illegal action, and you will have broken the law. But merely falsely shouting "fire" does not break the law, even if it risks others’ safety.
The "freedom of speech" you refer to in the OP does not exist, has never existed, and is certainly not a protected right. I'm not sure why some people think it is.
There are plenty of legal remedies to someone who thinks they are exercising freedom of speech, such as libel and slander lawsuits. There are plenty of administrative remedies to someone who thinks they are exercising freedom of speech, such as being fired from their job.
The ONLY protected freedom of speech is that which is very plainly outlined in the Constitution under the First Amendment as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That's it. The end. Any argument about free speech which does not fall under the above IS NOT the exercise of free speech, and can come with consequences depending on said speech, as we have seen routinely, especially if the content of said speech can be construed as harmful to said person's place of employment.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
The free speech I am referring to is a philosophical principle and fundamental human right, and as an idea or belief, it surely exists.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
As I said, freedom of speech is a principle, not a mythical creature.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
We can deal in maybes all you want, but without argument maybes is all we are left with.