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.

 

Let's hear your Constitutional opinion!

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Is cussing an opinion? I don't think so..

"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."


"abridging the freedom of speech" is not limited to speech that is ONLY opinion. What does opinion have to do with anything at all, other than your opinion that you may dislike it it when someone cusses.


Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
You have the right to express your opinion of the government with out fear of persecution. You do not have the right to cuss some one out. That is verbal assault.


There is no distinction made in that "sign" that claims if you VERBALLY ASSAULT someone, it is not verbal assault, until the SOMEONE is involved; that sign indicates only cussing period.


Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
Besides, if you are unable to express your opinion with out using cuss words,I suggest a dictionary and a thesaurus. There are much better words to use, that will make you seem much smarter and it gets the point across much better.


Immaterial. Whether or not someone has the aptitude to do so or even the means, is unimportant in this discussion.


Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
You do not have the right to cuss. If there is a policy in place that you are not allowed to cuss on their property, and you do cuss, they have the right to enforce it... Verbal assault. Aimed at them or not... If they do not want you cussing, the law would call that verbal assault....


I think you have the RIGHT to cuss but I agree, absolutely with the "their house" principle.... which is why I think the sign DOES have some validity in "their house"; but in a government building, it's arguable as to whose house, I guess, it truly is. Taxpayers would say it's theirs. But then again, the same could be said about the White House, so, how many of the taxpayers go loaf around there? Anyone pull up a chair in the oval office lately? It's kind of a vicious circle in a way.




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Thanks, I missed the top banner apparently.

Unconstitutional.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by nunya13
You can't outlaw anger.


Well, going by that sign, that's exactly what they're doing. A smart move given what they're up to.


If outlawing it doesn't work, they will classify anger as a mental illness and drug you.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


Freedom of speech involves ideas, not the mode of communication, per se. You can speak of anything you wish, but you cannot speak it rudely and hurtfully without the expectation of negative reaction.

And it IS possible to vent the ideas that a Public Service sucks without being vulgar in the process.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pirhanna
 


And....

4. Is the offended person just overly sensitive.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


I think it depends on what you are charged with, and how ignorant the arresting officer is of the laws he's sworn to protect.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
 


to put it simply; yes. there's no restriction on the content of your speech, just the manner in which you deliver it. you are free to put forth whatever ideas and statements you'd like, but if it's in a public setting, just watch your language. i'm sure it would make more sense if you had kids to worry about. can you really supply any example of a benefit to people saying profane words in public? how does it help us as a culture and society? if my daughter repeats your dirty words at school, she gets in trouble.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Why are these Westboro Dbags allowed to spout their vulgar and profane language at the funerals of soldiers? There are certainly people out there that feel the words they use for homosexuals are vulgar and profane. They are allowed to because our Constitution protects free speech. As much as perhaps the majority of people may find them repulsive, they are still protected. Another example is hate groups like the KKK. We may not agree with them or like how they express themselves but there are people out there who agree with them. And imposing gag rules, as much as many may wish it were so, just opens the door to the govt. controlling all speech.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by alphabetaone
 


"which is why I think the sign DOES have some validity in "their house"; but in a government building, it's arguable as to whose house, I guess, it truly is. Taxpayers would say it's theirs."

i'm a taxpayer and I would be offended if I walked into a courthouse or any public, government office and heard people using excessive profanity. so, where does that leave us? if one taxpayer wants to say "c * n t" in front of women and children, and I don't want him to, how do we settle the argument? in a government building, where taxpayers go not by choice, i should not be subjected to your (not you specifically) dirty mouth.

to me, it's the same as smoking in public; the only argument for it is "COS I WANNA!!!" while the arguments against it are numerous and rational and address the net benefit for the parties involved.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
Why are these Westboro Dbags allowed to spout their vulgar and profane language at the funerals of soldiers? There are certainly people out there that feel the words they use for homosexuals are vulgar and profane. They are allowed to because our Constitution protects free speech. As much as perhaps the majority of people may find them repulsive, they are still protected. Another example is hate groups like the KKK. We may not agree with them or like how they express themselves but there are people out there who agree with them. And imposing gag rules, as much as many may wish it were so, just opens the door to the govt. controlling all speech.


i would die to protect the rights of the WBC to conduct their protests. i would also be insane with rage if they called my dead war veteran child a "fag." if the KKK or the WBC can spread their idiotic, vile message without resorting to profane, vulgar speech, then they should be protected. but as soon as you cross the line from constructive criticism to name calling you are in the wrong, every time, plain and simple.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join