DescentBB

Nirvana wrote:

TIGERassault wrote: Half of the video has nothing to do with freedom of speech. The other half has everything to do with it.
...Although I don't like using the term 'freedom of speech', because it's much too general, and much too easy to say 'freedom of speech doesn't exist' without relating to this individual topic.

No, NONE of this has anything to do with freedom of speech. If you hold an event, you can kick out or censor anyone you want from saying anything and it isn't a freedom of speech violation - it's your right to do so. Now, if the book that the little bugger was holding onto had been prevented from being published, THAT would have been a freedom of speech issue.

Thank you.

Like I said a couple of posts ago:

Duper wrote:... would you think a 6 year old acting like that, shouting and bad mouthing someone or his parents were exercising "free speech"?...

Tellya, you guys REALLY need to go read the Bill of Rights and our Amendments. You will be surprised how much garbage the popular media has fed us over the years.

TIGERassault wrote:...Although I don't like using the term 'freedom of speech', because it's much too general, and much too easy to say 'freedom of speech doesn't exist' without relating to this individual topic.

Waay!
Essentially, it pretty much means that I couldn't care less about the Bill of Rights and your Amendments in this case. I'm talking about whether he should have been able to continue talking or not do to something closer to human decency than laws.

fair enough Tiger.

In that case, he was still wrong in that he was stepping on other people and their chance to ask their question.

He wasn't saying anything of value, he was ranting.his questions were solid, valid questions and ones that I'm sure Kerry gets asked quite frequently. the guys behavior was out of line being in a public setting like that.

Actually Duper, I don't think he was stepping on anyone else... (one of the news channels made it appear that way though, I think - course, even in Ferno's video we don't see him walk up to the mic if I remember correctly).

TIGER: if that is the case, you shouldn't use the phrase freedom of speech, because then you are talking about the amendments and bill of rights. I think it's fair to say you think he should have been able to talk (and a lot of people do), but the point is that it wasn't his RIGHT to do so.

oh, no I didn't mean that kinda stepping on anyone. I meant he intended on taking as much time as he felt necessary to say..well whatever it was he was trying to say.
...posting from work results in some gaps in the thought process.

hey.. anyone see the vid where that wierd shifty lookin suit and tie guy is? where he makes a motion and suddenly steps out of the shot?

oh and did anyone read the UF code of student conduct?

Ferno wrote:hey.. anyone see the vid where that wierd shifty lookin suit and tie guy is? where he makes a motion and suddenly steps out of the shot?

No, but I imagine it was probably the assassin waiting for the child's distraction

Ferno wrote: oh and did anyone read the UF code of student conduct?

No, anything interesting?

Duper wrote:oh, no I didn't mean that kinda stepping on anyone. I meant he intended on taking as much time as he felt necessary to say..well whatever it was he was trying to say.

You make it sound like that's wrong.

Nirvana wrote:TIGER: if that is the case, you shouldn't use the phrase freedom of speech, because then you are talking about the amendments and bill of rights.

If that was true, then the phrase 'freedom of speech' would never be used outside of the US.

Nirvana wrote:I think it's fair to say you think he should have been able to talk (and a lot of people do), but the point is that it wasn't his RIGHT to do so.

As Wiktionary says, a right is "A legal or moral entitlement." Emphasis on 'moral'.

TIGERassault wrote:If that was true, then the phrase 'freedom of speech' would never be used outside of the US.

So, suppose someone comes to my church, walks up to the front during services, and starts giving a political speech?

Would it be a violation of "freedom of speech", as you are defining it, to stop him?

Or, what if you are at a meeting of the Science Club, and a man comes in, walks up front, and starts delivering a sermon on how the world was created in seven days. Again, would you have the right to make him shut up and leave?

Freedom of Speech means that you have the right to speak, it does NOT mean that I have to listen, and it does NOT mean that you can say whatever you want WHEREVER you want.

The government should not stop you from publishing your book. but it is NOT a violation of your freedom of speech if a publisher turns you down, or if a books store refuses to carry your book, or if I refuse to buy it.

TIGERassault wrote:If that was true, then the phrase 'freedom of speech' would never be used outside of the US.

Obviously in the context of the conversation where so many people are errantly using the phrase it's not a good one to use and people will think you're talking about the bill of rights and amendments. It's ok, you can keep trying to save your drowning ship though...

Kilarin wrote:Would it be a violation of "freedom of speech", as you are defining it, to stop him?

No.

However, if he was distinctly allowed to go up in the church/science club to give your political/creationist speech, and he had done just that, then that's a different matter altogether.