Overreaching gay rights movement; Indiana's religious freedom act (3)

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,746
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,767.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Quote from Loudmouth (from previous thread):

Show me where any right in the US Constitution is considered to be unlimited.

I'm still waiting for you to show me the limits the constitution placed on free speech. In case you don't realize it, the constitution was created to place limits on the government, not the people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

AirPo

with a Touch of Grey
Oct 31, 2003
26,359
7,214
60
✟169,357.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Quote from Loudmouth (from previous thread):



I'm still waiting for you to show me the limits the constitution placed on free speech. In case you don't realize it, the constitution was created to place limits on the government, not the people.

What makes you think the Constitution placed limits on free speech?
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Site Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What makes you think the Constitution placed limits on free speech?

Free Speech is about the government not limiting it. However, there are laws about disturbing the peace, inciting violence, threatening other people, etc.

All rights are limited when it comes to the exercise of rights when doing so causes other people to have trouble exercising theirs.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Quote from Loudmouth (from previous thread):



I'm still waiting for you to show me the limits the constitution placed on free speech. In case you don't realize it, the constitution was created to place limits on the government, not the people.

That would be up to the justices, to determine when freedoms start to infringe on the rights of others.

Plenty of supreme court rulings on when free speech is exceeded beyond it's limits. That is, if you want to learn about the same.
 
Upvote 0

Avid

A Pilgrim and a Sojourner...
Sep 21, 2013
2,129
753
✟13,263.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
... the constitution was created to place limits on the government, not the people.
The US Constitution puts almost no restriction on the people's rights. There are tens of thousands of laws (hundreds of thousands most likely) that do that. The Constitution was intended to define a gov. that was limited in that. It's hard to detect there are any limits, especially with all the overreaching laws we have these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aldebaran
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The US Constitution puts almost no restriction on the people's rights. There are tens of thousands of laws (hundreds of thousands most likely) that do that. The Constitution was intended to define a gov. that was limited in that. It's hard to detect there are any limits, especially with all the overreaching laws we have these days.

In your opinion then, are there no legitimate limitations to free speech?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Maren

Veteran
Oct 20, 2007
8,709
1,659
✟57,368.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Actually, the Alien and Sedition Acts were never found to be unconstitutional, instead the Acts were limited to a few years (somewhat like the Patriot Act) and expired (unlike the Patriot Act) during Thomas Jefferson's presidential term. More recent courts have assumed that they would be found unconstitutional today, but no ruling was ever made on them.

More to the point, what I was showing you is that the Founders, the people that wrote the Constitution, did not believe that Freedom of Speech had no limits -- they did believe that the rights were limited or they never would have allowed the Alien and Sedition Acts to pass -- it would have been shouted down in the Congressional debates on the Acts.

So, I've given you an example of how the Framers of the Constitution limited Free Speech. Others have pointed out that exceptions to Free Speech have been allowed by the Supreme Court -- such as "Free Speech zones" around abortion clinics and political conventions. They've also allowed localities to require organizers to get permits for protests -- though the permits must be allowed without regard to what is being protested, merely that local governments can limit where people can protest to help protect the safety of citizens, particularly if you have opposite sides protesting on the same day.

And before you tell me, "well, that's the Supreme Court, it isn't what the Constitution says", remember you are the one who claimed that the Alien and Sedition Acts were declared unconstitutional. While that is untrue, it means you do recognize the right of the Supreme Court to determine whether laws are Constitutional.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,746
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,767.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Actually, the Alien and Sedition Acts were never found to be unconstitutional, instead the Acts were limited to a few years (somewhat like the Patriot Act) and expired (unlike the Patriot Act) during Thomas Jefferson's presidential term. More recent courts have assumed that they would be found unconstitutional today, but no ruling was ever made on them.

More to the point, what I was showing you is that the Founders, the people that wrote the Constitution, did not believe that Freedom of Speech had no limits -- they did believe that the rights were limited or they never would have allowed the Alien and Sedition Acts to pass -- it would have been shouted down in the Congressional debates on the Acts.

So, I've given you an example of how the Framers of the Constitution limited Free Speech. Others have pointed out that exceptions to Free Speech have been allowed by the Supreme Court -- such as "Free Speech zones" around abortion clinics and political conventions. They've also allowed localities to require organizers to get permits for protests -- though the permits must be allowed without regard to what is being protested, merely that local governments can limit where people can protest to help protect the safety of citizens, particularly if you have opposite sides protesting on the same day.

And before you tell me, "well, that's the Supreme Court, it isn't what the Constitution says", remember you are the one who claimed that the Alien and Sedition Acts were declared unconstitutional. While that is untrue, it means you do recognize the right of the Supreme Court to determine whether laws are Constitutional.

The bolded part is an example of how free speech can be limited to whatever amount someone in government wants to limit it. Such "free speech zones": Is there any distance from that which is being protested that a government official cannot put this "zone"? How far is too far? 100 feet? 1,000 feet? A mile? Why not say, "Oh sure, you can protest all you want as long as you're a mile from those you're protesting". Then they can say that they haven't infringed on a person's right to protest at all. Being seen or heard is the issue at this point.

And requiring permits (permission) to speak freely? Doesn't that sound a bit odd to you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

Avid

A Pilgrim and a Sojourner...
Sep 21, 2013
2,129
753
✟13,263.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
... Alien and Sedition Acts were never found to be unconstitutional, instead the Acts were limited to a few years (somewhat like the Patriot Act) and expired (unlike the Patriot Act) during Thomas Jefferson's presidential term...
It surprises me when I find much that Adams #2 said I agree with. Some warnings and statements of fact do not necessarily mean he thought what I do about it. It simply means he recognized the facts.

I find the most agreement with Jefferson #3 and especially on constitutional issues that we discuss even today. We are hoping to see the judiciary back the legislature on these issues of religious freedom.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aldebaran
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The bolded part is an example of how free speech can be limited to whatever amount someone in government wants to limit it. Such "free speech zones": Is there any distance from that which is being protested that a government official cannot put this "zone"? How far is too far? 100 feet? 1,000 feet? A mile? Why not say, "Oh sure, you can protest all you want as long as you're a mile from those you're protesting". Then they can say that they haven't infringed on a person's right to protest at all. Being seen or heard is the issue at this point.

That's why we have a judiciary -- to tell the difference between a legitimate concern for issues such as public safety, and a speech-squelching stunt such as what you've described.

And requiring permits (permission) to speak freely? Doesn't that sound a bit odd to you?

The permits aren't for speech -- rather, the permits are for the disruption of civic functions that a large gathering would necessarily cause.

10 people standing on a street corner isn't going to require a permit... but 100 people organizing a parade/protest march, forcing traffic to be rerouted, requiring police protection, needing sanitation services to clean up afterwards (at overtime pay, of course) -- well, municipal governments have a right to know about that in advance, so they can plan accordingly.

Don't you think?
 
Upvote 0

mafwons

Hi guys
Feb 16, 2014
2,740
169
✟11,177.00
Faith
Non-Denom
That's why we have a judiciary -- to tell the difference between a legitimate concern for issues such as public safety, and a speech-squelching stunt such as what you've described.

The permits aren't for speech -- rather, the permits are for the disruption of civic functions that a large gathering would necessarily cause.

10 people standing on a street corner isn't going to require a permit... but 100 people organizing a parade/protest march, forcing traffic to be rerouted, requiring police protection, needing sanitation services to clean up afterwards (at overtime pay, of course) -- well, municipal governments have a right to know about that in advance, so they can plan accordingly.

Don't you think?

No, kind of defeats the purpose.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,746
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,767.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
No, kind of defeats the purpose.

I'm sure this thread will live forever, assuming anyone can find it. Most posts seem to be gone after the "transition".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Avid
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
No, kind of defeats the purpose.

It's a given that free speech isn't absolute. If your speech or actions is going to infringe on others' rights, the government has a duty to step in and make sure it doesn't cause too much disruption.

Wouldn't you like to know if there's going to be a parade blocking your morning commute tomorrow morning?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
DC v. Heller gives us a peek into the theory of law within the judicial branch:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The judicial branch is given the power to interpret the constitution, and they do not view the given rights as being unlimited. That settles the issue for me.
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,746
12,123
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,767.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It's a given that free speech isn't absolute. If your speech or actions is going to infringe on others' rights, the government has a duty to step in and make sure it doesn't cause too much disruption.

Wouldn't you like to know if there's going to be a parade blocking your morning commute tomorrow morning?

Since when does my speech infringe on the rights of another person? Actions can infringe on rights. Speech can't.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Since when does my speech infringe on the rights of another person? Actions can infringe on rights. Speech can't.

Are you saying you should be allowed to verbally defame and libel others?
 
Upvote 0