There should at least be a free speech tax.
And anyone who says otherwise, just no. Don't even try to promote free free speech unless you're willing to pay for whoever is talking.
The OP was joking around. When did Ron "support" Putin?Originally Posted by Liberty's Last Hero
http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com...fending-putin/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...of-crimea.html
I don't like using the Beast but it's a good article on the matter.
n/t
or he should just legalize the voluntary citizen's response to them, and not let courts stop people from obtaining justice
THERE ARE REAL THINGS AND THERE ARE NOT REAL THINGS
STOP THE I EAT APPLES COMPUTERS
Which of "free speech" or "welfare state" is NOT in the Bill of Rights?
Kill that one.
Epic trolling.
^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.
The Supreme Court has clearly ruled before that there is no automatic right to free speech. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
SCOTUS is wrong. libertarians have dealt with the silly "fire in a crowded theater" example many times. I know you are aware of this as well.
I love it! Tell it like it is, Cutlerzzz! I'm glad someone finally had the gumption to say it.
This is nothing to do with fascism. Fascism is a type of nationalist economic collectivism, kind of a mesh of socialism and mercantilism. What Cutlerzz is proposing is a practical measure to bring about a free market more quickly, and to crush collectivism. It is the opposite of fascism.
Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 09-04-2014 at 10:04 AM.
They never made such a ruling. You can legally yell fire in crowded theatre. You can't cause HARM by using any right when unprovoked...hence if anyone gets hurt when yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre, when no fire is present (which matters), then you aren't charged with "yelling fire"...you are charged with the harm, not the speech (inciting a panic/riot).
All natural rights are without restrictions other than violating the right of others. Christopher Hitchens has a speech online where he gets up an yells fire several times...the crowd laughs, and he goes on to explain that that stupid myth comes from a case where SCOTUS deemed speaking out against joining a military in an unnecessary war (WW1) was a good enough reason to give the speaker a multi-year jail sentence. The one who wrote the Decision (Oliver Wendell Holmes) used the $#@!ty analogy of "yelling fire" in a crowded theatre where there was no fire (but omitted the harm part to support his fascist Decision outlawing anti-war sentiments in war time), but later reversed himself in another case.
There are no limits on any rights beyond trampling the rights of others. The brainwashed nonsense to the contrary is just brainwashed nonsense. There is no such law in the United States concerning yelling anything in a crowded theatre, and when pundits on TV use this ignorant idea to make an anti-free speech case, I am quickly reminded how $#@!ing uneducated/brainwashed we are in this school system (including private schools and colleges, that taught me the same bull$#@!).
I realize you're trolling, so I threw that out there for everyone else.
^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.
He's trolling (and I hope you are too). No one in their right mind wants to limit liberty to expand liberty (hence, minarchists aren't all there - in terms of logic). It's like growing and centralizing the state to abolish the state (see Marx).
Last edited by ProIndividual; 09-06-2014 at 09:58 AM.
^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.
This was the Schenck v. United States case for those interested. Buck v. Bell was another particularly troublesome (read: evil) SCOTUS decision.The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every (kc- They are to be the Judges and the emphasis is mine... of course) case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.[7]-- Holmes, Jr.
The issue with the verbiage used by Holmes, Jr. is that it is an arbitrary definition which has no real boundaries. Most all would agree that using speech to hire another to commit a crime would indeed fall under the definition of a crime itself. The SCOTUS decision, at least how it was and will be officially interpreted, is vague. Congress doesn't like a particular activity or speech, they will indeed seek a remedy to silence it. We have journalists barred from covering court cases, closed trials, people imprisoned for posting popular lyrics to songs, criticism of public officials being prosecuted, people being put in mental institutions for their words, graffiti being prosecuted under hate crime statutes... I mean the list goes on and on. I somewhat limited mine to the last couple of years but before that movie producers were given multiple years, anti-war pamphleteers as well, whistleblowers targeted extensively. Who decides what is harmful to the government if not for the government itself? You can't even tell a juror their rights within the courtroom without fear of retribution.
So while I get your point, and I know you understand this, it's a little bit worse off than simply implying that the SCOTUS did not put another nail in the coffin of free speech with that opinion (I understand your point, though). They'd have done it anyways, especially during war times but nonetheless it is a rather notable point in American history. That whole period, really.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Thanks for that post KC...I didn't mean to imply that. I totally agree, and what I was trying to get across was that even Holmes (himself a pretty evil dude imho) pretty much reversed himself on the "fire in a crowded theatre" Decision (not because he was good, or saw the light overall, but because he seemed to come to realize the ridiculous nature of the first vague Decision).
Notice that SCOTUS didn't overturn anything...his dissent was present in the losing side of the case. HE reversed himself somewhat, but the legal interpretation stayed the same. Also, here is Hitchens' quote on the subject:According to Finan, Holmes's change of heart influenced his decision to join the minority and dissent in the Abrams v. United States case. Abrams was deported for issuing flyers saying the US should not intervene in the Russian Revolution. Holmes and Brandeis said that 'a silly leaflet by an unknown man' should not be considered illegal.[2][4] Chafee argued in Free Speech in the United States that a better analogy in Schenk might be a man who stands in a theatre and warns the audience that there are not enough fire exits.[5][6]
...Christopher Hitchens parodied the Holmes judgment by opening "FIRE! Fire, fire... fire. Now you've heard it," before condemning the famous analogy as "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." Hitchens argued that the imprisoned socialists "were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed... [W]ho’s going to decide?"[7][8]
^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.
Sometimes it's necessary to do evil things in order to bring about good things.
Sometimes you've got to bomb some foreign people in order to stop intervening in foreign affairs.
Sometimes you've got to kill some babies to stop abortion.
Sometimes you've got to trample the freedom of association in order to preserve freedom.
Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make money.
And you definitely have to spend money to make omelets.
It doesn't always seem logical, I know. It can be hard to understand. But we live in the real world, and that means that when I decide we need to kill just a few well-chosen babies of prominent abortion advocates, you should shut up and go along with it.
Or to bomb a few well-chosen Middle-Easterners. Or to imprison a few well-chosen businesses hiring dirty Mexican socialists. Or to burn a few well-chosen statist newspaper publishing houses.
Sometimes you have to break a window to stimulate the economy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us