Thread: Freedom Of Speech In The Us?

Originally Posted by Wolffe

We don't even know the manager/owner/whatever had anything to do with it; the security probably decided it on their own, I guess. Still, things like this make me wonder if the law is there to protect us, or protect the guys making the money.[/b]

Exactly my point.

Originally Posted by ShYne123

Ummmm this was in 2003 LOL, everyone knows that right??

Anyone know what happened in the end? Court jail?[/b]

anyone??? lol

What is the difference from sending away people with 'peace' shirts and sending away every democrat, or every gay person, or every black person for that matter? No shop or mall or anything should be allowed to discriminate, because that what it is, political/ideological discrimination, against anyone.

Originally Posted by Neruo

What is the difference from sending away people with 'peace' shirts and sending away every democrat, or every gay person, or every black person for that matter? No shop or mall or anything should be allowed to discriminate, because that what it is, political/ideological discrimination, against anyone.[/b]

Originally Posted by Neruo

What is the difference from sending away people with 'peace' shirts and sending away every democrat, or every gay person, or every black person for that matter? No shop or mall or anything should be allowed to discriminate, because that what it is, political/ideological discrimination, against anyone.[/b]

If you ever own a mall in the U.S., you will have the right to ban shirts that say, "George W. Bush: Father of the Free Iraq". It would be silly of you to ban it, but it would be your right.

I guess the security guards thought that stuff was banned. If they were wrong, the owner probably fired the security guards and dropped the charges. If not, it was what he wanted.

I was at a bar three years ago that was under a brand new name. The same damn place was called something else a few weeks earlier, and it was a laid back place where I never once saw a bouncer. The new business had a rule that men must wear collared shirts and tuck them in. When I got there with some co-workers, I fortunately happened to be in one of my very rare moments where I was wearing a collared shirt in my free time. I tucked it in and got in line. While I was standing there, a bouncer kicked out a guy who did not have his shirt tucked in. The bouncer was a real ass about it too. I didn't cancel my plans that night, but I never went back to that sorry place again after that night. However, I didn't have the opinion that they didn't have a right to make that rule and kick people out for breaking it. It was somebody's private property. I just thought it was a ridiculous place with stupid rules. They ended up going out of business. There is a certain degree of kharma in capitalism.

Originally Posted by Universal

If you ever own a mall in the U.S., you will have the right to ban shirts that say, "George W. Bush: Father of the Free Iraq". It would be silly of you to ban it, but it would be your right.[/b]

Since when is it more Silly to advocate peace then to advocate war?

I guess the security guards thought that stuff was banned. If they were wrong, the owner probably fired the security guards and dropped the charges. If not, it was what he wanted.[/b]

Yeah, I know this bar that does about the same thing, they let people with certain T-shirts been denied entry. You know what is REALLY PURELY coincidental? That it are Black/Brown people that KEEP wearing T-shirts or Shoes the owner doesn't like. Really silly. It is totally fine however, it is the right of the owner. Not like people should be treated equally. (sarcasm)


Actually, it isn't important weather the guards were acting on their own of on someones else accord. I find it more a big deal they can hide their discrimination behind (their boss's) "Oh, but it is my own property".

I was at a bar three years ago that was under a brand new name. The same damn place was called something else a few weeks earlier, and it was a laid back place where I never once saw a bouncer. The new business had a rule that men must wear collared shirts and tuck them in. When I got there with some co-workers, I fortunately happened to be in one of my very rare moments where I was wearing a collared shirt in my free time. I tucked it in and got in line. While I was standing there, a bouncer kicked out a guy who did not have his shirt tucked in. The bouncer was a real ass about it too. I didn't cancel my plans that night, but I never went back to that sorry place again after that night. However, I didn't have the opinion that they didn't have a right to make that rule and kick people out for breaking it. It was somebody's private property. I just thought it was a ridiculous place with stupid rules. They ended up going out of business. There is a certain degree of kharma in capitalism.[/b]

Has the mall gone out of business? Also, your example hardly relates to THIS case. I understand that in a bar, you want a certain image, class or something. Also, the rules are set. Unless if you agree that for people they find ugly they make the rules a whole of a lot more strict.

In the case of the Mall, making up a rule on the spot is something totally different. What purpose did it serve? There is no reason to ban someone from your establishment wearing a peace-shirt if all the other people are wearing casual clothes too, except for political discrimination. Personally, I think McDonalds should, at least if they serve people with normal caps or those biker-bandannas, serve Muslim women that choose to wear a towel on their head (not a burka -covering everything including the face-, I could understand you don't want to serve people with ski-masks too). I don't see much difference between such cases, expect for that one is pure political discrimination and the other is pure religious (or even ethical/race) discrimination.

That is a good point Neruo made about the rule not being obvious to begin with. I mean a set dresscode, fair enough, but it sounds a bit illigitimate to stop someone from wearing a T-shirt he'd just bought from the same place without any warnings anywhere. Considering he was a lawyer, I guess he was probably in the right too, which is what makes it even more stupid.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Since when is it more Silly to advocate peace then to advocate war?
Yeah, I know this bar that does about the same thing, they let people with certain T-shirts been denied entry. You know what is REALLY PURELY coincidental? That it are Black/Brown people that KEEP wearing T-shirts or Shoes the owner doesn't like. Really silly. It is totally fine however, it is the right of the owner. Not like people should be treated equally. (sarcasm)


Actually, it isn't important weather the guards were acting on their own of on someones else accord. I find it more a big deal they can hide their discrimination behind (their boss's) "Oh, but it is my own property".
Has the mall gone out of business? Also, your example hardly relates to THIS case. I understand that in a bar, you want a certain image, class or something. Also, the rules are set. Unless if you agree that for people they find ugly they make the rules a whole of a lot more strict.

In the case of the Mall, making up a rule on the spot is something totally different. What purpose did it serve? There is no reason to ban someone from your establishment wearing a peace-shirt if all the other people are wearing casual clothes too, except for political discrimination. Personally, I think McDonalds should, at least if they serve people with normal caps or those biker-bandannas, serve Muslim women that choose to wear a towel on their head (not a burka -covering everything including the face-, I could understand you don't want to serve people with ski-masks too). I don't see much difference between such cases, expect for that one is pure political discrimination and the other is pure religious (or even ethical/race) discrimination.[/b]

So, what should the law be? You can ban shirts that condone war on your own property, depending on how everybody else is dressed, but you can't ban shirts that protest war on your own property, and Muslim head towels should be allowed, depending on whether others are allowed to wear caps and bandanas, unless the owner wants a certain image? That would be a really strange law to pass.

If the mall didn't go out of business, not enough people knew what assholish rules it had.

Originally Posted by Universal

So, what should the law be? You can ban shirts that condone war on your own property, depending on how everybody else is dressed, but you can't ban shirts that protest war on your own property, and Muslim head towels should be allowed, depending on whether others are allowed to wear caps and bandanas, unless the owner wants a certain image? That would be a really strange law to pass.[/b]

No: You can set a dresscode. You shouldn't treat a T-shirt with "God bless America and the war" differently then a T-Shirt that says: "Stop the war" differently assuming they are both proper t-shirts. Assuming it are identical T-shirts, except for the text, on what ground are you discriminating/treating people differently? A purely political one. Do you agree with that? A dresscode is something different then political discrimination.

If the mall didn't go out of business, not enough people knew what assholish rules it had.[/b]

I am sure, that normally people do get to know. Of course. Not like most cases of racism and discrimination never get noticed. *sarcasm* But hey 'It private property". If you will excuse me, I am going to set up my ice-cream stand and refuse service to everyone with an American flag or symbol, would you like that? What if I had a mall, the closest shop to your home, would you still think it was fine?

Many people forget that feelings are not a protected human right, and they shouldnt be. Making laws or having policies to protect them means that there is a right way of thinking and a wrong way of thinking. That being said, I agree that this is a violation of that man\'s rights. Confusing an opinion with how the opinion is portrayed is a big problem.

OK, so our rights are slightly limited. There are still 2 underlying facts. This is not the public policy in America, and it happens in every other country. I heard you can be jailed in England for saying the N-word in a public place. Publishing an image of Muhammad is now directly or indirectly outlawed world wide, as shown when Comedy Central forbided South Park to show Muhammad last season. How are these any different?

If freedom of speech is what you want, everything must be protected or nothing at all, so dont get upset when something you dont like gets limited. Its hipocritical, because there are things you think should be limited. EVERYTHING or NOTHING.

And dont use this as a point against conservatives. American Democrats limit what we can and cant say or do more than anybody. Check up on sexual harrassment laws, smoking laws, media censorship,etc. Almost all were pushed by democrats, and even though there are for the best, they are fascist (by definition) in nature. Protecting feelings with laws is worthless, because SOMEBODY is going to be pissed no matter what you say. What about their feelings?

Post Scriptum: A black politician in America is trying to outlaw the N-word because of the feelings it arises in blacks. Is it more important to once again slightly cripple our rights, or protect a groups feelings?

Originally Posted by Universal

I think whoever was behind what happened at the mall is a schmuck. I'm just saying it's legal and not a constitutional violation.[/b]

A free country is one where it's safe to be hated I suppose. Maybe whoever is behind this interpreted the shirt as an anti-republican or anti-bush slogan and was offended by it. Maybe he was upset because he had been receiving a lot of flak lately about his views about the recent news covering the Iraq war situation?

Originally Posted by Neruo

If you will excuse me, I am going to set up my ice-cream stand and refuse service to everyone with an American flag or symbol, would you like that? What if I had a mall, the closest shop to your home, would you still think it was fine?[/b]

Would I like it? No. Would it be your right? In my country it would, and it should be. Is Holland just as free? We have a few exceptions, like racial and gender discrimination. I don't even believe in those exceptions. If a black guy wants to open an ice cream stand and call it "I Hate Sorry Pale Honkey Ass Crackers" and refuse to sell ice cream to white people, I think that should be his right. If you want to open an ice cream stand and refuse service to anybody wearing red, white, or blue, and you want to call it "America Sucks, So Americans Go The Fuck Away", it is YOUR business, so it should be your decision. I am a big valuer of private ownership. If you get to decide who can enter your house and what rules they have to follow while they are there, you should be able to do it with your business property. They are both YOUR property.

Originally Posted by Universal

Would I like it? No. Would it be your right? In my country it would, and it should be. Is Holland just as free?[/b]

No I don't have the 'freedom' to take away other people's ability to shop somewhere. Sorry universal, being allowed do discriminate does NOT make your country any more free. Being allow to smoke weed, that is freedom. And being able to burn your own flag, did they made that forbidden(unfree) in America yet? Are you being wiretapped yet? In the Netherlands, we don't have the 'freedom' to get wiretapped by HS :'(

We have a few exceptions, like racial and gender discrimination. I don't even believe in those exceptions. If a black guy wants to open an ice cream stand and call it "I Hate Sorry Pale Honkey Ass Crackers" and refuse to sell ice cream to white people, I think that should be his right. If you want to open an ice cream stand and refuse service to anybody wearing red, white, or blue, and you want to call it "America Sucks, So Americans Go The Fuck Away", it is YOUR business, so it should be your decision. I am a big valuer of private ownership. If you get to decide who can enter your house and what rules they have to follow while they are there, you should be able to do it with your business property. They are both YOUR property.[/b]

So it is fine? Then what did people (rednecks) in the 50s do wrong? Didn't they had the right to make separate bathrooms, and pay black people way less? I don't see what is the difference. Also, would discrimination as you put it in the ice-cream stand-scenario be okay if 99.99% of the population was black and refused to sell anything in any shop to the 0.001% of "pale honkey ass cracker"? Hmm, I wouldn't want to be a 'pale honkey ass cracker" in that country.

Originally Posted by Neruo

No I don't have the 'freedom' to take away other people's ability to shop somewhere. Sorry universal, being allowed do discriminate does NOT make your country any more free. Being allow to smoke weed, that is freedom. And being able to burn your own flag, did they made that forbidden(unfree) in America yet? Are you being wiretapped yet? In the Netherlands, we don't have the 'freedom' to get wiretapped by HS :'(
So it is fine? Then what did people (rednecks) in the 50s do wrong? Didn't they had the right to make separate bathrooms, and pay black people way less? I don't see what is the difference. Also, would discrimination as you put it in the ice-cream stand-scenario be okay if 99.99% of the population was black and refused to sell anything in any shop to the 0.001% of "pale honkey ass cracker"? Hmm, I wouldn't want to be a 'pale honkey ass cracker" in that country.[/b]

The ability to make your own rules for your own property is freedom. Being wire tapped is not freedom, and it is still unconstitutional to do that without a warrant under the 4th Amendment.

What rednecks did wrong in the 50's was kill black people and terrorize them, along with denying them education at public institutions, like public schools and the Universities of Mississippi and Alabama. They were also forced to sit in the back of public buses. That was terrible AND unrightful. You need to understand the difference between public and private. Being a socialist might make that hard for you, but you should try. Making separate bathrooms is horrible, but it is a private owner's right. It is not a person's right to set that up in public parks, schools, and libraries and so forth. And yes, the discrimination scenario with the .01% population (Uh, black people make up 12% of the U.S. population and 50% in my area of the country. Jackson, Mississippi is 70% black.) would be the person's right, but still bad.

Originally Posted by Universal

The ability to make your own rules for your own property is freedom. Being wire tapped is not freedom, and it is still unconstitutional to do that without a warrant under the 4th Amendment.[/b]

TududududududSHABAM: Patriot Act.

What rednecks did wrong in the 50's was kill black people and terrorize them, along with denying them education at public institutions, like public schools and the Universities of Mississippi and Alabama. They were also forced to sit in the back of public buses. That was terrible AND unrightful. You need to understand the difference between public and private. Being a socialist might make that hard for you, but you should try. Making separate bathrooms is horrible, but it is a private owner's right. It is not a person's right to set that up in public parks, schools, and libraries and so forth. And yes, the discrimination scenario with the .01% population (Uh, black people make up 12% of the U.S. population and 50% in my area of the country. Jackson, Mississippi is 70% black.) would be the person's right, but still bad.[/b]

Yes, it is quite bad. On my terms, something being private or public doesn't change or it is bad or not, or it is discrimination or not, or it is racist or not. According to you, or at least the law you so lovingly defend, it does matter, because it is totally legal and fine, and free, but somehow bad to deny black people entry to shops, malls, private restrooms, taxi's, restaurants, gas stations, barterers, private clinics, private schools, ect ect.

I have to disagree, I am sorry. I don't think of that being possible as a virtue.

Originally Posted by Neruo

TududududududSHABAM: Patriot Act.[/b]

TudududududSHABAM: Non-citizens... suspected terrorists (enemy combatants) during a war. The government can't just tap my phone without a warrant because they don't like what I have to say about the proposed flag burning amendment. Stuff like that does happen sometimes, but it is not legal.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Yes, it is quite bad. On my terms, something being private or public doesn't change or it is bad or not, or it is discrimination or not, or it is racist or not. According to you, or at least the law you so lovingly defend, it does matter, because it is totally legal and fine, and free, but somehow bad to deny black people entry to shops, malls, private restrooms, taxi's, restaurants, gas stations, barterers, private clinics, private schools, ect ect.

I have to disagree, I am sorry. I don't think of that being possible as a virtue.[/b]

I dont' think you are reading my posts carefully enough. Something can be terrible and still need to be legal. It would be terrible for you to spray paint, "I hate spics and women!" all over your bed room. It should still be your legal right. You should have the right to not allow women and hispanics into your house, don't you think? It doesn't mean your behavior wouldn't be "bad". "Bad" does not always equate with "should be illegal". If the law worked that way, we would have a ton less freedom.

The whole wiretap thing doesn't have anything to do with actually listening to your conversation. It actually is for finding out who you are talking to and where they are and where you are. Unconstitutional? I wouldn't say figuring out the location you are trying to call is unconstitutional. The government isn't going to care if you are calling your mother or sex hotline so I don't think you have anything to hide.

i thought it was kind of offensive. when something says "give peace a chance" and that is like saying "peace is currently not happening, so give it a chance". And america hates for people to say stuff against the government.

Originally Posted by Universal

TudududududSHABAM: Non-citizens... suspected terrorists (enemy combatants) during a war. The government can't just tap my phone without a warrant because they don't like what I have to say about the proposed flag burning amendment. Stuff like that does happen sometimes, but it is not legal.[/b]

"Sometimes" is all it takes.

I dont' think you are reading my posts carefully enough. Something can be terrible and still need to be legal. It would be terrible for you to spray paint, "I hate spics and women!" all over your bed room. It should still be your legal right. You should have the right to not allow women and hispanics into your house, don't you think? It doesn't mean your behavior wouldn't be "bad". "Bad" does not always equate with "should be illegal". If the law worked that way, we would have a ton less freedom.[/b]

If laws are not (directly) derived from ethics, then what are they 'made' of and what is their purpose? Anyhow, racism, by not selling anything to black people, is one of the 'freedoms' that by hurting and by taking away freedom for others is ethically better of 'illegal'. Also, keeping it legal holds no 'freedom'-gaining power (,a word a lot of Americans trow around so often they seem to forget what it means, and that they forget it isn't a set value of a country), since all discrmination, racism and things like murder do is steal other peoples freedom.

You can't have 100% freedom in a country, if there are people that enjoy taking freedom away from others. So be it, such is mankind, make the law so that it is the most Ethically and even the Most free: don't allow for discrimination.

Why should it be a right to discriminate ('On public property&#39 but not right to kill or rape/murder/theft someone? What is the real difference. In both cases, person A wants to do something, and that something involves taking away freedom (of choice) and joy from person B. What is the difference?

The difference is that American society favors the rights of the individual over the rights of the population. Really, individualism and individual freedoms are what set us apart from other countries. Entrepreneurship and the right to do whatever you want with your business helps alot. I still dont know why so many people hate corporations.

But no frowns, Neuro!! American society is becoming more socialist every day.

Originally Posted by Hard

The difference is that American society favors the rights of the individual over the rights of the population. Really, individualism and individual freedoms are what set us apart from other countries. Entrepreneurship and the right to do whatever you want with your business helps alot. I still dont know why so many people hate corporations.[/b]

Guess what, I could also start a business. I really wonder, in what way do you think America is more free then the Netherlands? Name an example for instance. Or are you just saying 'that sets us apart' without knowing what the other countries are like? : )

An in-effect rather big difference is that people on the bottom, the minimum-wage people get paid shit, and the top-people get fortunes. In the Netherlands the percentages of pay are a bit more leveled out, besides that there is little difference if you ask me.

But no frowns, Neuro!! American society is becoming more socialist every day.[/b]

Seriously, don't you think that is just like "kids these days!"? That is something of all generations. My grandpa doesn't understand me, and thinks I am weird, and I am sure I will think the same about my grandson. (I also think other 'kids', sometimes older then me, have silly fads ). Point being: I am sure they are saying "America is getting to socialist!" for ages. Just as how all the left-winggers say "We are turning more and more facist!" for ages. "The grass is always greener on the other side."-kind of effect I guess.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Why should it be a right to discriminate ('On public property&#39 but not right to kill or rape/murder/theft someone? What is the real difference. In both cases, person A wants to do something, and that something involves taking away freedom (of choice) and joy from person B. What is the difference?[/b]

If you have been reading my posts, you know I said "private property", not "public property". There is an enormous difference. I will assume that was a typo.

What is the difference between ending a person's conscious existence for eternity and not letting him in your house? Do you really need me to explain that to you? I will assume you are joking. But if you ask me again to let me know you are serious, I will explain it to you.

Telling your mother she sucks when she doesn't deserve it is very wrong, but it is not something that should be legislated. The same goes for making discriminatory rules regarding your own property. There are certain things that have to be allowed. If the government thought your horrendous statements against the United States are "wrong" (And BELIEVE me, there are tons of people in my government who would believe they are.), they would have no business locking you up for it, or even fining you. Freedom of expression and freedom to your own property are freedoms that have to exist.

Some people literally do live in their shops. Some houses are shops where the owners live. Imagine owning one of those and being told that the Abu Ghraib offenders have to be allowed in there to shop. Based on things you have said, those are definitely people you don't want in your house. You think they are the embodiment of evil. That is your opinion. Should the government be able to tell you that you must let them in your house to walk around for hours?

Originally Posted by Universal

If you have been reading my posts, you know I said "private property", not "public property". There is an enormous difference. I will assume that was a typo.[/b]

Yes it was, I am sorry, I will edit it. Big difference.

What is the difference between ending a person's conscious existence for eternity and not letting him in your house? Do you really need me to explain that to you? I will assume you are joking. But if you ask me again to let me know you are serious, I will explain it to you.[/b]

Please do! I was not saying they were at the same level, but they are in the same class. Both things restrain one's freedom in a way, one a little bit, the other absolutely. Isn't it so?

Telling your mother she sucks when she doesn't deserve it is very wrong, but it is not something that should be legislated. The same goes for making discriminatory rules regarding your own property. There are certain things that have to be allowed. If the government thought your horrendous statements against the United States are "wrong" (And BELIEVE me, there are tons of people in my government who would believe they are.), they would have no business locking you up for it, or even fining you. Freedom of expression and freedom to your own property are freedoms that have to exist.[/b]

The irony is that if I was living the America, and was a bit more extreme in my, still violence-free, attacks, I really think I would have a wire-tap

Also, isn't it illegal to say, in America, "I think the president of America should be killed."? I heard that somewhere, I would say it is true.

Some people literally do live in their shops. Some houses are shops where the owners live. Imagine owning one of those and being told that the Abu Ghraib offenders have to be allowed in there to shop. Based on things you have said, those are definitely people you don't want in your house. You think they are the embodiment of evil. That is your opinion. Should the government be able to tell you that you must let them in your house to walk around for hours?[/b]

I would let them shop. Actually, I think they aren't the embodiment of evil, I think they are victims, results of a national fear-campaign, xenophobia and military jar-heading. They may not even be evil, since they might have thought they were doing the right thing. The fact that something made them believe they were doing the right thing by torturing people, That is what I hate.

Originally Posted by Neruo

"Sometimes" is all it takes.
If laws are not (directly) derived from ethics, then what are they 'made' of and what is their purpose?

You can't have 100% freedom in a country, if there are people that enjoy taking freedom away from others. So be it, such is mankind, make the law so that it is the most Ethically and even the Most free: don't allow for discrimination.

Why should it be a right to discriminate ('On public property&#39 but not right to kill or rape/murder/theft someone? What is the real difference. In both cases, person A wants to do something, and that something involves taking away freedom (of choice) and joy from person B. What is the difference?[/b]

Laws are based on ethics. Their purpose (in a free society) is to protect the people, and to allow the people to pursue anything that they deem fit, so long as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others.

Your point about the 100% freedom is correct, and that is the public policy of the U.S.

It's not a right to discriminate on public property. It is also not right to commit the abovementioned crimes on anyone. In both instances, you would be depriving an individual of something that is inherently theirs.