Thread: Freedom Of Speech In The Us?

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.

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?

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.