K=D8HB wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote


There is a very painful and delicate balance between the lattitude
permitted by what we call "free speech" and where your "right" to
be
abusive in public stops.


"As it is an ancient truth that freedom cannot be legislated into
existence, so
it is no less obvious that freedom cannot be censored into
existence."
-- Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th US President

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of speech and that cannot be
limited without
being lost."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd US President

I seriously doubt that Thomas Jefferson or ANY of the Founding
Fathers could have envisioned a society where thier cherished
principles would be so abused and misused as these.

Please, Hans...Show me SOME really GOOD reason why it's necessary
to allow the kind of conduct that Todd et al would shove down our
throats under the guise of "Freedom of Speech".

An entire nation was created without so much as one "MF", "GD" or
other profanity having made it into print or recorded as having been
said in any public forum.

Nor was it necessary for such "speech" to be recorded in history
duing the Civil War, the "War to End All Wars" or the Second World War.
We managed to save "democracy" from the Nazis, Communists and Facists
without worrying about whose civil rights we might be violating by not
allowing them to call someone a

The only valid limitation of free speech under our Constitution is
your
individual right not to listen.

There is no truly "free" society, Hans. "We" as a society decide
what standards we consider to be necessary for that society to be
judged a worthy entity.

There are valid limitations on "freedom of speech", Hans, and it
will be an ever-evolving concept.

I for one do not believe there's a single good reason to allow the
kind of profanity that spews forth from Taylorville, Illinois, to be
allowed in ANY forum.

Steve, K4YZ

K=D8HB wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote

Life's a lot cozier when you set yourself off from it.

If you say so, Steve.

Personally I live life and pursue freedom to the fullest. Sometimes
it isn't
cozy, but that's the price of liberty. If you want "cozy" you'll
have to
sacrifice your freedoms --- I'm not into that kind of sacrifice, and
so far our
beloved Constitution hasn't been repealed.

"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution

Nice quote, if itself not abridged!

The First Amendment says that CONGRESS shall make no law. Society
can set it's own standards, however. =20

Steve, K4YZ

K=D8HB wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote


This liability for the effects of one's "free speech" are a limit
even though
it is not censorship.


There can be a PRICE for exercising free speech, but there is no
LIMIT.

"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution

A limit is unconstitutional on it's face, and imposing a limit CAN
put you in
jail.

And the very Constitution you quote, Hans, is a man made document
subject to the "Ammendments" made by those same men (and now women...).
It needs a re-vamping.

Steve, K4YZ

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Bill Sohl" wrote


Just some additional things to consider...it isn't just a black and
white issue. There's all sorts of grey areas in the realm of free
speech limits.


Hi Bill,

Long time, no see! Hope you're well.

Everything you've described is a PRICE, not a limit.


In any practical sense a PRICE is a limit.

In accordance with the US Constitution I can say anything I want to say.
The price I pay may be that I lose acess to a particular channel
communications channel, but I am in no way limited in what I may say. The
control freaks may persuade the likes of "Consolidated" to decline to
carry Todd's words to us, but in no way can they prevent him from saying
them. Unfortunately, rather than engage in an honest two-way dialog with
someone with the grapes to identify himself, it is likely that Todd will
become another of the many "Lloyd's" who infest rrap.


Actually not only can anyone say anything anywhere anyway they want to if
they are willing to pay the price but they can also DO anything they want to
anywhere anytime if they are willing to pay the PRICE. In some cases that
is codified into law and in others it is not.

Todd has demonstrated that he is not capable of maintaining an honest
two-way dialog. At some point, especially when he is proven wrong, he goes
ballistic, stooping to behavior that is unbelievable in anyone.

"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution


Do you really think the framers of the Constitution meant anyone could say
anything at anytime? They wished to protect the publication and
dissemination of truth so that the citizenry could make informed decisions.
It's doubtful that they would have crafted this amendment for any other
reasons.

You have split hairs in another post about falsely yelling fire in a crowded
theater. That it is prosecuted under laws about public endangerment. But
that IS a limit on what a person can say or do. False distress signals are
also illegal. That too is a limit on when we can say what.

I know that by pointing this out I stand in danger of the same treatment
as accorded to Todd, but let Steve do "his best" as he earlier alluded in
relation to a member of my family.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Unless you stoop to making insulting comments about people's deceased
children, extreme use of foul language, and the other antics that Todd has
demonstrated, it is unlikely that you would be treated the same as he is.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

K=D8HB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote


Just some additional things to consider...it isn't just a black and
white issue. There's all sorts of grey areas in the realm of free
speech limits.


Hi Bill,

Long time, no see! Hope you're well.

Everything you've described is a PRICE, not a limit.

Sure it's a limit, Hans.

Know why there's no Hummer in my driveway? Becasue it costs over
$60,000 to get one equipped the way I'd like it.

If the price was half that, I'd have one.

Seems like a limit to me.

You can argue the language all day long, Hans, but whether it's a
line in a lawbook saying "Thou shalt not..." or the threat of monetary
forfiture or imprisonment, there ARE limits.

You can use your same "argument" to say that there is no "limit"
to commiting murder or bank robbbery.

In accordance with the US Constitution I can say anything I want to
say. The
price I pay may be that I lose acess to a particular channel
communications
channel, but I am in no way limited in what I may say.

Stand up in a populated room and say "I am going to kill the
President" and see how far your "limit" on what you THINK you can say
goes.

The control freaks may
persuade the likes of "Consolidated" to decline to carry Todd's words
to us, but
in no way can they prevent him from saying them.

You try to set your own limits on what others say, Hans, by
applying your own labels, ie: "control freaks", with the intention that
this will cause them to change what they say to avoid your labelling.
You are trying to set your own limits.

You are very much the same "control freak" that you accuse others
of being.

Unfortunately, rather than
engage in an honest two-way dialog with someone with the grapes to
identify
himself, it is likely that Todd will become another of the many
"Lloyd's" who
infest rrap.

Yes, Todd "identified" himself, and as you say, he had "the
grapes" to do it.

Todd's issues are not with signing his name. They are with his
lack of civility and his failure to recognize that his behaviour, both
in this forum and on the air, are not welcomed.

"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution

I know that by pointing this out I stand in danger of the same
treatment as
accorded to Todd, but let Steve do "his best" as he earlier alluded
in relation
to a member of my family.

I offered you a sincere "best wishes", Hans, and as usual you
tried to turn it into something else. I have, in the past, refered to
you as "Lennie with a License", and that is exactly why.

As Bill aptly pointed out, the First Ammendment restricts the
government from arbitrarily making those laws.

NOTHING in the Constitution says that it can't be ammended if the
citizens it governs so choose to do so. Perhaps it's time.

Steve, K4YZ

KØHB wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote


Just some additional things to consider...it isn't just a black and
white issue. There's all sorts of grey areas in the realm of free
speech limits.



Hi Bill,

Long time, no see! Hope you're well.

Everything you've described is a PRICE, not a limit.

In accordance with the US Constitution I can say anything I want to say. The
price I pay may be that I lose acess to a particular channel communications
channel, but I am in no way limited in what I may say.

By that definition, Free Speech exists everywhere. In some places the
price can be very very high, tho' 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

"K4YZ" wrote

There are valid limitations on "freedom of speech", Hans, and it
will be an ever-evolving concept.

As much as I dislike the potty-mouth antics of Todd, he (and all citizens) are
protected by rights laid out in Ammendment I of the Constitution.

Until you repeal that Ammendment (pack a lunch, it'll be a long job) the only
limitation you can place on my Freedom of Speech is your right not to listen.
Feel free to start any time.

ZBM2,

de Hans, K0HB

"K4YZ" wrote

And the very Constitution you quote, Hans, is a man made document
subject to the "Ammendments" made by those same men (and now
women...). It needs a re-vamping.

There are mechanisms in place for citizens to work toward repeal of the 1st
Ammendment, Steve. Go to work on that. In the meantime, accept it as the law
of the land.

Hans, K0HB

"K4YZ" wrote

NOTHING in the Constitution says that it can't be
ammended if the citizens it governs so choose to
do so.

Absolutely true, Steve. Go to work on that.

In the meantime, Ammendment I is the law of the land, regardless of how
distasteful you find it.

de Hans, K0HB

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"Bill Sohl" wrote
Just some additional things to consider...it isn't just a black and
white issue. There's all sorts of grey areas in the realm of free
speech limits.


Hi Bill,

Long time, no see! Hope you're well.

Doing fine...thanks.

Everything you've described is a PRICE, not a limit.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. In order
to even determine if a "price" can be extracted from someone, the limit
must be there in law of some form. Slander and liabel are both
clearly defined in the law and that defines the limit. If I use
your logic, then muder, theft, etc are merely things that if done
have a price (jail, etc) yet they are clearly prohibited by law...as
is slander, liable, certain pornography, etc.... IMHO

In accordance with the US Constitution I can say anything I want to say.
The price I pay may be that I lose acess to a particular channel
communications channel, but I am in no way limited in what I may say. The
control freaks may persuade the likes of "Consolidated" to decline to
carry Todd's words to us, but in no way can they prevent him from saying
them. Unfortunately, rather than engage in an honest two-way dialog with
someone with the grapes to identify himself, it is likely that Todd will
become another of the many "Lloyd's" who infest rrap.

"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution

Yet there are many laws that do exactly that. Laws against disclosure
of secret information, slander, liabel, etc

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK