"K4YZ" wrote

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.

Nice Lennie-esque attempt at misdirection-by-outrageous-exaggeration, Steve.
Todd, however distasteful his language, did not threaten the life of the
President. He simply argued (in horribly crude language, and mostly without
logical basis) that his rights for free speech on ham radio were threatened.

You don't agree with his assertions, and neither do I (see we CAN agree on
something) but it's spookily ironic that your response was behaviour which
reinforced his contention, by suppressing his expression of ideas!

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

de Hans, K0HB

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

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

ZBM2,

de Hans, K0HB

The fifth amendment gives Steve the right to be silent, but he won't.
The only time he get's quiet is when it comes time to back up his
claims of MARS service or seven hostile actions, but he quickly fills
in the silence with more accusations.

"KØHB" wrote in message
nk.net...
"K4YZ" wrote

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.

Nice Lennie-esque attempt at misdirection-by-outrageous-exaggeration,
Steve. Todd, however distasteful his language, did not threaten the life
of the President. He simply argued (in horribly crude language, and
mostly without logical basis) that his rights for free speech on ham radio
were threatened.

You don't agree with his assertions, and neither do I (see we CAN
agree on something) but it's spookily ironic that your response was
behaviour which reinforced his contention, by suppressing his expression
of ideas!


Hans are you saying that Todd may say whatever he wants whenever where he
wants however he wants on the ham bands? Do you believe then that Part 97
is unconstitutional when it prohibits commericial use and foul language?

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

I have never used my ham radio for commercial use nor have I used foul
language on it either. Steve assumes that since I do it on the internet
then I do it on the ham radio. Steve has never heard my transmission
yet he claims that's what I'm doing.
Todd N9OGL

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...


Hans are you saying that Todd may say whatever he wants
whenever where he wants however he wants on the ham
bands?

No, Dee, I didn't say that (and of course you know that I didn't). The hams
bands aren't a right, but a regulated privilege.


Do you believe then that Part 97 is unconstitutional when
it prohibits commericial use and foul language?


No, I don't believe that (and of course you know that I don't). The amateur
bands aren't a right but a regulated privilege.

I do believe, however, that Todd has protections in the Constitution which allow
him to raise those issues here on rrap, just as Steve has protections for his
assertions that parts of the Constitution are not appropriate to his political
views. While I'm disgusted by Todds trashy language here, I am more disgusted
by the overt actions to deny him his Constitutional protections.

73, de Hans, K0HB






..

From: "Dee Flint" on Sat,Apr 30 2005 4:13 pm

"K=D8=88B" wrote in message
ink.net...
"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

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

ZBM2,

de Hans, K0HB

In a practical sense there are de facto limits. One is perfectly free
to
commit slander and libel.

No, dear, "one is NOT perfectly free" in ANY practical sense.

By your logic, one is "perfectly free" to commit murder
or grand theft, etc.

You confuse "perfectly free" with BEING ABLE TO DO SOMETHING.


It's not illegal and one cannot go to jail for it.

Slander (spoken) and libel (written) are NOT felonies.

Hello? There are TWO kinds of courts in our land and
under our (presumably you are a citizen of the USA)
laws: Criminal and Civil. [ask Phil Kane if you want
to make an issue of that...]

Yet people CAN be held finanicially liable for the effects of their
slander, etc.

It's a LOT stickier than that, Dee. FAILURE to carry out
a Civil COURT judgement order CAN result in both fines
and imprisonment.

The "financial" difference between Criminal and Civil
courts is that the State bears the legal costs of
Criminal prosecution...in Civil courts both sides
have to pay for legal representation (dependent on the
final decision of the court).

That's just basic civics information from public
school. I'm surprised you've forgotten that, being
a "parent" and all to the "children" in here...


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

Tsk. There's where you can't differentiate the Control
Freaks from the Free-speechers. The Control Freaks will
spend inordinate amounts of time in Harrassment,
Intimidation, Heckling, and Insulting certain groups...
all in an attempt to Assert Their Turf and try to force
all into "thinking" as they do (i.e., be of the same
opinions...or else). You can see them IN HERE. :-)

In Germany they once had "Krystalnacht." In here all
the glass-jawed Control Freaks bust their own chops
in spending all that "free time" on gratuitous
insulting, heckling, and general harrassement of
certain others. Their broken glass "tinkles" all
over each subject. "Free speech?" Only by a
technical definition.

Try to get with the program, Dee.

[message received and disposed of]

"K4YZ" wrote in message
ups.com...

Society can set it's own standards, however.

I wonder when you changed your mind about "freedom of expression", Steve. Not
too far back down the Google trail you were real high on the concept.

Witness the following gem!

Easy, he just wait's until she crosses back out, then while clearly on the
farmer's property, he exercises HIS second amendment rights and defends his
property by force of arms. Of course, he doesn't need to kill her, but after
he unloads several rounds of "Double Ought" into that Mercedes SUV, she will
think twice about defiling another's property for her own benefit again.

Simple freedom of expression.

Sunuvagun!

And you were giving "Mel" the song and dance about you don't believe in
violence!

Sunuvagun!

de Hans, K0HB

K=D8HB wrote:
"K4YZ" wrote in message
ups.com...

Society can set it's own standards, however.

I wonder when you changed your mind about "freedom of expression",
Steve. Not
too far back down the Google trail you were real high on the concept.

Witness the following gem!

Easy, he just wait's until she crosses back out, then while clearly
on the
farmer's property, he exercises HIS second amendment rights and
defends his
property by force of arms. Of course, he doesn't need to kill her,
but after
he unloads several rounds of "Double Ought" into that Mercedes SUV,
she will
think twice about defiling another's property for her own benefit
again.

Simple freedom of expression.

Sunuvagun!

And you were giving "Mel" the song and dance about you don't believe
in
violence!

Where did I say I didn't believe in violence, Hans?

I DID say that Mel et al flatter themselves if they thought
I'd prejudice my freedom with an act of violence against them. That is
NOT the same as suggesting that I don't think that there is a time and
a place for constructive violence.

Steve, K4YZ

N9OGL wrote:
I have never used my ham radio for commercial use nor have I used
foul
language on it either.

I never said you used it for commercial purposes. I never said
you use profanity on the air...I said you have to POTENTIAL to be the
same potty mouth on the air as you are here.

Steve assumes that since I do it on the internet
then I do it on the ham radio.

I assume nothing. However people who insist on violating civil
decorum in one forum tend to do it in others.

Remember the Vice President's faux pas a few weeks ago...?!?!

Steve has never heard my transmission yet he claims that's
what I'm doing.

You continue to insist that I have never heard you on the air,
Todd, yet you've never been to my station to know if I have or not, nor
have you had any representitive in my home to attest one way or the
other.

Why do you keep making this assertion when you know it's not
true...?!?!

And what seventh grader did you pay to make that post for you,
Todd...?!?! No profanity...Proper grammar...You even got periods in
the right places. I am impressed...What ever you paid the kid, double
it and keep him/her around...

Congratulations.

73

Steve, K4YZ

I never said you used it for commercial purposes. I never said
you use profanity on the air...I said you have to POTENTIAL to be the
same potty mouth on the air as you are here.

Don't assume anything stevey, despite what YOU think the internet and
radio are two different media's are are regulated differently. What you
can not say on the radio you can say on the internet.

I'll ignore the rest of the crap you wrote.

Todd N9OGL