"KØHB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"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.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Yet we all know yelling "fire" in a theater is illegal and forbidden by
law...yet no one has been able to overturn such a law as being
unconstitutional. Other limits on "free speech" include a whole
array of "hate crime" laws and other PC limitations on speech.
As for anyone being put in jail for imposing a limit on speech???
Frankly, I have no idea how that would even possibly come about.

The constitution ONLY restricts government from
imposing free speech limits. There is no such
limitation on private entities imposing all kinds of speech
limitations. Businesses do it all the time and fire employees for
violating their business speech limitations. That's also why ISPs
can take the action they do to ban people from their services if they
so choose based on things they have said in newsgroups,
email and/or on web sites. Happens all the time.

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.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"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. 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

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

"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

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]

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

"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

"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

"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

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