"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]