Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Great content, not too sure about the title though. What exactly are the limits on Mr. Bieber’s knowledge of particle physics? If he knows anything — or even if he knows nothing, but is at least willing to learn — it’s not a fair comparison.
Try educating a liberal about this sometime. You’ll quickly discover ignorance is not the root of the problem; you’ll discover there was something else putting the ignorance there, and keeping it there. They just don’t give a damn.
The whole point of listing a right within our Constitution’s Bill of Rights is that it’s beyond discussion, meaning some bureaucrat cannot infringe upon it because his pea-brain has decided that it makes sense to do so. What’s a “reasonable” exercise of religion or “reasonable” speech? Constitutionally, the question makes no sense. Liberals hate that they can’t “reason” our rights down to a tiny nub that’s too small to interfere with their dreams of power and control.
Rights aren’t a favor the government extends to us in its wise benevolence. Our rights existed in us from the moment of our creation, and they are inalienable. The Bill of Rights is not there to list for us what rights we have been granted. It’s to provide the government with a partial list of our fundamental rights and to warn it to keep its grubby mitts off them.
The only thing worse than seeing things within the Constitution which aren’t there is refusing to see things that manifestly are. Only liberals can look at an amendment reading “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” and see blank parchment.
From Linkiest.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
mkfreeberg (quoting): What’s a “reasonable” exercise of religion or “reasonable” speech? Constitutionally, the question makes no sense.
Of course it does. The courts have ruled on a number of valid exceptions to free speech, including false statements, incitement, obscenity, child pornography, threats, copyright, and commercial speech. There are also exceptions for the free exercise of religion, such as laws against human and animal sacrifice, drug laws, or any other law where the government can show a compelling state interest that is religiously neutral.
- Zachriel | 04/30/2014 @ 07:36Sure there are all KINDS of laws. I’m just not seeing the sensible argument bit.
“It’s not that they’re stupid, it’s that they KNOW so much that isn’t true.”
When was the last notable time a contemporary (ie) “progressive” (by ANY other name-AWAY from a disingenuously mis-remembered, “interpretation” of The Constitution) activist suffered negative “legal” consequence for publicly speaking false statements, incitement, obscenity, threats of (actual) violence or extortion, implying originality for thinly plagiarized copyright material, or “argued” for legislation designed to profit a SPECIFIC industry or company?
Unless one considers vertical, or “temporary” horizontal, promotion or “bonus”, consequences.
Who was the last “Democrat” suffering negative reinforcement for blatantly ignoring “democracy”, seeking refuge in the “the courts” and ultimately the SCOTUS, with “expense” penumbras ALL on the dime of the 50% of folk that fund the Department of the Treasury?
- CaptDMO | 04/30/2014 @ 11:09“The Senate will vote on an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) that would overturn two recent court cases that have given corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals free rein to spend freely on federal races.
“The Supreme Court is trying to take this country back to the days of the robber barons, allowing dark money to flood our elections. That needs to stop, and it needs to stop now,” said Senate Rules Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who announced the plan
- CaptDMO | 04/30/2014 @ 11:15“Interpret” as you will.
Crap! forgot a blockquote thingy.
- CaptDMO | 04/30/2014 @ 11:16CaptDMO: When was the last notable time a contemporary (ie) “progressive” (by ANY other name-AWAY from a disingenuously mis-remembered, “interpretation” of The Constitution) activist suffered negative “legal” consequence for publicly speaking false statements, incitement, obscenity, threats of (actual) violence or extortion, implying originality for thinly plagiarized copyright material
Perhaps you could provide examples. Were they taken to court? What was the outcome?
- Zachriel | 04/30/2014 @ 13:05FTA: What’s a “reasonable” exercise of religion or “reasonable” speech? Constitutionally, the question makes no sense.
Z: Of course it does. The courts have ruled on a number of valid exceptions to free speech…
Constitutionally, the question makes no sense.
The proper reply would be an argument establishing how it makes sense. Hey, if the proper response sometimes is appeal to authority, then other times the proper response would be something else. This would be one of those times, as the statement was “Constitutionally, this makes no sense.”
The rebuttal y’all provided is ineffective, as it can be easily reconciled with what was said: The courts ruled in such a way that constitutionally, doesn’t make any sense. Well yeah, they do that from time to time.
- mkfreeberg | 04/30/2014 @ 17:55mkfreeberg: The proper reply would be an argument establishing how it makes sense.
Thought we did, though we didn’t provide citations. Try Brandenburg v. Ohio which concerns speech intended to incite imminent lawless action. If you disagree with the decision, please explain why.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2014 @ 09:03Try Brandenburg v. Ohio which concerns speech intended to incite imminent lawless action. If you disagree with the decision, please explain why.
Please explain what exactly I would find if I looked it up.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2014 @ 19:41mkfreeberg: Please explain what exactly I would find if I looked it up.
Brandenburg found that speech could not be prohibited for the mere advocacy of violence, but only if it met a three-part rule; intent, imminence, and likelihood.So if speech is intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so, then it can be restricted. The Brandenburg rule is still the current judicial standard.
The First Amendment protection of free speech does have limits, just as there are limits on the free exercise clause, and the freedom to assemble clause.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2014 @ 07:38Brandenburg found that speech could not be prohibited for the mere advocacy of violence, but only if it met a three-part rule; intent, imminence, and likelihood.So if speech is intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so, then it can be restricted. The Brandenburg rule is still the current judicial standard.
Thus it is demonstrated: Injection of this concept of “reasonable” can, and does, alter the plain meaning of the Constitution.
The First Amendment protection of free speech does have limits, just as there are limits on the free exercise clause, and the freedom to assemble clause.
So the High Court has ruled. But, it is composed of mortals, who are capable of being wrong, and have been wrong before. Or, are y’all saying that Bush v. Gore must have resulted in the correct verdict, since five is indisputably greater than four?
- mkfreeberg | 05/02/2014 @ 18:40mkfreeberg: Thus it is demonstrated: Injection of this concept of “reasonable” can, and does, alter the plain meaning of the Constitution.
Reasonable is in the Bill of Rights. In any case, we asked if you disagreed with Brandenburg, and if you did, why you disagreed. As usual, you are unable to examine your own views critically.
mkfreeberg: So the High Court has ruled. But, it is composed of mortals, who are capable of being wrong, and have been wrong before.
Sure. But that’s not an argument they are wrong with in the particular case with regards to free speech. Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment? So plotting to blow up a building is protected?
- Zachriel | 05/03/2014 @ 07:17Reasonable is in the Bill of Rights. In any case…
If y’all are referring to the Fourth Amendment, then that’s a point against y’all’s argument, is it not? There is a plain and demonstrable intent in the 4th to empower the judiciary with the final decision.
Sure. But that’s not an argument they are wrong with in the particular case with regards to free speech.
Y’all do that an awful lot, I notice. “We know X; the experts say so.” “Experts can be wrong.” “Sure, but that’s not an argument they are wrong about X.” This is why I think y’all need to find something to display y’all’s talents, something besides arguing on the Internet, because y’all suck at it so much.
LEARN about rebuttals, if y’all want to continue, is my advice. You don’t have to assert not-X in order to provide a rebuttal to an argument of “X because experts say so.” A rebuttal can consist of opening things to question. That’s actually a very important part of improving decision-making, by opening a thought process to greater audiences of persons from diverse backgrounds, for inspection; the fresh pairs of eyes very often manage to point out “we don’t really know that,” when the smaller assembly that was already present before they came on board, might not have taken that into account..
Even experts tend to make that mistake an awful lot. They forget they don’t really know what they think they know.
- mkfreeberg | 05/03/2014 @ 12:23mkfreeberg: There is a plain and demonstrable intent in the 4th to empower the judiciary with the final decision.
The explicit power is only with regards to Warrants. The preceding clause has no enabling provision. Are you actually arguing against the Marbury decision?
mkfreeberg: “{experts say X}” “Experts can be wrong, {but are more likely to be right in their field of expertise, than a non-expert}.” “Sure, but that’s not an argument they are wrong about X.”
If you are going to restate our position, please do so correctly.
mkfreeberg: A rebuttal can consist of opening things to question.
That’s not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is a refutation. Simply saying “Is that so?” is not a rebuttal.
Claim: The First Amendment protection of free speech has limits.
Skepticism: Not sure about that. Can you provide evidence to support your claim?
Evidence: Court decisions.
Rebuttal: No. That’s not correct, and this is the reason why …
Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment? So plotting to blow up a building is protected?
- Zachriel | 05/03/2014 @ 13:35The explicit power is only with regards to Warrants.
The 4th amendment doesn’t say that. The amendment’s use of the word “reasonable” is an implicit granting to the judicial authority. It just can’t be reasonably read any other way.
Are you actually arguing against the Marbury decision?
Where did y’all get that. No wait, I’m sure y’all have an answer that makes sense, to y’all, and it’s almost certainly more nonsense.
Learn to read.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 00:14mkfreeberg: The amendment’s use of the word “reasonable” is an implicit granting to the judicial authority.
Sure. We agree. It’s implicit, not explicit.
Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment? So plotting to blow up a building is protected?
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 08:59Zachriel: Are you actually arguing against the Marbury decision?
mkfreeberg: Where did y’all get that.
So you accept the concept of judicial review?
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 09:03mkfreeberg: A rebuttal can consist of opening things to question.
Z: That’s not a rebuttal. A rebuttal is a refutation.
A rebuttal can be opening things to question, and many other things.
How would it work, if that were not the case: Every single fanciful suggestion, lacking a solid refutation, would have to stand. That would be absurd. A perfect illustration of how & why the healthcare.gov launch went the way it did: “Do you have solid proof that the website isn’t going to work? Well, until you get some, all systems are go!”
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 10:26mkfreeberg: A rebuttal can be opening things to question, and many other things.
Your link says “What is rebuttal then? It is a speaker saying that an opponent’s argument is not valid and showing why it is not valid.”
mkfreeberg: How would it work, if that were not the case: Every single fanciful suggestion, lacking a solid refutation, would have to stand.
No. The rebuttal to a fanciful claim is to show why the claim is unsupported, or that the argument lacks coherence.
The recent point is whether there are valid constitutional limitations on freedom of speech. We provided an example for consideration, plotting to blow up a building. Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment? So plotting to blow up a building is protected? By answering the question, you will probably see there are valid limitations, but if not, we can explore your position in more detail.
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 11:58Your link says “What is rebuttal then? It is a speaker saying that an opponent’s argument is not valid and showing why it is not valid.”
The first step toward improved reading comprehension is…to keep on reading. Keep reading.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 13:31mkfreeberg: The first step toward improved reading comprehension is…to keep on reading.
We did read the article. It’s standard debate tactics. The word “question” is only used with regards to rhetorical questions, which they advise should be immediately answered by the person posing the rhetorical question.
The recent point is whether there are valid constitutional limitations on freedom of speech. We provided an example for consideration, plotting to blow up a building. Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment? So plotting to blow up a building is protected? By answering the question, you will probably see there are valid limitations, but if not, we can explore your position in more detail.
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 13:45“Attacking Relevance” and “Attacking Assumptions are not direct refutations. There are other items in the list that also are not. But it only takes one example to destroy the premise, “A rebuttal is a refutation.” That’s not true.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 15:20mkfreeberg: “Attacking Relevance” and “Attacking Assumptions are not direct refutations.
Attacking relevance and attacking assumptions are certainly valid rebuttals. That is not “opening things to question” as you said above. In any case, we agree that attacking relevance and assumptions are valid rebuttals. To do so still means you have to address some particulars of the argument and not make sweeping hand waving motions and say you have rebutted.
So, do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment? So plotting to blow up a building is protected?
- Zachriel | 05/04/2014 @ 18:19Attacking relevance and attacking assumptions are certainly valid rebuttals. That is not “opening things to question” as you said above.
Really! M’kay.
- mkfreeberg | 05/04/2014 @ 19:30mkfreeberg: Really! M’kay.
“Opening things to question” suggests something along the lines of “Are you sure?” “Do you really know that?” In order to constitute a rebuttal, you have to address the argument. That might be to attack the assumptions in the original argument or to attack the relevance of the argument, meaning you have to engage the argument to show why which assumptions are not valid or why the argument is not relevant. But simply saying “Do you really know that?” or “It’s irrelevant!” is not a rebuttal.
In addition, if you can’t answer basic questions about your position, then it becomes clear you have no argument. The point we have been discussing is whether there are limitations to the First Amendment. We brought up an instance from law, conspiracy to commit a crime. So are you claiming that plotting to blow up a building is protected? Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment?
- Zachriel | 05/05/2014 @ 05:42“Opening things to question” suggests something along the lines of “Are you sure?” “Do you really know that?” In order to constitute a rebuttal, you have to address the argument. That might be to attack the assumptions in the original argument or to attack the relevance of the argument, meaning you have to engage the argument to show why which assumptions are not valid or why the argument is not relevant. But simply saying “Do you really know that?” or “It’s irrelevant!” is not a rebuttal.
Right. Attacking the relevance is a rebuttal, but attacking the relevance is not a rebuttal.
I’m afraid the only point y’all have managed to really make here is that rationalization is dangerous. Jurists on any court are dangerous, if they do a lot of talking, but most especially on the Supreme Court since the decisions there are beyond appeal — since, with enough rationalization, any interpretation of the Constitution could be (and has been!) made to appear legitimate.
Y’all say facts have to be defended.
Y’all say it’s not a rebuttal, when someone points out “You don’t really know that” — even if it’s correct that y’all don’t really know what y’all think y’all know.
Y’all say potentially fraudulent documents are empirical, or the observation of potentially fraudulent documents is empirical.
Across the board, it seems like Step One of grokking to what it is y’all are trying to say, is: To separate the person who is to be persuaded, from reality and fact. What a splendid insight it provides into the kind of thinking that made the healthcare.gov launch go the way it did. What a great explanation for the condition of Detroit.
- mkfreeberg | 05/05/2014 @ 05:53mkfreeberg: Attacking the relevance is a rebuttal, but attacking the relevance is not a rebuttal.
Attacking relevance is a rebuttal, but just saying it is not relevant is not a rebuttal. It’s no different than “Is not!”
mkfreeberg: Y’all say it’s not a rebuttal, when someone points out “You don’t really know that” — even if it’s correct that y’all don’t really know what y’all think y’all know.
That’s right. That’s not a rebuttal. It’s a bald claim. You have to argue that the facts are wrong or that the source of knowledge is unsubstantiated.
mkfreeberg: the observation of potentially fraudulent documents is empirical.
Of course it is. That’s how you determine the documents are fraudulent, by observing their characteristics, and their provenance.
The point we have been discussing is whether there are limitations to the First Amendment. We brought up an instance from law, conspiracy to commit a crime. So are you claiming that plotting to blow up a building is protected? Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment?
- Zachriel | 05/05/2014 @ 06:18The point we have been discussing is whether there are limitations to the First Amendment.
Actually, the point we have been discussing is how the word “reasonable” applies. Y’all claimed “reasonable” is in the Bill of Rights, which is technically true, but it’s also cheap propaganda designed to appeal to those who don’t know the Bill of Rights and are too lazy to go look up your example — where, we find, a single example of independent judicial officers being deliberately and explicitly invested with the authority to declare what “reasonable” is.
Y’all were mendaciously using that, to address this:
So I guess if one of is to ask the other “Do you think” or “do you agree,” in service of furthering the actual discussion, I should be asking you: Do you agree the Constitution is written according to a deliberate design intent, that some parts of it are to be hashed out by judicial officers who are charged with the responsibility of applying these rules to specific cases — and that other parts of it are beyond discussion as the author of this column has declared?
- mkfreeberg | 05/07/2014 @ 05:17mkfreeberg: Do you agree the Constitution is written according to a deliberate design intent,
Yes.
mkfreeberg: that some parts of it are to be hashed out by judicial officers who are charged with the responsibility of applying these rules to specific cases
Yes.
mkfreeberg: — and that other parts of it are beyond discussion
No.
mkfreeberg: as the author of this column has declared?
Nothing is beyond discussion. For instance, the Constitution can and has been changed.
Now, that we have answered your questions, please answer ours. Are you claiming that plotting to blow up a building is protected? Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment?
- Zachriel | 05/07/2014 @ 08:36Nothing is beyond discussion. For instance, the Constitution can and has been changed.
Yes, liberals who see the Constitution as nothing more than an obstacle that’s in the way of their grand big plans, have managed to deal injury to the Constitution.
Establish:
It is certainly a fanatical claim to make, if not a risible one, that nothing in something called a “constitution” is beyond discussion. Looks like y’all should leave the discussion about constitutions to the grown-ups, who are cool with things actually being established. Defined. The whole notion of a “constitution,” has Merriam-Webster has pointed out, relies on this.
- mkfreeberg | 05/07/2014 @ 16:52mkfreeberg: It is certainly a fanatical claim to make, if not a risible one, that nothing in something called a “constitution” is beyond discussion.
Slavery was allowed in the original constitution, yet people discussed it all the time before it was finally abolished by constitutional amendment. Did you mean something besides discussion?
We answered your questions, now try to return the courtesy. Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment? Are you claiming that plotting to blow up a building is protected?
- Zachriel | 05/07/2014 @ 17:01Slavery was allowed in the original constitution, yet people discussed it all the time before it was finally abolished by constitutional amendment. Did you mean something besides discussion?
It was not discussion that changed the Constitution there. In passing the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, the people, the states and the federal government got together and reached agreement, then they wrote those agreements down and ratified them, in accordance with the terms spelled out in the Constitution’s own amendment process.
Before that was done, the rules were spelled out, and clear, and beyond discussion. After they were amended, the rules were spelled out, and clear, and beyond discussion. That’s what it means to have a constitution. It’s all about the process of establishment.
…from Old French establiss-, present participle stem of establir (12c., Modern French établir) “cause to stand still, establish, stipulate, set up, erect, build,” from Latin stabilire “make stable,” from stabilis “stable” [bold emphasis mine]
So, liberals don’t like constitutions because they don’t like making things stable, something constitutions are supposed to do. They want everything to be up for discussion — until such time as the tentative conclusion is something they happen to like, of course, then they want the discussion to stop. None of this is news to anyone who’s paid attention.
- mkfreeberg | 05/07/2014 @ 18:49mkfreeberg: It was not discussion that changed the Constitution there. In passing the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, the people, the states and the federal government got together and reached agreement, then they wrote those agreements down and ratified them, in accordance with the terms spelled out in the Constitution’s own amendment process.
You mean they reached agreement without having discussed the issue? That’s very odd. Oh, and contradicted by the Congressional record.
We answered your questions, now try to return the courtesy. Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment? Are you claiming that plotting to blow up a building is protected?
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 04:57Z: You mean they reached agreement without having discussed the issue?
You probably mean whether the courts have wrangled over the meaning of the Constitution. If so, then sure. There’s all sorts of ambiguities in the Constitution. Try to answer the question we raised, and we’ll see if that sheds some light.
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 05:07Oh, and contradicted by the Congressional record.
Please point to the section in the Congressional record that contradicts:
Are you claiming that plotting to blow up a building is protected?
It isn’t protected by the courts. But one could certainly make the argument that the literal text of the Constitution does protect it. In the Marbury vs. Madison decision, Chief Justice Marshall inferred that there must be exceptions made before the law — lesser statutes and the greater charter document, that both apply to a common case — can be applied to real-life situations. In Schenck vs. U.S., Justice Holmes invented an exception to suit his notions of what situations might be reasonable and what situations might not be. The first exception is inferred, the second one is manufactured. There’s a difference between these two.
Schenck was not about shouting in a theater, by the way. It was about the notorious Espionage Act of 1917. History has not looked back favorably on that Act, nor for that matter on any Act that has abridged freedom of speech.
Are y’all saying the Alien & Sedition Law signed by President Adams was a great idea?
There’s all sorts of ambiguities in the Constitution…
Well, that’s the trick, isn’t it. If the ambiguity has to be inserted into the Constitution, during the process of its interpretation, then what’s being done is not mere interpretation anymore, right? To people who are willing to take the time to read the Constitution, it isn’t nearly as ambiguous as liberals like to pretend it is. Much of the ambiguity that has tied up the time of the jurists, including Schenck, has been due to well-intention progressives saying “Waitaminnit, I see ambiguity!!” when there really isn’t any in there.
- mkfreeberg | 05/08/2014 @ 16:33mkfreeberg: Please point to the section in the Congressional record that contradicts:
…the people, the states and the federal government got together and reached agreement, then they wrote those agreements down and ratified them, in accordance with the terms spelled out in the Constitution’s own amendment process.
That wasn’t the problem, but your claim that the constitution is “beyond discussion”.
mkfreeberg: It isn’t protected by the courts. But one could certainly make the argument that the literal text of the Constitution does protect it.
Thank you for answering. Finally. Sort of. You can make the argument, but the question is whether that is your position. Please see if you can find your way clear to answer.
mkfreeberg: Are y’all saying the Alien & Sedition Law signed by President Adams was a great idea?
No, and it was unconstitutional.
mkfreeberg: If the ambiguity has to be inserted into the Constitution, during the process of its interpretation, then what’s being done is not mere interpretation anymore, right?
Much of the ambiguity is often due to the very expansive language that provides the most protection.
- Zachriel | 05/08/2014 @ 17:35That wasn’t the problem, but your claim that the constitution is “beyond discussion”.
The Constitution can be amended. It also can be — must be — interpreted, so that its proscriptions can fit a particular case.
When the interpretation process involves discussion about what the Constitution is supposed to say, and that is meaningfully different from the plain text of what was written, then this is not interpretation anymore; it is change. Even if there were no amendment process in the Constitution itself, which there is, that would be a transgression against the very concept of written constitutions.
- mkfreeberg | 05/09/2014 @ 05:02mkfreeberg: When the interpretation process involves discussion about what the Constitution is supposed to say, and that is meaningfully different from the plain text of what was written, then this is not interpretation anymore; it is change.
We agree. It is certainly possible the courts can misinterpret the language of the Constitution. Thank you for finally clarifying your stance.
That returns to our question. We’re not asking about current jurisprudence, but your own understanding of the Constitution. Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment? Are you claiming that plotting to blow up a building is protected?
- Zachriel | 05/09/2014 @ 07:02That returns to our question. We’re not asking about current jurisprudence, but your own understanding of the Constitution. Do you think that speech intended to incite imminent violence and is likely to do so is protected under the First Amendment? Are you claiming that plotting to blow up a building is protected?
The language does not establish any distinction along these lines whatsoever. The Supreme Court has “interpreted” it to fail to protect some speech, but this is not honest interpretation, it is judicial activism.
A discussion may ensue, with decent points made on both sides about whether the judicial activism embodies good intentions — or leads to good results, which would be a different thing. The corridor of jurisprudence that has been opened up by this ongoing question, has not been clean; it’s been messy. Some people, legal scholars among them, actually like messy though. Much of what happens in this constitutional “interpretation” process, is a conflict between those who refuse to define things, and those who need to have them defined.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 05:11mkfreeberg: The language does not establish any distinction along these lines whatsoever.
Took you long enough to own your own opinion, that plotting to bomb a school full of children or the Congress is protected by the First Amendment.
That’s all we wanted to establish for our readers.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 05:24Took you long enough to own your own opinion, that plotting to bomb a school full of children or the Congress is protected by the First Amendment.
That’s all we wanted to establish for our readers.
They aren’t “readers” if they need to have it established for them what the plain language of something says. That’s, like, you know, the very definition of reading.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 05:31mkfreeberg: They aren’t “readers” if they need to have it established for them what the plain language of something says.
Of course they are readers, the vast majority of whom understand that freedom of speech does not include plotting to blow up children. We just wanted to highlight your actual position. Thank you.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 05:48Of course they are readers…
No. They aren’t reading, if they’re relying on others to tell them what the plain language of something says. That’s what reading IS.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 06:40mkfreeberg: They aren’t reading, if they’re relying on others to tell them what the plain language of something says.
So you are saying readers can’t respond to argument.
You’ve indicated that freedom of speech is so absolute that even plotting to blow up children is protected. We just wanted to highlight your actual position. You might want to rethink your position.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 12:36So you are saying readers can’t respond to argument.
No, I’m saying reading == reading. We’re going to have to have an endless re-litigation about that?
If so, then that would mean: Y’all are trying to dictate what the meaning of reading is, when y’all can’t, or won’t, even do that particular thing with any competence. That, and y’all’s argument relies on re-defining a thing, as something other than what it is, thereby violating the Law of Identity.
It’s probably more sensible & a lot less trouble for y’all to admit y’all got caught saying “the readers we have in mind don’t actually do their own reading, and we were misusing the term ‘reading’.” But I suppose that’s too much to expect. Again.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 12:56mkfreeberg: It’s probably more sensible & a lot less trouble for y’all to admit y’all got caught saying “the readers we have in mind don’t actually do their own reading, and we were misusing the term ‘reading’.”
Here’s the First Amendment.
The justices on the Supreme Court do their own reading, and generations of courts have found there are some limits on freedom of speech.
mkfreeberg: No, I’m saying reading == reading.
Yes. You said the First Amendment means the government can’t prohibit speech involved in planning to blow up a school full of children.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 13:07Yes. You said the First Amendment means the government can’t prohibit speech involved in planning to blow up a school full of children.
Which, for the record, was y’all’s question. Y’all didn’t ask “Is that the way it should work?”
The Constitution provides processes for its own amendments; the First Amendment actually came out of that, hence the name. Congress, the people and the states could have gotten together to ratify a new amendment to address Justice Holmes’ concern about yelling fire in a crowded theater. Had that angle been pursued, the aftermath likely would have been a lot less messy.
And, y’all wouldn’t be put in the position of scrambling for rationalizations about why we should pretend a very strident written phrasing means something other than what it says.
Since that seems to be the position y’all are taking, who cares what y’all have to say about anything else? Just today y’all have violated the Law of Identity twice, and the Law of the Excluded Middle once. These are basic laws of thought, designed to be, and serving well throughout the centuries, as fundamental building blocks of sound observation and decision-making. If y’all can’t lay a decent foundation, then how strong can the house be?
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 13:15mkfreeberg: Since that seems to be the position y’all are taking, who cares what y’all have to say about anything else?
We just wanted to highlight your position, that your understanding of the First Amendment is that the government can’t prohibit speech involved in planning to blow up a school full of children.
The contrast between your position and any reasonable position is sufficiently stark that most people will recognize your problem with black-and-white thinking. You might well consider the same glaring contradiction.
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 13:33We just wanted to highlight your position, that your understanding of the First Amendment is that the government can’t prohibit speech involved in planning to blow up a school full of children.
Is there something in the text of the First Amendment that says this is the case?
Are y’all trying to say the Schenck decision stands in a position of respect, in the history of U.S. Supreme Court decisions? That’s one of the good ones? The way we want to see ’em go? It would be good to highlight y’all’s position on that.
The contrast between your position and any reasonable position is sufficiently stark that most people will recognize your problem with black-and-white thinking. You might well consider the same glaring contradiction.
Yeah, sure. First time I want to know about glaring contradictions, I’ll ask someone who can’t read something that says something emphatically, without coming away saying it says something entirely different.
I’m afraid after all the wrangling, the only point y’all have managed to make is this: “All this talk about shades of gray is just an excuse for making things look like the opposite of what they truly are.” Most people will recognize the problem with that.
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 16:05mkfreeberg: Is there something in the text of the First Amendment that says this is the case?
No, but the founders weren’t insane, and would have arrested people plotting to blow up children.
Do you think the free exercise of religion is similarly devoid of limitations? If someone wants to sacrifice virgins or ignore traffic laws, is the state helpless to intervene if the person claims they are doing it for religious purposes?
- Zachriel | 05/10/2014 @ 18:21Do you think the free exercise of religion is similarly devoid of limitations? If someone wants to sacrifice virgins or ignore traffic laws, is the state helpless to intervene if the person claims they are doing it for religious purposes?
Sorry, I thought we were discussing what the Constitution says.
Do y’all think the jurisprudential consequences of Schenck would have been less messy, if legislators from Congress and from the states got together and worked on an amendment, as opposed to Justice Holmes & crew voting on the idea that the Constitution permits an exception to free speech that its plain language doesn’t actually permit?
- mkfreeberg | 05/10/2014 @ 18:54mkfreeberg: Do y’all think the jurisprudential consequences of Schenck would have been less messy, if …
Probably not. No code of law can capture all aspects of human behavior. There will always be areas of dispute concerning meaning and intent. According to you, threatening people is not a crime, slandering people is protected speech, yelling fire in a crowded theatre is allowable, and plotting to blow up a school full of children is free speech.
mkfreeberg: I thought we were discussing what the Constitution says.
Yes, we were. We asked about Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Now read the “plain language” of the First Amendment and tell us whether you think the free exercise of religion is similarly devoid of limitations? If someone wants to sacrifice virgins or ignore traffic laws, is the state helpless to intervene if the person claims they are doing it for religious purposes?
- Zachriel | 05/11/2014 @ 06:11M: Do y’all think the jurisprudential consequences of Schenck would have been less messy, if …
Z: Probably not.
Then, the idea offered in the title of this post, has been proven correct.
- mkfreeberg | 05/11/2014 @ 08:42mkfreeberg: Then, the idea offered in the title of this post, has been proven correct.
Well, no. Consider your own interpretation of the First Amendment protecting threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes. Consider that most people don’t interpret it that way. The language seems clear enough, yet there are varying opinions. Making a more complicated Amendment might resolve some difficulties, but will inevitably introduce others.
We asked about Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Now read the “plain language” of the First Amendment and tell us whether you think the free exercise of religion is similarly devoid of limitations? If someone wants to sacrifice virgins or ignore traffic laws, is the state helpless to intervene if the person claims they are doing it for religious purposes?
- Zachriel | 05/11/2014 @ 10:30mkfreeberg: Then, the idea offered in the title of this post, has been proven correct.
Z: Well, no. Consider your own interpretation of the First Amendment protecting threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes. Consider that most people don’t interpret it that way…
Right. Y’all know nothing, at least nothing useful, since in order to support y’all’s conclusion y’all have to rely on the opinions of others. Y’all have already agreed that when the interpretation meaningfully departs from the written language of what’s being interpreted, then that is no longer interpretation; it is change. And yet here y’all are hiding behind the opinions of strangers to try to shore up the opposing view, that “interpretation” can involve conjuring up an entirely different meaning. In the example y’all have offered of the First Amendment, this means conjuring up an exception — where none exists.
That is irreconcilable with a reasonable understanding of “interpretation” that is supposed to fall short of actual change. And that was the author’s point. A “constitution” is supposed to establish something, which means define something, and when a legal perimeter of authority has been defined, it’s a betrayal of the definition to imagine exceptions and loopholes, no matter how good the intentions are, when those exceptions/loopholes don’t actually exist.
So the idea offered in the title of this post, has been proven correct.
- mkfreeberg | 05/11/2014 @ 18:55mkfreeberg: Y’all know nothing, at least nothing useful, since in order to support y’all’s conclusion y’all have to rely on the opinions of others.
We have been more than willing to consider your arguments. However, most of the time you don’t argue the point, but avoid doing so. However, you finally relented and made explicit what was already clear. You think the First Amendment protects threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, and plotting crimes.
mkfreeberg: A “constitution” is supposed to establish something, which means define something, and when a legal perimeter of authority has been defined, it’s a betrayal of the definition to imagine exceptions and loopholes, no matter how good the intentions are, when those exceptions/loopholes don’t actually exist.
Yes, we understand your position. But it’s still an interpretation, and it’s doubtful the founders would agree with your interpretation. For instance, would they consider giving the enemy information about troop movements to be a crime?
Heh. That was fun. Now let’s try it with another clause of the First Amendment. Please read the “plain language” of the First Amendment and tell us whether you think the free exercise of religion is similarly devoid of limitations? If someone wants to sacrifice virgins or ignore traffic laws, is the state helpless to intervene if the person claims they are doing it for religious purposes?
- Zachriel | 05/12/2014 @ 05:19We have been more than willing to consider your arguments. However, most of the time you don’t argue the point, but avoid doing so. However, you finally relented and made explicit what was already clear. You think the First Amendment protects threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, and plotting crimes.
Well, it certainly does. The Supreme Court “interpreted” an exception that isn’t actually there, and in so doing made a mess, because now it is necessary to ponder what ELSE the First Amendment doesn’t cover that its language plainly does cover.
Example: Flag burning. Now, there is a segment of the population that will say, no amendment is needed to prohibit yelling-fire-in-theater, and thus expose it to prosecution, and yet an amendment would be needed to prohibit the burning of the American flag. Some among those are very, very sure that not only are they correct, but their way is the only right way. But this distinction is not so clear to others. The Supreme Court has made its opinions known about these; we could simply refer to them; lesser courts and enforcement officials must. Problem is, we have no way of knowing how they will rule on future cases. This ultimately defeats the purpose of having a written law, let alone a written constitution. Should we know what’s legal and what isn’t, and what’s enforceable and what’s not?
Y’all’s example is of a less than honorable Supreme Court decision, that made a real hash out of things legally. Are y’all in favor of the Espionage Act of 1917, and the subsequent Schenck v. United States Supreme Court decision?
I’ll have to add a chapter on “words do not mean what they mean” to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung.
- mkfreeberg | 05/12/2014 @ 06:09mkfreeberg: Well, it certainly does.
Yes, we understand. You think the First Amendment protects threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes, or giving the enemy your country’s troop positions.
That was fun. Now let’s try it with another clause of the First Amendment. Please read the “plain language” of the First Amendment and tell us whether you think the free exercise of religion is similarly devoid of limitations? If someone wants to sacrifice virgins or ignore traffic laws, is the state helpless to intervene if the person claims they are doing it for religious purposes?
- Zachriel | 05/12/2014 @ 06:11Yes, we understand. You think the First Amendment protects threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes, or giving the enemy your country’s troop positions.
That was fun. Now let’s…
No, I have a better idea. Y’all show me within the text of the amendment itself, where it provides for this exception.
And while y’all are at it, answer my question about the Schenck decision. A good one? Yes or no?
- mkfreeberg | 05/12/2014 @ 21:32mkfreeberg: {Please} answer my question about the Schenck decision. A good one? Yes or no?
It wasn’t the best because the standard of “clear and present danger” of inciting lawless behavior introduced by Schenck sometimes conflicted with fundamental protections. Brandenburg largely replaced this with an “imminent lawless action” standard. Schenck still would have been convicted, though.
mkfreeberg: Y’all show me within the text of the amendment itself, where it provides for this exception.
There are no explicit exceptions in the text of the First Amendment regarding free speech. Nor are there explicit exceptions in the text of the First Amendment regarding the free exercise of religion. So, by your interpretation of the First Amendment, if someone wants to sacrifice virgins or ignore traffic laws, is the state helpless to intervene if the person claims they are doing it for religious purposes?
- Zachriel | 05/13/2014 @ 03:50It wasn’t the best because the standard of “clear and present danger” of inciting lawless behavior introduced by Schenck sometimes conflicted with fundamental protections. Brandenburg largely replaced this with an “imminent lawless action” standard. Schenck still would have been convicted, though.
I see. So with Brandenburg, the conflict with these fundamental protections have been resolved to some extent? Perhaps eliminated entirely?
There are no explicit exceptions in the text of the First Amendment regarding free speech. So, by your interpretation of the First Amendment, if someone wants to sacrifice virgins or ignore traffic laws, is the state helpless to intervene if the person claims they are doing it for religious purposes?
Don’t things mean what they say?
- mkfreeberg | 05/13/2014 @ 05:44mkfreeberg: So with Brandenburg, the conflict with these fundamental protections have been resolved to some extent?
To some extent.
mkfreeberg: Perhaps eliminated entirely?
No legal code can capture all aspects of human behavior, just as discrete arithmetic can’t encompass the continuum.
mkfreeberg: Don’t things mean what they say?
You didn’t answer the question. So, by your interpretation of the First Amendment, if someone wants to sacrifice virgins or ignore traffic laws, is the state helpless to intervene if the person claims they are doing it for religious purposes?
- Zachriel | 05/13/2014 @ 10:20M: Don’t things mean what they say?
Z: You didn’t answer the question.
My question answers y’all’s, and y’all are the ones refusing to answer so I’ll do it for y’all. YES, things mean what they say. If a process of interpretation reads an entirely new meaning into it — say, for example, concocting an exception to a rule when the plain text of the rule doesn’t even allow for an exception — that is not interpretation. That is change.
Y’all have already agreed to that much.
If the plain text of the First Amendment said “shall not be infringed, except when said free speech poses what might seem to a reasonable person to be imminent danger” or something like that — this would be a completely different conversation. As it is, the text says shall-not-be-infringed…then it continues to a period (.)…then the sentence comes to a stop. Now, that’s a fact. It isn’t up for debate, that’s the way the amendment was written.
Schenck made a mess. Brandenburg — and by the way, also Patterson and Whitney — did not “resolve to some extent” this mess. Rather, they continued to inject other bizarre “interpretations” of how this exception should work, an exception cooked up by the jurists who were sworn to defend the Constitution they betrayed.
If y’all want to discuss how an exception is needed, that is a completely different argument. Likely, most people would be receptive to such an argument. I’d be willing to listen. It might even pass the strict test applied to constitutional amendments.
Had the concern been addressed that way, we wouldn’t have this jurisprudential mess. Maybe we could even have been spared this late-twentieth-century spectacle of liberals rewriting the constitution with their ever-more-extravagant chan– er, uh, I mean, “interpretations.”
- mkfreeberg | 05/13/2014 @ 18:08mkfreeberg: My question answers y’all’s
Okay. So, according to you, the First Amendment protects threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes, or giving the enemy your country’s troop positions, while also saying Congress can’t forbid virgin sacrifice. Just wanted to make sure we understood your position.
Do you think the people who ratified the First Amendment thought they were allowing for virgin sacrifice?
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 03:36Okay. So, according to you, the First Amendment protects threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes, or giving the enemy your country’s troop positions, while also saying Congress can’t forbid virgin sacrifice. Just wanted to make sure we understood your position.
Do you think the people who ratified the First Amendment thought they were allowing for virgin sacrifice?
That reminds me. I have to add a chapter on “Shaming other people to manufacture your own reality” to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung. It would have to be a thick one; much of modern liberalism is based on exactly that.
We agree that an exception does not exist in the plain text of the First Amendment; we agree that interpretation that fastens on such an exception, that was not previously there, is not so much an “interpretation” as it is change. So logically, we would both (or all) have to agree with what y’all just said.
If we see the plain truth of this but do not like it, we can take steps to start another amendment, can we not? I’m right about that, aren’t I?
- mkfreeberg | 05/14/2014 @ 05:14mkfreeberg: We agree that an exception does not exist in the plain text of the First Amendment
No, we agreed that there is no *explicit* exception. Do you think the people who ratified the First Amendment thought they were allowing for virgin sacrifice?
- Zachriel | 05/14/2014 @ 08:05No, we agreed that there is no *explicit* exception.
When it comes to exceptions — this seems to be the part that’s giving y’all trouble — there is no other kind. What sort of legislator jots down an absolute and says to himself, walking away, “Of course I meant to include all sorts of exceptions, but those are implicit, and heck…anyone reading it will pick it up.” That would be dumb.
Frankly, after all the wrangling, all y’all’ve managed to prove is the point that was originally mentioned in the title of this post. Except I doubt Mr. Bieber would work so hard to avoid understanding particle physics.
- mkfreeberg | 05/14/2014 @ 17:34mkfreeberg: When it comes to exceptions — this seems to be the part that’s giving y’all trouble — there is no other kind.
Sure there could be implicit exceptions, entailed in what the adopters meant by freedom.
mkfreeberg: What sort of legislator jots down an absolute and says to himself, walking away, “Of course I meant to include all sorts of exceptions, but those are implicit, and heck…anyone reading it will pick it up.”
So your answer to the question “Do you think the people who ratified the First Amendment thought they were allowing for virgin sacrifice?” is either yes, or they were dumb. Which is it?
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 04:26Sure there could be implicit exceptions, entailed in what the adopters meant by freedom.
What a fascinating constitutional concept. Let’s try it!
The First Amendment doesn’t apply to atheists, who wouldn’t know what to do with freedom of speech anyway. It’s an implicit exception.
The Second Amendment doesn’t apply to womyn, who don’t know that much about guns anyway.
The Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply to marijuana users, who are too stoned to know it from a bag of Cheetos anyway. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments don’t apply to guilty people. The nineteenth amendment doesn’t apply to Wisconsin; those women are just daffy, or to Montana, where the issues on the ballot wouldn’t be of any interest to womyn. The twenty-sixth doesn’t apply to anyone who’s on ObamaCare, since anyone wearing footsie pajamas at age eighteen obviously has some growing up to do before he can vote.
Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to black people. It’s an implicit exception.
There’s a point to all this silliness: Y’all’s view of these implicit exceptions, is incompatible with having a written constitution that actually means something. But y’all already knew that, I suspect.
- mkfreeberg | 05/15/2014 @ 06:39mkfreeberg: The First Amendment doesn’t apply to atheists, who wouldn’t know what to do with freedom of speech anyway. It’s an implicit exception.
The Founders were quite clear freedom of religion does apply to atheists. In any case, we have illustrated what we wanted to illustrate. According to you, the First Amendment protects threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes, or giving the enemy your country’s troop positions, while also saying Congress can’t forbid virgin sacrifice.
So your answer to the question “Do you think the people who ratified the First Amendment thought they were allowing for virgin sacrifice?” is either yes, or they were dumb. Which is it?
- Zachriel | 05/15/2014 @ 07:59The Founders were quite clear freedom of religion does apply to atheists.
What’s that? An “implicit exception” applies to one part of the First Amendment, but not to the other? Balderdash. If an “implicit exception” can be applied to the free speech clause, for the good of the nation, then the same can be applied to the free-exercise clause as well. Atheists need to learn their place! Implicit exceptions all around!
Seriously though, the technique is called reductio ad absurdum. It works well here, because between y’all’s very serious interpretations, and my very silly ones — there is no meaningful demarcation. No protective barrier. Nada.
Go back and read the Marbury decision, see how the logic works there. If the written constitution is to mean anything, anything at all…THEN…things have to work this way.
Y’all’s “implicit exceptions” are incompatible with a written constitution that actually means anything.
- mkfreeberg | 05/15/2014 @ 18:11mkfreeberg: If an “implicit exception” can be applied to the free speech clause, for the good of the nation, then the same can be applied to the free-exercise clause as well. Atheists need to learn their place! Implicit exceptions all around!
That’s your black-and-white thinking again. Just because there are some obvious exceptions doesn’t mean that anything can be excepted.
mkfreeberg: Seriously though, the technique is called reductio ad absurdum.
Precisely. Your view means that the First Amendment protects threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes, or giving the enemy your country’s troop positions, while also saying Congress can’t forbid virgin sacrifice. It’s an absurd interpretation of what the adopters meant by the term freedom.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 02:52That’s your black-and-white thinking again. Just because there are some obvious exceptions doesn’t mean that anything can be excepted.
Yes, it all has to be stenciled, according to y’all’s own preferences. And y’all won’t even comprehend, let alone allow for, the possibility that anyone in any position of power could ever decide it any differently. Each and every time it happens it will take everyone on y’all’s side completely by surprise…
What clever name should we contrive for that kind of thinking?
Precisely. Your view means that the First Amendment protects threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes, or giving the enemy your country’s troop positions, while also saying Congress can’t forbid virgin sacrifice. It’s an absurd interpretation of what the adopters meant by the term freedom.
Which, if rendered, would claim precedence in y’all’s “implicit exception” argument. Rightfully.
The very concept is incompatible with the notion of a meaningful, written constitution.
- mkfreeberg | 05/16/2014 @ 04:30mkfreeberg: Which, if rendered, would claim precedence in y’all’s “implicit exception” argument.
Not at all. It depends on what the adopters meant by freedom. It certainly didn’t mean the freedom to sacrifice virgins.
- Zachriel | 05/16/2014 @ 10:05Not at all. It depends on what the adopters meant by freedom. It certainly didn’t mean the freedom to sacrifice virgins.
According to y’all. And, for the record, I would agree. But part of living in a constitutional republic, is reckoning with the opinions of others. So let’s concentrate on these implicit exceptions. Some people might say the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t apply to black people, and if we don’t reject the concept of “implicit exceptions” then what’s to stop them?
- mkfreeberg | 05/16/2014 @ 18:56mkfreeberg: And, for the record, I would agree.
So the provision which says “free exercise” of religion does have reasonable exceptions. While we were satisfied showing the absurdity of your previous position, we are gratified you have suddenly changed your position.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 04:50Z: [The First Amendment] certainly didn’t mean the freedom to sacrifice virgins.
M: According to y’all. And, for the record, I would agree…
Z: So the provision which says “free exercise” of religion does have reasonable exceptions.
That does not logically follow. There are many reasons not to sacrifice virgins, that do not have anything to do with limitations on free speech. Some of them are legal reasons, such as, murdering people is illegal. Others are not legal reasons, but still good ones.
At any rate, it has been demonstrated that the whole concept of “implicit exceptions” is incompatible with having a written constitution that actually means anything. We can’t allow implicit exceptions, such as, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to black people. If we were to allow for those, then anything that recognizes any sort of fundamental right in our constitution, would only be upheld so long as the “interpreters” happened to like whatever the right was that was being upheld. Which would render the whole instrument essentially meaningless.
Our constitution was built to recognize rights that are convenient to those in power, and the rights that are not convenient to those in power, too. The whole ball of wax. We Americans are selfish that way.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 04:57mkfreeberg: There are many reasons not to sacrifice virgins, that do not have anything to do with limitations on free speech.
The question concerns freedom of religion.
mkfreeberg: Some of them are legal reasons, such as, murdering people is illegal.
Murder is not prohibited by the constitution. That’s by statute. The First Amendment protections take precedence over mere statute.
mkfreeberg: At any rate, it has been demonstrated that the whole concept of “implicit exceptions” is incompatible with having a written constitution that actually means anything.
You just admitted to an exception. A sect wants to sacrifice a virgin. Congress passes a law against virgin sacrifice. The sect claims protection under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. According to your absurd interpretation, Congress can’t make any such law because the First Amendment doesn’t allow for such exceptions. You had seemed to be backing away from this position, but now you reiterate it again. Please try to be consistent.
Does the free exercise clause protect virgin sacrifice? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:08Does the free exercise clause protect virgin sacrifice? Why or why not?
No, murder is illegal.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:11mkfreeberg: No, murder is illegal
As you yourself have pointed out, statute cannot supersede the Constitution, and the sect is claiming protection under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. So saying it is illegal doesn’t answer the question. Does the free exercise clause protect virgin sacrifice? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:20So saying it is illegal doesn’t answer the question.
Oh, of course it does. It absolutely does.
The laws against murdering people have absolutely nothing to do with speech. So constitutional language that protects your speech, does not protect you from those laws.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:24mkfreeberg: The laws against murdering people have absolutely nothing to do with speech.
Oh gee whiz. Try re-reading the First Amendment free exercise provision.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:32http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
Let’s assume that that is fully incorporated; states also cannot make a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
You still have to obey all the other laws when you freely exercise your religion. Can’t smash cars. Can’t block freeway overpasses. Can’t disturb the peace.
These are not “exceptions” to freedom of speech or free exercise of religion. They are domains of everyday living entirely separate from speech, in which jurisdictions have passed laws so that civilization can continue. And those laws have to be respected by people who are speaking, just as they have to be respected by people who are not speaking.
Y’all’s “implicit exception” argument is a big fail.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:36mkfreeberg: You still have to obey all the other laws when you freely exercise your religion.
Sure. Free exercise is subject to reasonable exceptions, even though they are implicit, not explicit. You can’t violate traffic laws, even if your religion forbids you from obeying signs. Congress can forbid virgin sacrifice, even if you have a sincere religious impulse to sacrifice virgins.
Similarly freedom of speech is subject to reasonable exceptions, such as for threats, slander, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes, or giving the enemy your country’s troop positions.
This is something you repeatedly denied above.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 05:49Free exercise is subject to reasonable exceptions…
But this isn’t about exceptions. These are about duly authorized and duly passed laws dealing with some other aspect of life. Speaking people, it turns out, have to follow the laws just like people who aren’t speaking.
It’s like, you have the right to pursuit of happiness, just not pursuit at 90mph in a 55mph zone.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 05:53mkfreeberg: These are about duly authorized and duly passed laws dealing with some other aspect of life.
Threats are speech. Slander is speech. Yelling fire falsely is speech. Inciting a riot is speech. Plotting crimes is speech. Giving the enemy your country’s troop positions is speech. Virgin sacrifice is religion.
The First Amendment is quite clear. Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Why are not threats protected as freedom of speech?
mkfreeberg: It’s like, you have the right to pursuit of happiness, just not pursuit at 90mph in a 55mph zone.
Sure. But that’s not what you argued above, which was that freedom of speech protected threats, slander, incitement, yelling fire falsely, plotting crimes, and giving the enemy your country’s troop positions.
Have you changed your position?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:02Threats are speech. Slander is speech. Yelling fire falsely is speech. Inciting a riot is speech. Plotting crimes is speech. Giving the enemy your country’s troop positions is speech. Virgin sacrifice is religion.
Virgin sacrifice is murder, which has nothing to do with speech and thus is not addressed by a constitutional restriction against Congress passing laws that would abridge speech.
That goes for slander as well. In the case of slander, “speech” is merely a medium in which the crime is being committed. These are not implicit exceptions.
Inciting a riot, we make illegal according to Justice Holmes’ faulty “implicit exception.” We can settle whether or not that was a good move, by assessing whether this jurisprudence has been good. Seems we are in agreement that it has been a mess. Unfortunately, when the Supreme Court makes these kinds of messes, they sometimes obviate the need to come up with the good law that is truly needed. That’s why it is important that they not make these mistakes. But that doesn’t mean they don’t.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:17mkfreeberg: Virgin sacrifice is murder, which has nothing to do with speech …
The sect is claiming protection under the First Amendment provision for
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
mkfreeberg: That goes for slander as well. In the case of slander, “speech” is merely a medium in which the crime is being committed. These are not implicit exceptions.
You haven’t made your position clear. A man is accused of slander, threatening, or plotting. He claims such laws are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Is he wrong? Why?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:21The sect is claiming protection under the First Amendment provision for
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION
Please calm down. You have to follow all other laws that apply when you freely exercise your religion. Saying so, or busting someone for failing to follow them, is not acting on an “implicit exception.”
If free exercise of your religion involves driving a car, you have to have a driver’s license. If it involves flying, you have to have a pilot’s license. And you can’t kill people. The protection provided by the Constitution is against Congress passing laws saying, no Pentecostal churches allowed here, no Catholic Mass services…no crosses where anyone can see them ++ahem++. Congress shall pass no such law.
So, no, you don’t get to start a new church that has as its ritualistic worship practices, pouring poison into the town’s water supply. And that’s not an implicit exception, that’s just enforcing the other laws that are on the books. Looks like y’all’s binary thinking is acting up, or something.
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:31mkfreeberg: Please calm down.
We’re calm. We thought you were having troubles reading.
mkfreeberg: You have to follow all other laws that apply when you freely exercise your religion.
Depends on the law, of course. Your original post said, “What’s a ”reasonable’ exercise of religion or ‘reasonable’ speech? Constitutionally, the question makes no sense.” That’s wrong, of course. It’s an important constitutional question. The First Amendment is broadly written, and as you point out, there are no explicit exceptions.
A man is accused of plotting a crime. He claims such laws are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Is he wrong? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:39Depends on the law, of course. Your original post said, “What’s a ”reasonable’ exercise of religion or ‘reasonable’ speech? Constitutionally, the question makes no sense.” That’s wrong, of course. It’s an important constitutional question. The First Amendment is broadly written, and as you point out, there are no explicit exceptions.
A man is accused of plotting a crime. He claims such laws are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Is he wrong? Why or why not?
Wait — the actual substance of y’all’s rebuttal is “that’s wrong, of course” and all the questioning is nothing more than some bizarre exercise? WOW.
Here, I’ll ask some questions that are more relevant to what’s being pondered. Y’all buy a washing machine that comes with a money-back guarantee if it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work. The shop that sold it to y’all, refuses to honor the guarantee because of some extraneous variable that wasn’t specified in the guarantee IN ANY WAY. Maybe you’re bringing it in on a Friday, when the Returns and Complaints Manager likes to play golf. Because of this, they say a “reasonable” interpretation of the guarantee is to tell y’all to take a hike.
Would y’all say the guarantee has been properly upheld?
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 06:45mkfreeberg: Wait — the actual substance of y’all’s rebuttal is “that’s wrong, of course”
No. We’re asking if laws against plotting a crime are a violation of the First Amendment protection of free speech. The First Amendment is broadly written, and as you pointed out, there are not explicit exceptions.
A man is accused of plotting a crime (or incitement or making threats). He claims such laws are unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Is he wrong? Why or why not?
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 06:50M: Wait — the actual substance of y’all’s rebuttal is “that’s wrong, of course”
Z: No. We’re asking if laws against plotting a crime are a violation of the First Amendment protection of free speech. The First Amendment is broadly written, and as you pointed out, there are not explicit exceptions.
But…when y’all get tired of asking questions, and the time comes to define the counterargument, it turns out y’all got nothin’. “That’s wrong, of course” is all that’s there.
I think they call that “hand waving.”
- mkfreeberg | 05/17/2014 @ 07:02mkfreeberg: when y’all get tired of asking questions, and the time comes to define the counterargument
You’ve oscillated between defending the absolutist and absurd position that there are no exceptions to the First Amendment, to trying to avoid being pinned down to any position at all. That’s all we wanted to illustrate.
- Zachriel | 05/17/2014 @ 07:11Y’all’s rebuttal is “that’s wrong, of course.” Which means y’all haven’t really got one.
- mkfreeberg | 05/18/2014 @ 12:30mkfreeberg: Y’all’s rebuttal is “that’s wrong, of course.”
No. Our rebuttal is that you are wrong, because … your position leads to absurdities, such as Congress not being able to outlaw virgin sacrifice or perjury.
- Zachriel | 05/18/2014 @ 12:38Our rebuttal is that you are wrong, because … your position leads to absurdities, such as Congress not being able to outlaw virgin sacrifice or perjury.
Sure it leads there, if y’all lead it there.
I’m afraid y’all don’t get to play that card. That’s essentially a rebuttal of “somewhere on the Internet, some anonymous people are able to imagine this thing.” That says nothing. Somewhere, there’s someone who can imagine just about anything at all.
- mkfreeberg | 05/18/2014 @ 14:57mkfreeberg: I’m afraid y’all don’t get to play that card.
Your original post said, “What’s a ”reasonable’ exercise of religion or ‘reasonable’ speech? Constitutionally, the question makes no sense.” However, if you take the First Amendment as absolute, it leads to absurdities, such as Congress not being able to outlaw virgin sacrifice or perjury.
- Zachriel | 05/18/2014 @ 18:59Your original post said, “What’s a ”reasonable’ exercise of religion or ‘reasonable’ speech? Constitutionally, the question makes no sense.” However, if you take the First Amendment as absolute, it leads to absurdities, such as Congress not being able to outlaw virgin sacrifice or perjury.
And, the very concept of “implicit exceptions” leads to a government out of control, blasting holes in the Constitution wherever it chooses to, since it is incompatible with a written guarantee of any kind, from anybody, to anybody.
Supreme Court decisions, while final, vary in their quality just as they vary in their influence. Some are influential while, at the same time, doing some damage. Some don’t make sense. Some seem to make sense at the time they’re handed down, but subsequently, in their implementation, are found to create much chaos and very little order.
I’m afraid all y’all have proven about this Schenck decision that appeals so much to y’all, is that it falls into this category. Of course it does blast a hole in a guarantee that had been previously iron-clad, and thus eroded liberty. So I can see why y’all might like it.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 04:50mkfreeberg: And, the very concept of “implicit exceptions” leads to a government out of control, blasting holes in the Constitution wherever it chooses to, since it is incompatible with a written guarantee of any kind, from anybody, to anybody.
So then the prohibition on Congress making any laws abridging freedom of speech and free exercise of religion means they can’t pass laws against perjury or virgin sacrifice? Is that your position? You seem to have vacillated on this point, so we just want to make sure we understand your position.
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 05:18So then the prohibition on Congress making any laws abridging freedom of speech and free exercise of religion means they can’t pass laws against perjury or virgin sacrifice?
What is this problem with “virgin sacrifice” of which y’all speak? Is that a thing that’s been going on lately?
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 05:44mkfreeberg: What is this problem with “virgin sacrifice” of which y’all speak?
Virgin sacrifice is a time-honored religious tradition. It’s illegal in most countries, but apparently you think it is protected under the First Amendment.
So then the prohibition on Congress making any laws abridging freedom of speech and free exercise of religion means they can’t pass laws against perjury or virgin sacrifice? Is that your position? You seem to have vacillated on this point, so we just want to make sure we understand your position.
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 06:02Virgin sacrifice is a time-honored religious tradition. It’s illegal in most countries, but apparently you think it is protected under the First Amendment.
Let me know when it happens.
- mkfreeberg | 05/19/2014 @ 06:12mkfreeberg: Let me know when it happens.
Currently, it is prohibited by law. According to what we understand of your position, when the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, that means laws against virgin sacrifice would be unconstitutional, as would enforcing any law if the person claims a sincere religious purpose.
Furthermore, according to what we understand of your position, when the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, that means laws prohibiting perjury, slander, falsely yelling fire, incitement, and plotting a crime, would be unconstitutional.
Is that your position? If not, why not?
- Zachriel | 05/19/2014 @ 06:26