It is comparing apples and oranges, indeed.

Free speech is a fundamental part of a free and democratic society. The government should protect anybody's right to free speech.

Social wellfare is important, but not a fundamental part of a free and democratic society. It is possible to have a free and democratic society without government paid social wellfare. I have yet to hear of a country that has more than very general and non-binding provisions on social wellfare in its constitution.

Thus, free speech is more important than social wellfare, if they are at all comparable.

Free speech needs to cost. You cannot be upset that a hated organisation gets police protection for their demonstration. If you call for laws or any other regulations that could deny an organisation police protection due to the cost and because of the organisation's opinions, it may be used to stop your own organisation from making a demonstration a year from now.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

The questions you asked me are questions I don't have answers for. I made a suggestion; suggesting where you could find those answers, and you come back with telling me that you're not looking for answers?

So you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.

That's pretty fucking stupid.

Move along now. I've little time to waste on your ignorance...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Don't the individuals pay taxes? Then they've paid the costs.

__________________
Anyone ask Hillary what kind of underwear she wears, yet?

Lt. Gov Diane Denish on Bill Richardson "The governor, she said, "pinches my neck. He touches my hip, my thigh, sort of the side of my leg."

Actually they were protesting against 'Black Gang Terrorism' and the rally was organised by Hal Turner if I am not mistaken; he is not a Klansman.

Only if anti-war protestors and anti-abortion protestors face the same costs when they picket.

So in other words you support charging them for costs to shut them up because the masses do not like them?

What is fair is to treat these people as any other citizen would be treated? Is Fred Phelps charged a fee for police protection? Are the anti-abortion activists charged costs for such protection? The answer is no!

So why should these people be a target of such discrimination? Because the SPLC does not like them?

I wanted to argue for the sake of finding out whether your solution was viable, or could be refined into something that was.
What are you doing here if you don't want to argue? We know what is done, and it varys some from place to place; what I'm interested in is discussing whether there is a better way to do it. But not if you can't be civil.

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

True.

Free speech free speech free speech.

What IS "free speech" ?

Would it be Ok for a parade of pedophiles to congregate and hold a march hollering about their "rights" to have "sex" with children ?

Would that ALSO deserve protection ?

How about a parade of nutty liberals marching and passing out flyers about plans to assasinate president Bush ?

Would that also be protected speech ?

If yes to the above, then you're telling us there are no LIMITS to our so called "freedom of speech".

If NO to the above, then you admit there ARE limits to "freedom of speech".

You can't have it both ways.

Or are we just arguing about what those "free speech" limits ARE ?

That is just silly; of course there are limits. In particular those forms of 'speech' that constitute planning or inciting illegal activities (for example, murder). However, advocating a political idea, no matter how odious or unpopular *is* protected. Otherwise, who gets to decide what is an "acceptable" ideal worthy of protection? Me? You? The president? Congress? The local police?

__________________
please click and help the eggs hatch!

"The only abnormality is the incapacity to love"
-Anias Nin

First you say it's silly, then you say "of course there are limits."

Oh, so there ARE limits ! Speech that constitute planning or inciting illegal activities isn't free ? Illegal activities like molesting kids ? Illegal activities like murdering the president ? Illegal activities like passing over a more qualified new hire only because he/she is black or hispanic ?

But us taxpayers must pay for police protection for ONE group that obviously promotes illegal activities, but not the OTHERS ?

"Silly" eh ?

Tell me more about this "silly".

"Promotes" illegal activities? As best I know, that's fine. I can wear a shirt that says "I love to smoke crack" without being hauled away and jailed. In fact, people could probably wear shirts that talk about how they love to do all manner of disgusting and illegal things.

These "expressions" become illegal when they move into the realm of inciting or planning (which becomes conspiracy, I believe). Perverts are free to stand outside of government buildings clamoring for laws protecting their perversion. So are racists and all other manner of undesirables. And, it's a good thing that they are, too. It isn't until they start planning/instigating that it becomes illegal.

Would you want to live in a society where people could be locked up for expressing particular preferences, ideas for legislation, or anything else, based exclusively on a general consensus of "decency policing"? Free speech should be limited only by when it becomes the planning of a criminal violation of the rights of another.

Authoritarian liberals, advocating "decency policing", that claim otherwise, make me decidedly nervous.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Ok, so were back to what this whole argument is REALLY about. Like I said in # 36:

Or are we just arguing about what those "free speech" limits ARE ?

So lets get very specific about what the limits are, or we think SHOULD be on "free speech".

Doc says when it can be seen as conspiracy.

Otter has said when it advocates illegal activities.

I think that, in terms of juris-prudence, this introduces an impossibly slippery slope. Take this to its natural conclusion - everyone who calls the police will be burdened to prove that they were threatened. Then, you're going to have some sort of bureaucratic process for determining "threats", along with incentive from on high for police/whoever to minimize the amount of threat judgments on behalf of citizens in order to save a buck and come in under budget.

I see no way that what you're proposing wouldn't result in a de facto privatization of the police, or else, at the very least, massive amounts of corruption and an enormous conflict of interest. I'd probably just opt for privatizing the police outright at that point, so we could at least save money on the lengthy process of evaluating whether or not people really had cause to feel threatened.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Ideally, there should never be limits to free speech. However, we don't live in an ideal world, and I recognize the limitations.

If I walk up to someone on the street, and say, "I'm going to cut your throat while you sleep", then I have crossed from free speech into a violation of that person's right (causing harm or threatening to cause harm). Similarly, if I lay out detailed plans to commit some sort of felonious act or offer someone money to commit one, I'm no longer exercising a right to express myself - I'm planning a crime, which is a criminal act.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Some seem to beleive we DO.

Obviously.

I can live with those limits :-)

To me free speech is to know that I will be held accountable for what I do and not what I say. This creates an environment where radically new ideas can be openly discussed and evaluated be it in an academic or political sense. However, if what is being said (such as making threats) induces another to withhold non-criminal action or self expression then this is not free speech as all parties must be able to fully to participate for full expression and understanding of ideas.