So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[Fading Fast]

I don't disagree, except that the right ("privilege" is probably a more accurate term in this context) to freedom of speech in the U.S. does allow a person to do just that. I admit it's difficult to support that right/privilege when a group like the Ku Klux Klan is verbalizing their hate-filled ethos, but, just as they have the right to do that, I have the right to tell them they're a bunch of ignorant fools who should all die a slow painful death caused by inoperable tumors at the bases of their skulls.

I actually think it helps that our Constitution allows / protect people to spew their hate as I think it works as a release valve and popular adjudicator where they say it / scream it / what have you and if they don't get a lot of followers, they can't claim their hateful ideas would have currency / popular appear if allowed.

The Klan is out there saying its stuff and how many followers do they have today in our country of 300+million? My guess, they'd have more if they had to go underground with their speech and could claim to be "victims" of an oppressive state.

Growing up, I remember a big brouhaha when some nazi group was going to march in Illinois somewhere in the '70s. In the end, they marched, promoted their horrible ideology and the country moved on with nazis in America being nothing more than a very, very marginalized fringe group.

^^^^^
The First Amendment does not bestow a right to slander, or to threaten bodily injury, or to direct incitement to imminent danger (you know, "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater"). All those are indeed "speech," but they are not constitutionally protected. For damn good reason.

So no, the First Amendment does not bestow an absolute right to say whatever one wishes to whomever one wishes whenever and wherever one wishes. I can't imagine a functioning society if it did.

Amazing how many people don't get this.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The Klan -- or some pimply-faced basement dweller pretending to be the Klan -- was distributing literature in this area last week, and I think the mere act of their doing so did more to diminish their credibility than any ban or legal sanction against them could ever do. I remember a big rumpus in the Lewiston area some years ago when the Klan announced plans to hold a rally protesting Somali immigration, and when they showed up they were literally laughed out of town.

Groups like this have intimidating power only to the extent that the public allows itself to be intimidated. Dress the village idiot up in a bedsheet and a cardboard cone-head hat, and as much as he might want you to believe he's a Knight of the Invisible Empire, he's still the village idiot in a bedsheet and a cardboard cone-head hat. You don't even have to waste the energy flinging a rock or a bottle at that hat. That's what they want you to do. But the one thing they can't withstand is decent people refusing to take them seriously and laughing at them as the ridiculous stunted buffoons that they are. "Hey Kleagle, there's a yellow stain on your sheet!"

 

[Fading Fast]

Gene Kelly.

Not a bad scene in that movie. Gene Kelly shows some real acting chops in the one you highlighted.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Inherit the Wind has been one my favorite films since I was a kid. Aside from the stellar acting, it's loaded with ideas that seem truer than ever, like Tracy/Drummoxnd's speech about what's lost against progress: "Yes, you can have an airplane... but the skies will smell of gasoline, and the birds will lose their wonder."

 

[GHT]

"Hey Kleagle, there's a yellow stain on your sheet!"

Don't you know what that stain is? It's "The Goodness Gene," it missed the mark at conception.

 

[Zombie_61]

...The First Amendment does not bestow a right to slander, or to threaten bodily injury, or to direct incitement to imminent danger (you know, "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater"). All those are indeed "speech," but they are not constitutionally protected. For damn good reason.

So no, the First Amendment does not bestow an absolute right to say whatever one wishes to whomever one wishes whenever and wherever one wishes. I can't imagine a functioning society if it did.

I realize I'm picking nits, but the First Amendment says, simply, "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." So while it does not directly bestow those rights, it doesn't restrict them either.

That being said, the First Amendment simply does not address punitive actions as a consequence to an individual's right to practice religion or to say or write whatever they want. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." But local authorities are free to create their own laws to govern such inflammatory acts.

I heard someone say "there is freedom of speech but not freedom from its consequences." That always stuck with me.

I think this statement nicely sums up the point I'm trying to make.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^
The Constitution means whatever the Court says it means. And the Court has made clear that the First Amendment offers no protection to slander and threats of bodily injury and direct incitement to imminent danger, among other expressions to which the Court has turned thumbs down. Any publisher who believes he can say whatever he wishes without regard to its veracity will find that the First Amendment offers no protection against a libel action. Same for threats. Et cetera.

So Congress and other lawmaking bodies may indeed restrict some expressions. Witness copyright laws (you can't claim another person's creative expression as your own) or truth-in-advertising laws, or laws prohibiting child pornography. The list goes on.

 

[Stearmen]

We had Political Correctness back in the day, we just used another phrase, Good Manners!

 

[Stearmen]

Growing up, I remember a big brouhaha when some nazi group was going to march in Illinois somewhere in the '70s.

 

[GHT]

What I find fascinating is how Americans model The Magna Carta into their basic fundamentals. I remember being amazed that Magna Carta was quoted at Richard Nixon's impeachment.
When pilgrims began leaving England for North America in the 17th century, they wanted the rights that were guaranteed to them as English subjects to follow them to the New World.
As a result, America’s early colonies established charters guaranteeing certain fundamental liberties to those who settled there.
These charters were, unsurprisingly, modelled after the Magna Carta, which could have reasonably been described as America's founding document - at least until the ratification of the US Constitution in 1790.

It was no coincidence that when residents of Boston first took up arms against the crown, the seal of the Massachusetts Bay colony included the image of a militiaman with sword in one hand and Magna Carta in the other.
Both the rallying cry of “no taxation without representation” and the declaration that even the king must be subject to the law could be traced back to Runnymede.

After independence the Magna Carta retained its significance in the young republic, as evidenced by Thomas Jefferson’s own careworn copy of Edward Coke’s legal interpretation of the document, which is on display at Washington's Library of Congress as part of a year of events to mark the Magna Carta's 800th anniversary.
Visitors to Washington will also note that on the frieze inside the United States Supreme Court is a depiction of the signing of Magna Carta at Runnymede.


The American Bar Association (ABA) was the first major American institution to call for the resignation of Richard Nixon over Watergate, and it drew on the fundamental lesson of the Magna Carta in doing so.
“We said no man is above the law and the president had to be impeached because he was acting as King John,” Stephen Zack, a former president of the ABA, said.

 

[ChrisB]

Not really trivial, at least not to me, but : people who are cruel to cats.

 

[HudsonHawk]

What I find fascinating is how Americans model The Magna Carta into their basic fundamentals.

Most US law is based on English common law (except in Louisiana where it gets really crazy with that Napoleonic Code stuff), including the Magna Carta, which is no surprise, considering the Founding Fathers were born British subjects. It's so ingrained, in fact, that many Americans mistakenly think things like "jury of your peers" appears in the Constitution.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

Well it has been said, take away California & New York City & you have the real America, 17th century England. Public witch burning may well be reauthorized from Jan 20th onwards.

 

[Fading Fast]

Most US law is based on English common law (except in Louisiana where it gets really crazy with that Napoleonic Code stuff), including the Magna Carta, which is no surprise, considering the Founding Fathers were born British subjects. It's so ingrained, in fact, that many Americans mistakenly think things like "jury of your peers" appears in the Constitution.

And this is part of the reason the US has a "special" relationship with the UK - the ties run deep.

 

[2jakes]

Not really trivial, at least not to me, but : people who are cruel to cats.

People who are cruel to all animals.

 

[GHT]

Thanks for your input about Magna Carta, lean'n'mean, there was a rather good comment in the clip of The Holy Grail, Monty Python movie.

It read: "I can think of far more fun things to do with Connie Booth than burn her."
But I know where you are coming from and your guarded 'political' note. From what you have all described had me delving through my history books and you are right. The fundamentals of liberty and justice that are enshrined in Magna Carta have more or less been adopted throughout the English speaking world, and beyond. No more so than in the US. This link is quite a long read but certainly not a heavy one, I found it informative, enlightening and absorbing. You live and learn as they say.
Magna Carta & The US Constitution.

 

[Fading Fast]

Perfect to the title of this thread are those envelopes that come from - usually - banks, brokerage firms or government agencies (some gov't checks and most company proxy statements come this way) that, in order to open, require you to, for three of the edges, carefully fold them back and forth a few time and then gently tear off about a quarter of an inch at a serration that never really works as intended. And, as if that isn't enough, to get the final edge opened, you have to carefully run your finger between the second and third sheet (as this stupidly designed envelope is folded three times) to separate out the glued pieces.

It is almost impossible to open this envelope without tearing it a bit and that assumes you are willing to spend the ridiculous amount of time demanded to do it "the right way." I assume this insanely dumb envelope exists because it saves the sender money (the letter is actually the envelope itself), discourages you from opening it (the institution would rather you ignore it, but they, by law, have to send it) or because there is no incentive to invest in newer envelope design as these are never solicitation but required information - hence, it's a cost to the gov't or company, so why would they improve it?

I get these all the time in my business and am amazed that this antiquated and stupid design still exists. Trivial - yes, but it really ticks me off.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^^
I recall being told by an ad man who worked for the same publishing company I did that it was all to the better if the inserts -- the advertisements stuffed into the paper after it's printed -- fell to floor when the reader opened his newspaper. That way they would at least be seen, he reckoned. The annoying pop-up ad of its time.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And even worse are the junk-mail envelopes that mimic that design, and include no obvious information on the outside identifying the sender. It's very easy to get tricked into fussing with one of those under the impression that it's some kind of offical notification, only to find that some shady rent-to-own company wants to stick you with an overpriced 80 inch TV.

 

[tonyb]

And even worse are the junk-mail envelopes that mimic that design, and include no obvious information on the outside identifying the sender. It's very easy to get tricked into fussing with one of those under the impression that it's some kind of offical notification, only to find that some shady rent-to-own company wants to stick you with an overpriced 80 inch TV.

In a similar vein, the "official notification" and the like mimicking correspondence from government agencies and financial institutions. I occasionally get mail marked "urgent" and/or "open immediately" and/or "do not discard."

The recycling gets picked up every other week. Better if it were weekly.