He’s waiting for the Android and website version to be live. Why would he start the BOOMS now before he has the app fully available for EVERY person?
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (87)
sorted by:
HAHAHAHA!!! Sorry but no, liberals never told me anything that stuck. I got wise to 'liberals' in 1969 when they began busing to my school.
I do not consider any pictures or images to be 'speech' at all actually, but our greater Society does. The written word is speech, the spoken word is speech, images and yeah even memes are not speech. Images and memes can convey ideas but they are not that protected Thing we define as Speech, for my nickel.
I enlisted to defend Free Speech, partly so anyhow, not images or cartoons or parodies of speech but actual Speech, good bad and ugly.
I consider that our courts and laws and Society made a mistake by including so much in the concept of 'Speech', but they all have done so and that is the Society in which we live. I swore an Oath to defend the Constitution, and I must accept the legal interpretations of that instrument even as I disagree with them.
Raise your sights, you seem to conflate violence with Speech, the two things are diametrically in opposition.
I appreciate your thoughtful answer. I see that we disagree on the more legitimate interpretation of free speech. Is Free Speech the interpretation of today, or should it be understood more in the sense of the founding fathers writings entirely free of Supreme Court Justices who can't define what a woman is?
I lean heavily toward the latter. I try to remind myself that Free Speech was originally meant to be political Free Speech, not to include obscenity, blasphemy, pornography, CP, or even disturbing the peace. I really doubt our founders sacrificed everything so that everyone can act like assholes. However they did feel strongly that each person should be able to express their political opinions without punishment.
From my point of view memes, political cartoons and the like are squarely within the traditional meaning of the First Amendment. It's a powerful form of questioning government and petitioning for redress of grievances.
I'm more literal, my Lovely Wife would beat that idiosyncrasy out of me with a baseball bat if she could....
I don't consider Free Speech is limited to politics, it must include all things written, all words spoken. Science should be included for instance, religion, simple communications of all kinds.
But not images, a picture of a horse is not speech, nor is a meme, although both can transfer ideas as if they were words.
I agree that Speech should not include obscenity yet it must, if it is Free. But people want to forget, at useful times, that Speech has consequences. Government should not interfere in Speech but Society can, should and does. If individuals speak obscenely and Society does not wish to hear it that obscenity can lead to Society itself, not government but people, addressing the offending party within reasonable limits.
Society 'does' limit Speech in such fashion. That is why we must obtain permits to use amplified sound in protest of government or Society in public spaces, why we must obtain permits to assemble in a manner which encroaches upon Society.
So if a 'person' stands on a corner with a sign, 'end is near', that is allowed. Same guy standing there with a bullhorn is a breach of the Peace tho, because his amplified sound encroaches on the rest of us. That is how we safely and legally limit Speech.
Anyhow, I do not considere Free Speech truly exists, and I do not consider that it is limited to just political doings, but it 'is' subject to Societal control, just not government.
For instance - my house/my rulez, I don't allow people to use corrupted language, when the daughter-in-law says 'gay' I always correct her with ''queer'. It irritates her greatly especially if the grandkids hear me, but nevertheless, they corrupt Speech when they hide queers behind 'gay'.
Free Speech works like that, to me. Free Speech is simply, honest speech.
That's a thoughtful reply. With the exception of the memes, I feel I agree with everything you've said. I am thinking that when the first amendment was written there was no need to protect speech about religion, science or what not. What was dangerous was political speech because the king didn't like it. That's the context anyway, so I believe that's the root of it.
There was need to protect it in religion and science tho, in fact religious freedom was one motivation to come to the New World.
God was mentioned throughout the founding of our American Experiment, the beauty of the Constitution is that it acknowledges our Rights come from God, not from men or governments. The political language of the Constitution, the safeguards built in, the very limited powers granted to government all speak to the need to enumerate the Freedoms of God given Rights of man being above the powers granted to government.
So, 'government' may not limit Speech or Religion, among the other things it may not do.
Society CAN so limit them however, and they do, twitters does and newspapers always have and the FCC limits words and my Grandmother was the sort who would scold you if you said 'shit', tell you you had something in your mouth she wouldn't hold in her hand.
The King also didn't like religious speech, the Founders knew full well freedom of 'all' speech was important.
https://files.catbox.moe/5kd02p.jpeg