Most people need a civics lesson when it comes to the First Amendment. Free speech does NOT mean you can say whatever you want, wherever you want. There are already laws on the books for indecency and public vulgarity. Also, someone's "right" to say or display what they want does NOT infringe upon others' right to peace, period. The rights of peace come before anything else. Unfortunately, most municipalities haven't enforced these laws, and, now, we have the current climate of a lack of civility and decency, because people think that they are in the "right" to be vulgar.
Care to explain to the class where it talks about right to peace in the constitution?
There is already precedent from Cohen v California which was a landmark case holding that the first amendment prevented the conviction of Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying “Fuck the Draft”.
The law must be narrowly tailored to achieve an important government interest that is unrelated to the suppression of speech.
You’re saying if someone hurts my feelings and it disturbs my peace, I should be able to call the police and have that person fined?
From the Declaration of Independence, all people are endowed with unalienable rights. This has to do with natural rights, which is synonymous with human rights: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-natural-rights-4108952 Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Being exposed to offensive language makes many people "unhappy." They have a right not to be confronted with this type of language, and shouldn't have to change their route to avoid it.
Think of it this way. A parent has a right to raise their children in a manner they see fit, and if that manner includes keeping vulgar language from said children, that right trumps someone else's "right" to display vulgar language in a public place...where the child may be exposed to it. In this respect, the right to peace trumps the right for someone else to skirt the edges of the First Amendment.
The reason you may not have heard about this prioritization is that it would require a legal proceeding in a Constitutional Court. "Cohen v California" most likely came from a liberal court. I haven't taken a closer look, but I wouldn't be surprised that a different outcome would be the result of a conservative court.
There are also municipal laws and restrictions on this sort of thing as well, but again, the reason you may not be aware of them is because they rarely reach challenges in court.
It's quite discouraging that people who should know better allow their sense of decency and civility to be thrown aside, and act like morons in public. Vulgar language does nothing to support an argument, and, in fact, in most people's view, does quite the opposite.
As an aside, I know very well the negative impacts of vulgar language upon the mental state of the people who use it. Without making this post even longer and describing why I know this to be fact, suffice it to say that it is not healthy to cultivate and use said language.
I fully understand natural rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I honestly think you don't understand what was taught in civics class.
How you are equating pursuit of happiness to having the right to squash anything that make you unhappy is unsettling. Do you understand how this can be abused?
Let me quote this again;
The law must be narrowly tailored to achieve an important government interest that is unrelated to the suppression of speech.
I think you have liberal and conservative mixed up in this because a conservative would want to preserve the constitution. House Republicans adopted a "requirement that every bill must cite the provision of the Constitution which permits its introduction."
The restrictions are typically created via time, place and manner. Saying there are existing municipal laws and restrictions that violate the first amendment is not an argument in favor of them.
"Sense of decency", "Act like morons", "Vulgar Language" etc are all subjective opinions. It's not up to you to decide how an individual expresses themselves. This is one of the foundations.. you are allowed to say things that I do not like.
You do not know that as fact, you know what you know as fact. Language is neutral and it's our responsibility to teach people that words can't hurt you. The only thing that can hurt you is how you perceive the words you're hearing. Again, this is subjective material and you can't blanket statement it to everyone.
It's scary that there are tyrants here who align with policy that the globalists would be in favor of.
Well, I won't debate you, because you are firmly-set in what you believe. However, equating me with globalists is ill-advised. Vulgar language is "incendiary" -- that's why people use it, because it evokes anger and crudity. (You are kidding yourself if you think it's neutral.) Globalists want us fighting amongst ourselves, and divided. Language is how that is accomplished.
The words "pursuit of happiness" replaced the origional draft wording of Life, Liberty, and Property. Meaning you have a right to build a life as you see fit using the means and abilities obtained by you. Nobody else has a duty to insure you are happy by their own actions
You are right -- no one has such "duty"...and I made no such claim. However, no one can usurp my right to be "happy" either. There exists a time and place for everything, such that an individual can safely choose where he can live and work peacefully, and someone else can protest.
Most people need a civics lesson when it comes to the First Amendment. Free speech does NOT mean you can say whatever you want, wherever you want. There are already laws on the books for indecency and public vulgarity. Also, someone's "right" to say or display what they want does NOT infringe upon others' right to peace, period. The rights of peace come before anything else. Unfortunately, most municipalities haven't enforced these laws, and, now, we have the current climate of a lack of civility and decency, because people think that they are in the "right" to be vulgar.
Care to explain to the class where it talks about right to peace in the constitution?
There is already precedent from Cohen v California which was a landmark case holding that the first amendment prevented the conviction of Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying “Fuck the Draft”.
The law must be narrowly tailored to achieve an important government interest that is unrelated to the suppression of speech.
You’re saying if someone hurts my feelings and it disturbs my peace, I should be able to call the police and have that person fined?
From the Declaration of Independence, all people are endowed with unalienable rights. This has to do with natural rights, which is synonymous with human rights: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-are-natural-rights-4108952 Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Being exposed to offensive language makes many people "unhappy." They have a right not to be confronted with this type of language, and shouldn't have to change their route to avoid it.
Think of it this way. A parent has a right to raise their children in a manner they see fit, and if that manner includes keeping vulgar language from said children, that right trumps someone else's "right" to display vulgar language in a public place...where the child may be exposed to it. In this respect, the right to peace trumps the right for someone else to skirt the edges of the First Amendment.
The reason you may not have heard about this prioritization is that it would require a legal proceeding in a Constitutional Court. "Cohen v California" most likely came from a liberal court. I haven't taken a closer look, but I wouldn't be surprised that a different outcome would be the result of a conservative court.
There are also municipal laws and restrictions on this sort of thing as well, but again, the reason you may not be aware of them is because they rarely reach challenges in court.
It's quite discouraging that people who should know better allow their sense of decency and civility to be thrown aside, and act like morons in public. Vulgar language does nothing to support an argument, and, in fact, in most people's view, does quite the opposite.
As an aside, I know very well the negative impacts of vulgar language upon the mental state of the people who use it. Without making this post even longer and describing why I know this to be fact, suffice it to say that it is not healthy to cultivate and use said language.
I fully understand natural rights, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I honestly think you don't understand what was taught in civics class.
How you are equating pursuit of happiness to having the right to squash anything that make you unhappy is unsettling. Do you understand how this can be abused?
Let me quote this again;
I think you have liberal and conservative mixed up in this because a conservative would want to preserve the constitution. House Republicans adopted a "requirement that every bill must cite the provision of the Constitution which permits its introduction."
The restrictions are typically created via time, place and manner. Saying there are existing municipal laws and restrictions that violate the first amendment is not an argument in favor of them.
"Sense of decency", "Act like morons", "Vulgar Language" etc are all subjective opinions. It's not up to you to decide how an individual expresses themselves. This is one of the foundations.. you are allowed to say things that I do not like.
You do not know that as fact, you know what you know as fact. Language is neutral and it's our responsibility to teach people that words can't hurt you. The only thing that can hurt you is how you perceive the words you're hearing. Again, this is subjective material and you can't blanket statement it to everyone.
It's scary that there are tyrants here who align with policy that the globalists would be in favor of.
Well, I won't debate you, because you are firmly-set in what you believe. However, equating me with globalists is ill-advised. Vulgar language is "incendiary" -- that's why people use it, because it evokes anger and crudity. (You are kidding yourself if you think it's neutral.) Globalists want us fighting amongst ourselves, and divided. Language is how that is accomplished.
Need I say more?
The words "pursuit of happiness" replaced the origional draft wording of Life, Liberty, and Property. Meaning you have a right to build a life as you see fit using the means and abilities obtained by you. Nobody else has a duty to insure you are happy by their own actions
You are right -- no one has such "duty"...and I made no such claim. However, no one can usurp my right to be "happy" either. There exists a time and place for everything, such that an individual can safely choose where he can live and work peacefully, and someone else can protest.
Sorry for grabbing a random comment and sharing this but this state is trying to find every loophole to circumvent the first amendment.
https://www.wfla.com/news/politics/florida-bill-would-require-bloggers-who-write-about-governor-to-register-with-the-state/