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.
I didn't address this in my previous comment, but to clarify the case I referenced was a supreme court ruling; Do you have a comment now knowing this?
In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), the Supreme Court established that the government generally cannot criminalize the display of profane words in public places.
Language isn't how that is accomplished. People not understanding that words can't hurt them is how that is accomplished. I am going to leave you with the following, if you don't want to respond to it, feel free not to.
In short, ‘perception is projection’ means that we each project your own attitudes, behavior and beliefs onto others. The world is YOUR own mirror!
A wise man once said;
“The only genuinely true thing is that, for better or for worse, we each get to decide how we see and interpret things.”
How you interpret this idea will determine whether you like it, dislike it, agree or disagree with it. Fact.
Everything we see is neutral, but we have no neutral thoughts about what we see. The thoughts we have about the situations we face will determine how we perceive our situations. All situations are empty space until we decide what they mean to us!
The world is what you think of it. Change your thoughts and you change the world. What you believe will be mirrored in what you see. If you believe there are no good opportunities in life, you will inevitably find a way to prove yourself right.
If you believe that you can grow and improve, you will. If you believe that no-one can be trusted, you’ll trust no-one and likewise, no-one will trust you.
Life is difficult when you believe it must be difficult.
I can tell you, from both personal experience, and professional experience (I was a career correction officer), that the use of vulgar/profane language has a profound effect on one's mental state, and can be an indication of (or precedent to) neurological degradation.
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.
Maybe their sign, that they purchased or created, made them happy! They have a right to happiness also and owe you no happiness, you have to create your own...by looking away
That's always the argument...look away...change the channel...etc., etc. This is always the defense of the people who use the language, not considering the rights of the people forced to endure it. Civil society doesn't have the prewarning or choice to avoid such situations, when they arrive on every street corner.
My right to peace is tantamount over someone else's sketchy "right" to push the envelope on the First Amendment. I shouldn't have to adjust my life (or my sense of peace) to allow someone else to trample on my right. And, it indicates someone else's DISREGARD of my rights and/or sensibilities to use said language in front of me, callously. If it isn't done in polite society, then why are we giving it a pass everywhere else? I don't understand why this is such a radical concept, difficult for others to grasp.
Having to defend this vigorously is disappointing to me. Obviously, this situation bothered enough people for the arrest of Cohen to happen in the first place, for the appellate to rule as they did, and for the SC to agree to hear it. Have you considered where this case came from in the first place, and the "connections" Cohen had to push (i.e. the dollars) the case higher and higher as he did? That should give anyone pause. I believe this was yet another subtle act of social subversion.
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?
I didn't address this in my previous comment, but to clarify the case I referenced was a supreme court ruling; Do you have a comment now knowing this?
In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), the Supreme Court established that the government generally cannot criminalize the display of profane words in public places.
Language isn't how that is accomplished. People not understanding that words can't hurt them is how that is accomplished. I am going to leave you with the following, if you don't want to respond to it, feel free not to.
In short, ‘perception is projection’ means that we each project your own attitudes, behavior and beliefs onto others. The world is YOUR own mirror!
A wise man once said;
“The only genuinely true thing is that, for better or for worse, we each get to decide how we see and interpret things.”
Everything we see is neutral, but we have no neutral thoughts about what we see. The thoughts we have about the situations we face will determine how we perceive our situations. All situations are empty space until we decide what they mean to us!
The world is what you think of it. Change your thoughts and you change the world. What you believe will be mirrored in what you see. If you believe there are no good opportunities in life, you will inevitably find a way to prove yourself right.
If you believe that you can grow and improve, you will. If you believe that no-one can be trusted, you’ll trust no-one and likewise, no-one will trust you.
Life is difficult when you believe it must be difficult.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0261927X18758143
Language use in dementia and Alzheimer's patients: https://www.verywellhealth.com/foul-language-and-dementia-97610
I can tell you, from both personal experience, and professional experience (I was a career correction officer), that the use of vulgar/profane language has a profound effect on one's mental state, and can be an indication of (or precedent to) neurological degradation.
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.
Maybe their sign, that they purchased or created, made them happy! They have a right to happiness also and owe you no happiness, you have to create your own...by looking away
That's always the argument...look away...change the channel...etc., etc. This is always the defense of the people who use the language, not considering the rights of the people forced to endure it. Civil society doesn't have the prewarning or choice to avoid such situations, when they arrive on every street corner.
My right to peace is tantamount over someone else's sketchy "right" to push the envelope on the First Amendment. I shouldn't have to adjust my life (or my sense of peace) to allow someone else to trample on my right. And, it indicates someone else's DISREGARD of my rights and/or sensibilities to use said language in front of me, callously. If it isn't done in polite society, then why are we giving it a pass everywhere else? I don't understand why this is such a radical concept, difficult for others to grasp.
Having to defend this vigorously is disappointing to me. Obviously, this situation bothered enough people for the arrest of Cohen to happen in the first place, for the appellate to rule as they did, and for the SC to agree to hear it. Have you considered where this case came from in the first place, and the "connections" Cohen had to push (i.e. the dollars) the case higher and higher as he did? That should give anyone pause. I believe this was yet another subtle act of social subversion.
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/