But you also said that you will defend the rights of people claiming free speech, even if it makes you furious what they do.
Again, you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth.
You can't have it both ways. You either defend absolute free speech, which was what your original comment to me concerning the Voltaire quote was, or you don't.
You could have said you were wrong, and you didn't realize pedophiles used arguments of absolute free speech to defend child pornography.
But it is logically impossible to be for absolute free speech AND be against pedophiles using absolute free speech to defend child pornography.
Again, if you don't want to continue this conversation, then don't. I'm not making you post replies to me.
The Supreme Court has upheld those gun control laws, though. And the Supreme Court is who decides what is unconstitutional.
I don't agree with them, but I don't get to decide things like that. Which makes it important who gets to elect SC judges.
Just like I didn't agree with Roe vs Wade. But during the past 50 years, it was constitutional. Now it's not.
Until the laws change, gag orders are not unconstitutional as a whole.
They both concern free speech rights. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that pedophiles haven't tried to use Free Speech rights in their defense. They have.
This is exactly one of the reasons we have limitations on free speech.
It's a simple yes or no question that you keep avoiding answering.
I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that you might not realize that absolute free speech advocates are in favor of things like child pornography.
And the quote you gave is in favor of absolute free speech.
So, by "badgering you", I'm trying to give you a chance to say very clearly that you wouldn't argue in favor of child pornographers.
But if you don't want the chance to clear up any misconceptions there, then fine. I'll choose to take you at your word when you say that you would argue in favor of anyone's use of free speech, including pedophiles.
Also, just a tip, if you don't want to have a conversation with someone, you can always just ignore them. No one can force you to have a conversation online.
It doesn't matter if you read Voltaire or not. That's who originally said the quote you mentioned earlier. If you don't agree with it, why quote it?
You're going to a lot of trouble to NOT answer a simple question.
Will you defend a pedophile's use of the free speech defense in order for them to publish child pornography?
It's nice that you want to live a righteous life and all. That's great. So in that righteous life you're living, are you defending pedophiles? If not, then why give the quote you did?
I'm 100% obsessed with stopping child pornography and those who would use that quote by Voltaire to argue in favor of absolute free speech.
Are you NOT in favor of stopping child pornography?
Voltaire was the one who originally said the quote you used about defending what others say, even if it makes you furious.
Ok, so is that a yes or no, then, on if you support child pornographers argument of free speech?
Which part of the Constitution do you believe to be perverted by placing limitations on freedom of speech that prevents child pornography?
Because it seems like you want to support absolute free speech when it benefits you, but you want limitations of free speech on things you don't like...
It doesn't matter if YOU care who defines it or not. Because the legal system doesn't care about your solitary opinion. Civil disobedience is a defined action, legally. It's like how the color green exists, even if you don't like it.
So now you're defining and limiting what someone's truth can be.
Again, no, "truth" is subjective, and you've just proven that here by dictating what truth should be.
You don't like my hypothetical version of what my truth is, so you've said it's wrong and doesn't work in YOUR version of how things should be.
Then why are you saying you would go with Voltaire's version of absolute free speech, when pedophiles try to use absolute free speech to defend child pornography?
You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here. Do you really not see that?
Of course you did, because you had no answer.
What difference does it matter to introduce things legally, if the law doesn't need to be followed?
You keep changing your argument.
Should we all live by our truths, or should we live by the laws of society?
You can't have both.
There's a difference between protesting, such as with civil disobedience and saying that our legal system should be ignored in favor of everyone living by their truths.
I don't think you really even understand yourself, what it is you believe. You just flip-flop around on the matters involved.
Am I a lawyer or a wannabe lawyer? It can be only one.
The fact that you can look up "civil disobedience" in law books proves you're wrong here.
And what happens if my own personal constitution says that everyone who disagrees with me is subject to death?
If we live by our own truth, and not the law of man, what's stopping me from just killing anyone who disagrees with me?
What's stopping anyone from just killing people they don't like the looks of, including you?
Again, your ideas are all grand until someone uses those same ideas in a way you don't like.
What if my personal truth is that the legal system we have is right and it should be followed?
How can you be arguing with me here about it, if it's my truth and we should live by our truth?
So we should just ignore what Q said about having to introduce evidence legally?
Yes, that's exactly how you fix corruption, by playing by the rules and having laws changed that should be changed.
Take Roe Vs Wade. Did we have that reversed by going around shooting people that had abortions, or did we take that case to the Supreme Court and get it changed, legally?
Or am I wrong? How many people did you shoot in the head to change that law? Or what illegal methods did you use to get that law changed that worked?
If we used that interpretation, then child pornography would be legal. Remember above, where I pointed out some of the limitations we have on free speech? Child pornography is one of those limitations.
You understand that freedom of speech also covers things like media, right? Films, photos, texts, etc...?
It's not just about things that are verbally spoken.
So does this mean that you would defend someone's right to publish child pornography, even if it makes you furious?
Because that's what it seems here.
I volunteer my time to several things I think makes a difference. Helping illiterate homeless and poor people learn how to read is one. That way they can read the Constitution themselves and learn how laws are made and which politician is saying and doing what.
Reading is extraordinarily important in learning things such as what a peraon's civil rights are.
Suggesting ways people can help make a difference if they really care about the issue isn't really "telling everyone else what to do".
Why are you sitting at a device, interacting with people when you could be doing that, if that is what you wanted to be doing?
It doesn't cost much at all to go squat on some land no one cares about.
I'm sure if you try very hard, you can do it.
So what's stopping you?
Civil Disobedience is a very specific thing. It doesn't just mean breaking the law.
If you want to go live back in Thoreau's day, go find some patch of land that no one cares about, and have at it. Re-read "Walden" as much as you want. If no one cares about whatever land you're squatting on, I don't think anyone is going to drag you back into society.
So, go, have fun doing that.
No. Not at all. I was responding to someone who was saying that "One limit on the First Amendment would beckon another", and was suggesting that gag orders were unconstitutional because of that.
I was pointing out that there were ALREADY limits on freedom of speech. And I listed some of those limitations.
I think the issue is that my comment got lost in the thread, and it's not readily apparent who/what I was responding to.
I should have quoted him in my response, just so no one would have been confused.
There's a difference between breaking a law, even knowingly, and thinking laws don't apply to you.
I'm not arguing against any idea that we have too many laws or that some laws are unjust.
That's not what we were talking about.
You were saying we should live our lives according to "truth" rather than laws.
Perhaps you should go read the conversation again. You seem to have lot the plot somewhere along the way.
We don't live in nature, though. We live in a civilized society with laws.
If you want to live in nature, that's fine. Go live in the wild, be free.
But if you want to live amongst humans, you live by the same laws they do, wherever they are.
And the fact that you're here, on a message board, indicates that you want to be amongst humans to some degree.
You're not a special little snowflake who gets to benefit from society while denying any sort of responsibility towards it. And by responsibility, I mean living by the laws everyone else lives by.
You may want to be. You may THINK you are. But you're not.
I'm sure some people could. Just as I'm sure all people can't.
And it only takes one that can't to chop your head off.
Basically, you want your cake and eat it too. You want to tell people to be governed by their truth, but you also want to be able to instill some bit of restraint to others.
You want to decide what is and is not an appropriate reaction in others, when they are living their truth.
But, again, truth is subjective. Who are you to tell a radicalized Muslim where the line is that they can and can not cross?
You might think it's bogus. I might even think it's bogus. I'm sure President Trump thinks it's bogus.
But the judge sure as hell won't and will be the one to deal with it.
Again, if he thinks it's bogus, he can respond with the appropriate LEGAL methods. And that bit of nonsense above will not only get President Trump in further hot water, but the person(s) doing it on his behalf will certainly be in legal trouble over it as well.
People need to start being able to differentiate between opinions we hold personally and the facts of the legal system.
It doesn't matter if you or anyone else on this board thinks it's bogus or not. The judges involved in these cases are those whose opinions matter here.
Don't like that? Arguing with me won't change anything. Find some ways to make a difference. And sitting on a board, talking to a group where around 95% of the members agree with you won't make a difference.
I'm sure Trump's lawyers have already figured out how they want to respond, legally.
So, if you care about it, go find a way to make a difference. How you do that is up to you.
Become a well-known media personality. Become a best-selling author and write something that will sway the opinions of others. Become a lawyer and fight against the laws you think are unconstitutional. Become a judge and help others out in similar situations.
There are plenty of ways to make a difference.
I'm not saying child pornography is legal. I have never said that.
But there have been plenty of people that have tried to use Free Speech as a means to publish child pornography. And they have tried to get laws prohibiting child pornography dismissed under the argument it violates free speech.
That is why child pornography is specifically listed as a limitation on free speech.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/First-Amendment/Permissible-restrictions-on-expression
"Certain types of hard-core pornography, labeled obscenity by the law, may also be punished, as the Supreme Court held in Miller v. California (1973). Exactly what constitutes obscenity is not clear, but since the 1980s the definition has been quite narrow. Also, obscenities in the sense of merely vulgar words may not be punished (Cohen v. California [1971]).
Material depicting actual children engaging in sex, or being naked in a sexually suggestive context, is called child pornography and may be punished. Sexually themed material that uses adults who look like children or features hand-drawn or computer-generated pictures of fictional children does not fall within this exception, though some such material might still be punishable as obscenity."
Free speech laws didn't evolve in a vacuum. There are specific limitations on free speech just because someone tried to use free speech to do exactly those things.
My point was that free speech is not absolute. Its not just child pornography that is limited, though. Things like slander and libel and inciting violence.
Yes, we have laws against those things, or some of them, anyway. It doesn't stop people trying to use the First Amendment to do them anyway,.or to use as a defense.
So, the fact that child pornography is not covered by the First Amendment doesn't mean that it's not already illegal, it means that it can't be used as a defense or argument in their defense trial, either.
So, hopefully we have that cleared up.