What is the price of free speech?

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3190
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by j-c-c » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:37 am

David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:43 am
j-c-c wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:18 pm
David Redszus wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 1:50 pm
I would like to ask Ms Christine Ford the following questions:

When did she start drinking?
Was she on birth control pills at the time of the alleged incident?
When was her very first sexual experience?
How many times did she engage in [Blank Post] acts while in high school?
How many articles of clothing were removed during the alleged incident?
Did she use self hypnosis to pass the lie detector test?
Why are the lie test records not available?
Did she coach others on how to pass a polygraph? (as per her white paper).
Why were not all of her documentation turned over to the FBI?
How long has she been a Democrap party activist?

I would like to ask Judge Kavanaugh:

When will your lawyers file a slander/libel suit against Ms. Ford?
You would need to explain first the relevance proving what the above has to do with Kavuaghing pushing Ford onto a bed against her will, locking the door, likely turning the music louder to cover any sounds made in the locked room, jumping on top of her, rubbing his genitals on her body, attempting to removing her clothes, and covering her mouth when she attempted to scream.

BTW, most of your above questions are right in line with those Kavanaigh drummed up when drafting questions for Bill Clinton about a consensual [Blank Post] encounter between two adults.

And IMO, bordering on salacious and prurient only for personal interest.
Grow up, go buy a Penthouse for your thrills. #-o
You stupid little child.
The Democraps wanted to make the issue about personal character, not about qualifications or the practice of law.
Since they played that card, her personal character must be considered as well. Was she the community punch board?
Did she invite drunken boys to play? How many times did the scenario repeat during prep years?

It is ALWAYS incumbent upon the accuser to present evidence and proof. She presented neither and told a garbled
tale that no one could possibly believe.

Except you. :)
Anybody who opens a reply with "you stupid little child",

Does not warrant a respectful reply. [-X

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6549
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by David Redszus » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:56 am

j-c-c wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:37 am
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:43 am
j-c-c wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:18 pm


You would need to explain first the relevance proving what the above has to do with Kavuaghing pushing Ford onto a bed against her will, locking the door, likely turning the music louder to cover any sounds made in the locked room, jumping on top of her, rubbing his genitals on her body, attempting to removing her clothes, and covering her mouth when she attempted to scream.

BTW, most of your above questions are right in line with those Kavanaigh drummed up when drafting questions for Bill Clinton about a consensual [Blank Post] encounter between two adults.

And IMO, bordering on salacious and prurient only for personal interest.
Grow up, go buy a Penthouse for your thrills. #-o
You stupid little child.
The Democraps wanted to make the issue about personal character, not about qualifications or the practice of law.
Since they played that card, her personal character must be considered as well. Was she the community punch board?
Did she invite drunken boys to play? How many times did the scenario repeat during prep years?

It is ALWAYS incumbent upon the accuser to present evidence and proof. She presented neither and told a garbled
tale that no one could possibly believe.

Except you. :)
Anybody who opens a reply with "you stupid little child",

Does not warrant a respectful reply. [-X
You are not capable of a respectful reply. Yours are always snide and snarky; and often as not insulting as well.

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 6549
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by David Redszus » Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:57 am

j-c-c wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:37 am
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:43 am
j-c-c wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 2:18 pm


You would need to explain first the relevance proving what the above has to do with Kavuaghing pushing Ford onto a bed against her will, locking the door, likely turning the music louder to cover any sounds made in the locked room, jumping on top of her, rubbing his genitals on her body, attempting to removing her clothes, and covering her mouth when she attempted to scream.

BTW, most of your above questions are right in line with those Kavanaigh drummed up when drafting questions for Bill Clinton about a consensual [Blank Post] encounter between two adults.

And IMO, bordering on salacious and prurient only for personal interest.
Grow up, go buy a Penthouse for your thrills. #-o
You stupid little child.
The Democraps wanted to make the issue about personal character, not about qualifications or the practice of law.
Since they played that card, her personal character must be considered as well. Was she the community punch board?
Did she invite drunken boys to play? How many times did the scenario repeat during prep years?

It is ALWAYS incumbent upon the accuser to present evidence and proof. She presented neither and told a garbled
tale that no one could possibly believe.

Except you. :)
Anybody who opens a reply with "you stupid little child",

Does not warrant a respectful reply. [-X
You are not capable of a respectful reply. Yours are always snide and snarky; and often as not insulting as well.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3190
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by j-c-c » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:09 am

David Redszus wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 10:57 am
j-c-c wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:37 am
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:43 am


You stupid little child.
The Democraps wanted to make the issue about personal character, not about qualifications or the practice of law.
Since they played that card, her personal character must be considered as well. Was she the community punch board?
Did she invite drunken boys to play? How many times did the scenario repeat during prep years?

It is ALWAYS incumbent upon the accuser to present evidence and proof. She presented neither and told a garbled
tale that no one could possibly believe.

Except you. :)
Anybody who opens a reply with "you stupid little child",

Does not warrant a respectful reply. [-X
You are not capable of a respectful reply. Yours are always snide and snarky; and often as not insulting as well.
May I then submit Exhibit "A" above. [-X

I'll defer for the time being, the calling the kettle black quip.

86_regal
Member
Member
Posts: 144
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by 86_regal » Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:37 am

j-c-c wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:23 pm
86_regal wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:05 pm
David Redszus wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:51 pm
The First Amendment allows unlimited free speech on the floor of Congress.

Courts have not allowed free speech with regard to child pornography or the incitation of violence.
We also have slander and libel laws that seek to guide free speech.

But what about intentional false accusations of crimes and behavior for political purposes?

How many years in jail should Christine Ford spend in jail for her lies? Not just for perjury, but for
malicious personal damage.

If a woman makes an unproven, untruthful charge against the character and actions of a man, would
10 years in the slammer be adequate? Should it be more?
Although I understand the basic premise of your first statement, it contains a major flaw which I believe needs to be addressed.

The First amendment does not "Allow" the freedom of speech.
As stated in the Bill of rights:

"Congress shall make no law,... abridging the freedom of speech..."

The MOST important term in this proclamation is the word "the" preceding freedom of speech. That word confirms the drafters conceded that the existence of this individual human right preceded the Bill of Rights under the doctrine of NATURAL Law.
In other words, the drafters wrote it this way to annuciate that such rights, created by NATURE, NOT others, CANNOT be abridged, perverted or compromised BY OTHERS.

Viewing the existence of this freedom through this lens should quickly undermine the "need" or application of law(s) which infringe it.

I cannot possibly imagine the need or concern of PROHIBITTING free expression of child pornography since that VERY EXPRESSION can be used as EVIDENCE, or at very least probable cause, to convict those committing acts of sexual assault. I say, LET THEM post that shit, pictures, admissions of such acts, etc.. It would increase the chances of catching AND convicting these demented people.

Slander and Libel laws are ridiculous as well. Anyone with half brain is aware that ALL the smack talk in the world doesn't mean shit without EVIDENCE! The existence of such laws, quite frankly, is offensive to me because it suggests that "we" can't discern fact from fiction ourselves...

At this point, it's important to understand why such "exceptions" exist. It's certainly NOT to protect children, or the "little guy" or those who were slandered. It's because those who write law PRACTICE LAW. What better way is there to secure a "good living" for those in the legal community than to pass MORE LAW?

That said, onto your last question.

Regarding false allegations which have serious legal ramifications such as rape. If the legal system were SERIOUS about mitigating such activity and administering justice EFFICIENTLY, they would require the plaintiff to pay ALL legal expenses PRIVATELY, not just attorney fees but ALSO ALL COURT fees and administrative costs. There's no reason you or I should have to subsidize this nonsense, ONLY the one bringing the claim.

This would do MULTIPLE things, it would virtually eliminate frivolous claims and/or those with little or no evidence to substantiate them. It would incentivize people to be MORE ACCOUNTABLE for their OWN actions AND It would also put immense pressure on the justice system and the "legal community" to REDUCE the costs of administering justice because those costs would no longer be invisible to those benefitting from it.

However, as said earlier, why would those in Congress,
ALL those in State Senate and Assemblies and ALL of the stuffed shirts flooding our dockets want that?...

Lot to unpack here, but I'll focus on one extremely important aspect yo touched on, making plaintiffs pay for legal expenses. That is not thought out well IMO. A core element under our system is we are all equals in the face of the law. Injecting one's individual resources as a varible to tamp down the legal process, would basically mean DT would beat nearly every single member here in any court proceedings ( te he has more wealth). The state has rightfully assumed for the benefit of allr the enforcement of laws. usually requested/enacted by at least the majority, and the financial burden and the task of prosecution. The real problem is, the state has nearly unlimited resources compared to the defendant (innonce until proven guilty), and to try and balance things for a merely "accused" person, there are a number requirements to keep the state from becoming out of control in performing its assigned duties, like Miranda rights, right to adequate consul, discovery, etc.

I have no problem leaving the system nearly as is, its proven, its known to everybody, its far from perfect, but its better then almost all others, and it has a last check, nirmally twelve citizens to decide (jury nullification), and if they are dutiful, and caring about their duty, it works. I am not ready to experiment quickly here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
My apologies for being so late getting back...

With all due respect J-C-C, you're missing the forest for the tress.

Under a system of making plaintiffs pay the legal costs, it would help EVEN the playing field you and I justifiably bemoan under the current system which ENABLES those like Trump to "buy their way out" of their legal troubles. I'm sure if people like you and I had an IRON CLAD case AGAINST Trump, I'm confident our current "network connections" within our cyber community would be MORE active and involved AND be happy to fund our "proceeding" particularly since the community has been freed from the burden of the taxation no longer funding the ineffectual Marcia Clarks of the legal system. Same logic would apply for those of within a given community to personally & actively ENSURE delivering justice for the victims of rapists, theives and murderers than under the current system which breeds apathy, disaffection, disdain and hopelessness to carry out justice.

For those like Trump wishing pursue legal action against you or I with little or NO legal merit, I assure you I'll be obtaining the BEST defense HIS money can buy...

This proposed system also addresses one of ROOT causes of the INEFFECIENCY of our legal system and virtually EVERY OTHER government provided service is the subsidization their costs. In other words concentrated benefit to a handful of those who obtain and utilize those services paying the tiniest fraction of actual costs, paid almost entirely by the rest of us who haven't received those services.

Most might consider this radical. It's only radical because we've NOT been required to directly pay for government services. However, it's NOT radical in ANY other context to pay for products and SERVICES you want. It is this system which drive costs DOWN and EFFICIENCY UP, isn't that that the goal...?

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3190
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: What is the price of free speech?

Post by j-c-c » Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:04 am

86_regal wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:37 am
j-c-c wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:23 pm
86_regal wrote:
Fri Oct 05, 2018 2:05 pm


Although I understand the basic premise of your first statement, it contains a major flaw which I believe needs to be addressed.

The First amendment does not "Allow" the freedom of speech.
As stated in the Bill of rights:

"Congress shall make no law,... abridging the freedom of speech..."

The MOST important term in this proclamation is the word "the" preceding freedom of speech. That word confirms the drafters conceded that the existence of this individual human right preceded the Bill of Rights under the doctrine of NATURAL Law.
In other words, the drafters wrote it this way to annuciate that such rights, created by NATURE, NOT others, CANNOT be abridged, perverted or compromised BY OTHERS.

Viewing the existence of this freedom through this lens should quickly undermine the "need" or application of law(s) which infringe it.

I cannot possibly imagine the need or concern of PROHIBITTING free expression of child pornography since that VERY EXPRESSION can be used as EVIDENCE, or at very least probable cause, to convict those committing acts of sexual assault. I say, LET THEM post that shit, pictures, admissions of such acts, etc.. It would increase the chances of catching AND convicting these demented people.

Slander and Libel laws are ridiculous as well. Anyone with half brain is aware that ALL the smack talk in the world doesn't mean shit without EVIDENCE! The existence of such laws, quite frankly, is offensive to me because it suggests that "we" can't discern fact from fiction ourselves...

At this point, it's important to understand why such "exceptions" exist. It's certainly NOT to protect children, or the "little guy" or those who were slandered. It's because those who write law PRACTICE LAW. What better way is there to secure a "good living" for those in the legal community than to pass MORE LAW?

That said, onto your last question.

Regarding false allegations which have serious legal ramifications such as rape. If the legal system were SERIOUS about mitigating such activity and administering justice EFFICIENTLY, they would require the plaintiff to pay ALL legal expenses PRIVATELY, not just attorney fees but ALSO ALL COURT fees and administrative costs. There's no reason you or I should have to subsidize this nonsense, ONLY the one bringing the claim.

This would do MULTIPLE things, it would virtually eliminate frivolous claims and/or those with little or no evidence to substantiate them. It would incentivize people to be MORE ACCOUNTABLE for their OWN actions AND It would also put immense pressure on the justice system and the "legal community" to REDUCE the costs of administering justice because those costs would no longer be invisible to those benefitting from it.

However, as said earlier, why would those in Congress,
ALL those in State Senate and Assemblies and ALL of the stuffed shirts flooding our dockets want that?...

Lot to unpack here, but I'll focus on one extremely important aspect yo touched on, making plaintiffs pay for legal expenses. That is not thought out well IMO. A core element under our system is we are all equals in the face of the law. Injecting one's individual resources as a varible to tamp down the legal process, would basically mean DT would beat nearly every single member here in any court proceedings ( te he has more wealth). The state has rightfully assumed for the benefit of allr the enforcement of laws. usually requested/enacted by at least the majority, and the financial burden and the task of prosecution. The real problem is, the state has nearly unlimited resources compared to the defendant (innonce until proven guilty), and to try and balance things for a merely "accused" person, there are a number requirements to keep the state from becoming out of control in performing its assigned duties, like Miranda rights, right to adequate consul, discovery, etc.

I have no problem leaving the system nearly as is, its proven, its known to everybody, its far from perfect, but its better then almost all others, and it has a last check, nirmally twelve citizens to decide (jury nullification), and if they are dutiful, and caring about their duty, it works. I am not ready to experiment quickly here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
My apologies for being so late getting back...

With all due respect J-C-C, you're missing the forest for the tress.

Under a system of making plaintiffs pay the legal costs, it would help EVEN the playing field you and I justifiably bemoan under the current system which ENABLES those like Trump to "buy their way out" of their legal troubles. I'm sure if people like you and I had an IRON CLAD case AGAINST Trump, I'm confident our current "network connections" within our cyber community would be MORE active and involved AND be happy to fund our "proceeding" particularly since the community has been freed from the burden of the taxation no longer funding the ineffectual Marcia Clarks of the legal system. Same logic would apply for those of within a given community to personally & actively ENSURE delivering justice for the victims of rapists, theives and murderers than under the current system which breeds apathy, disaffection, disdain and hopelessness to carry out justice.

For those like Trump wishing pursue legal action against you or I with little or NO legal merit, I assure you I'll be obtaining the BEST defense HIS money can buy...

This proposed system also addresses one of ROOT causes of the INEFFECIENCY of our legal system and virtually EVERY OTHER government provided service is the subsidization their costs. In other words concentrated benefit to a handful of those who obtain and utilize those services paying the tiniest fraction of actual costs, paid almost entirely by the rest of us who haven't received those services.

Most might consider this radical. It's only radical because we've NOT been required to directly pay for government services. However, it's NOT radical in ANY other context to pay for products and SERVICES you want. It is this system which drive costs DOWN and EFFICIENCY UP, isn't that that the goal...?
I'm not following you.
You core point(s) may have merit, but all I'm seeing is a talking in circles, or the too many trees.
Want to try again ?
Start by stating the single point originally under contention/discussion you are addressing.

Post Reply