P2P-Zone - View Single Post

Mazer · 16-07-07, 05:44 PM

malvachat, ignoring what sinner and albed have written for a moment, you need to separate theory from practice when you talk about these things. Theoretically the federal government has the ability, under the 16th Amendment of the Constitution, to tax up to 100% of our income and turn the United States into a socialist welfare state. But that hasn't happened and nobody would stand for it if it did. It's the same with the 1st Amendment. Under special circumstances the government can limit free speech, and if they had the ability to define those circumstances (which they don't) they might limit it entirely. But even if they could put an end to our free speech it wouldn't mean they had. I present this post as evidence; if you're reading this then it means I haven't been censored.

None the less, to be fired from one's job for one's words is not the same as censorship. My boss probably wouldn't fire me for my opinions, but even if he did he still couldn't stop me from expressing them. You see, we're not really talking about freedom of speech here, we're talking about actions and consequences. If we never wanted our opinions to have consequences then we would never express them, would we?

If people never faced any consequences for the things they said then they'd lose interest in saying anything meaningful. Take albed for example. He gets away with calling people names and calling them liars in this forum, and as a result he posts a lot but he doesn't really say much. His inconsequential insults are the background noise of this forum, and the precious few points he does make go unnoticed. If he made an effort to censor himself I think he could contribute a lot to this forum.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't be surprised when the things you say come back around and hurt you. The 1st Amendment does exactly what it says, preventing congress from making laws that abridge our freedom of speech. Consequence is not abridgment so the Constitution doesn't protect us from the consequences of our words and it shouldn't.

16-07-07, 05:44 PM	#27
Mazer Earthbound misfit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Moses Lake, Washington Posts: 2,563	malvachat, ignoring what sinner and albed have written for a moment, you need to separate theory from practice when you talk about these things. Theoretically the federal government has the ability, under the 16th Amendment of the Constitution, to tax up to 100% of our income and turn the United States into a socialist welfare state. But that hasn't happened and nobody would stand for it if it did. It's the same with the 1st Amendment. Under special circumstances the government can limit free speech, and if they had the ability to define those circumstances (which they don't) they might limit it entirely. But even if they could put an end to our free speech it wouldn't mean they had. I present this post as evidence; if you're reading this then it means I haven't been censored. None the less, to be fired from one's job for one's words is not the same as censorship. My boss probably wouldn't fire me for my opinions, but even if he did he still couldn't stop me from expressing them. You see, we're not really talking about freedom of speech here, we're talking about actions and consequences. If we never wanted our opinions to have consequences then we would never express them, would we? If people never faced any consequences for the things they said then they'd lose interest in saying anything meaningful. Take albed for example. He gets away with calling people names and calling them liars in this forum, and as a result he posts a lot but he doesn't really say much. His inconsequential insults are the background noise of this forum, and the precious few points he does make go unnoticed. If he made an effort to censor himself I think he could contribute a lot to this forum. What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't be surprised when the things you say come back around and hurt you. The 1st Amendment does exactly what it says, preventing congress from making laws that abridge our freedom of speech. Consequence is not abridgment so the Constitution doesn't protect us from the consequences of our words and it shouldn't. Last edited by Mazer : 16-07-07 at 06:03 PM.