Joined: 21 Apr 2005 Posts: 12147 Location: North Virginia, USA
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject:
Blond Adult Girl wrote:
"When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
I'm not too familiar with all of Justice Holmes' political opinions, but that quote says NOTHING but state an opinion of what he believes should be. It is in no way a fact or a truth of any kind.
To be clear, there are certain kinds of speech that is not protected by the freedom of speech act, specifically when they pertain to slander/libel, or hate speech.
However, to qualify the questioning of a regime's policy choice, and to critic that choice as ANY of those, is nothing but a perversion of that statute.
Yes, BAG. Holmes is saying he doesn't like wars being criticised. You're fallaciously trying to extrapolate from that that he's proved it's wrong to criticise wars while they're ongoing.
"When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
I'm not too familiar with all of Justice Holmes' political opinions, but that quote says NOTHING but state an opinion of what he believes should be. It is in no way a fact or a truth of any kind.
To be clear, there are certain kinds of speech that is not protected by the freedom of speech act, specifically when they pertain to slander/libel, or hate speech.
However, to qualify the questioning of a regime's policy choice, and to critic that choice as ANY of those, is nothing but a perversion of that statute.
Your comments reveal profound ignorance.
The quote is not Justice Holmes' "political opinions"; it is a legal decision written by Justice Holmes for a unanimous (9-0) United States Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), the first case in which the Supreme Court ruled directly on the extent to which the U.S. government may limit speech.
Justice Holmes' opinion in Schenck produced some of that fabled jurist's most famous and oft-quoted statements on the law:
Quote:
"But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."
. . .
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
And there is no such thing as "the freedom of speech act" in the United States. Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
You would be wise not to make such strident comments on subject with which you are admittedly "not too familiar."
Rest assured that you are in the majority. Many people are ignorant of the parameters of freedom of speech and expression in the United States.
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in its entirety as follows:
Quote:
Amendment 1 - Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech only from restriction from the Congress and, by virtue of the 14th Amendment, from state legislatures. In many other contexts, speech can be and is suppressed without violating the First Amendment.
The same restrictions that apply to the government do not apply to private persons, employers, or establishments. There is no freedom to speak in a workplace. An employer can restrict an employee's right to speak in the workplace about politics, religion, or legal issues. And while the government cannot prohibit the sale of any newspaper, no newsstand is obligated to carry every paper against its owners' wishes.
The First Amendment does not protect someone from being called "un-American" or from other criticism -- whether by a private citizen or by an elected or appointed government official -- based on what that person said or wrote.
Nor does the First Amendment protect a singer or actor from a public boycott based on their public statements.
The First Amendment only protects speech from government censorship by criminalization or prior restraint.
The Bush Administration has neither prosecuted anyone for expressing opposition to the Iraq war nor exercised prior restraint on anyone's expression of opposition to the Iraq war. Not even once.
The UK has significantly greater restrictions on freedom of speech and expression and therefore significantly less freedom of speech and expression than the United States.
The correction is that the sentence above should say: "The First Amendment only protects certain speech from government censorship by criminalization or prior restraint."
The addition is that the First Amendment permits the government as employer to restrict freedom of speech of government employees and the federal government to restrict freedom of speech of anyone in the U.S. military.
There is little doubt that the United States has greater freedom of speech than the UK and the major West European democracies.
The UK has the Official Secrets Act, expressly intended to restrict freedom of speech (namely freedom of the press) by both prior restraint and criminalization. No American federal or state law is even remotely as restrictive.
English civil law (as opposed to criminal law) governing suits between private citizens for money damages or other compensation or relief, is also considerably more restrictive of freedom of speech than American law. The burden of proof for defamation claims (libel if written, slander if spoken) under English law is much lower and thus speech that would not be defamatory under American law is defamatory under English law. This is a legal restriction on freedom of speech, albeit non-governmental.
In Germany and Austria, all speech or writing or other form of expression (e.g., clothes) supporting the Nazis is a crime. Italian law similarly criminalizes speech supporting Fascism. Although restrictions against speech supporting Nazis and Fascists may be justified or understandable given the recent history of Germany, Austria and Italy, they are still restrictions on freedom of speech. There are no such restrictions under American law.
This is why Brits and Europeans who harp about fictitious restrictions on civil liberties under the Bush Administration disqualify themselves from being taken seriously.
Yes, those arch-dissenters, the diminutive Vietnamese, smacked your fat arses.
Never ones to learn from your mistakes, you have allowed your crooked leaders to embroil you in another conflict of ideologies that you can never, ever, win. Your crooked leaders will win, of course, but the American people won't and you won't even know it. The rest of us will see it for the cynical expoitation that it is, but you won't.
Other topics on this forum seem to express hurt and bewilderment at why Americans attract such widepread dislike. The answer is that you spend far too much time and effort debating the nonsense that is your constitution, instead of attending to what really matters. If you don't know what that is, just think back four years because that was when the American people finally lost all respect on the world stage. Think.
Yes, those arch-dissenters, the diminutive Vietnamese, smacked your fat arses.
Never ones to learn from your mistakes, you have allowed your crooked leaders to embroil you in another conflict of ideologies that you can never, ever, win. Your crooked leaders will win, of course, but the American people won't and you won't even know it. The rest of us will see it for the cynical expoitation that it is, but you won't.
Other topics on this forum seem to express hurt and bewilderment at why Americans attract such widepread dislike. The answer is that you spend far too much time and effort debating the nonsense that is your constitution, instead of attending to what really matters. If you don't know what that is, just think back four years because that was when the American people finally lost all respect on the world stage. Think.
If you are a Brit, you have no standing to preach self-righteously to Americans about morality in international relations or misdeeds toward other countries. Does the word "hypocrite" ring a bell? If not, then think...
If you are a Brit, you have no standing to deride American military power. Do you know the difference between the world's sole superpower and a second-rate regional power? If not, then think...
If you are an American you are so indoctrinated that you will never see the truth. It started with your daily recital of the Oath of Allegiance at school and it has continued ever since, in one way or another. When was the last time Americans were not living in dread of some bogey man or other?
The "war on terror" declared by your joke of a president was just the latest manifestation of a policy designed to provide Americans with a common enemy. It's a means of keeping your hatred directed outwards, rather than inwards, on yourselves.
If you are an American you are so indoctrinated that you will never see the truth. It started with your daily recital of the Oath of Allegiance at school and it has continued ever since, in one way or another. When was the last time Americans were not living in dread of some bogey man or other?
The "war on terror" declared by your joke of a president was just the latest manifestation of a policy designed to provide Americans with a common enemy. It's a means of keeping your hatred directed outwards, rather than inwards, on yourselves.
You are making broad brush generalizations about 300 million people, many of them immigrants from foreign countries or children of immigrants from foreign countries, comprising every ethnicity, race and religion in the world.
You think you can make broad brush generalizations about those 300 million people.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
