Zaghadka,

>>> They don't. It only applies to government regulation and
>>> sanction of protected speech.
>>
>>I know that, you know that.
>
> Why ask then? No, your initial question implies that you didn't
> know.

You are complaining about me exhibiting doubs about what I think I know ?
Really ? :-(

I think I made it quite clear that I asked for information I was /possibly/
unaware of.

And by the way, my above "I know that, you know that" doesn't mean either of
us is right. Just that we have understood it in the same way. Ever thought
of that ?

> So where is it described? First amendment. That was your direct question.

That wasn't the question. That was me stating which information I worked
with.

> You sound like the lawyer with the burning cigarette on Saturday
> Night Live.

Than you have not understood my question or where it came from. Even though
I tried to explain that in my first post.

And as you have (implicitily) accused me of playing games I don't think it
will benefit either of us to continue this conversation.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Stan,

> This would really fit better in misc.legal.moderated.

Thank you. I might repost my question there. But lets first see if the one
here will give me a usefull answer.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

For everyone who could not figure out what the question in my initial post
is :

Americas amendments contain a "free speech" clause, which boils down to a
promiss that the gouverment won't retaliate if you say something about them
they don't like.

The question is : Does anyone know of a law which changes that "free speech"
promiss into an "everyone is allowed to say anything they like to everyone
else, and at any place they like" one.

Its a simple yes-or-no question :

[ ] No, I am not aware of any such law.

[ ] Yes, that law exists.

In the case of a "Yes" I would like to see it accompanied with a weblink so
I can read it for myself.

Thats all.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Stan Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:24:23 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
>> To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
>> described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
>> American constitution.
>>
>> The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if
>> something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
>> hear.
>
> This would really fit better in misc.legal.moderated.
>

I suggest it be headed "legal quibbles and how obnoxoius lawyers might
manipulate the law". You can only do what the law has specifically
allowed you to do.
Can I go for a walk in the country in early spring, see the hedgerows
budding and all nature coming back into life? Only if the constitution
has a clause permitting that?
Do I have freedom of movement, speech, dress, walking speed, language I
use? Only if it's written down in the law-books; and nit-picking small
minds have spent years refining language, defining concepts. Until you
end up with the very opposite of life and liberty; you tread a path laid
down by dry, soulless minds who are terrified of freedom.

Ed

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:24:23 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:

> To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
> described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
> American constitution.

Kindly fuck off with you OT topic. (How's that for freedom of speech?)

--
s|b

On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 13:42:12 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Right to the Pursuit of Happiness? If I enjoy screwing little boys, I can
>pursue my happiness under those ideals. It is my "right?" Don't think so.
>But technically it doesn't conflict with those little boys' rights to
>life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness if I can demonstrate consent
>and enjoyment on their part. There is nothing regarding age of consent in
>the enforcement of liberty.

Good try, but not quite.

If someone wants to use your intestines in his/her art exhibit, do
they have the right to do so (to consent or not)? You would claim
"right of consent", or so you would state. But that starts with YOUR
PREMISE you have the authority to make such a claim.You may--or you
may NOT.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 08:56:28 -0500,
"Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote
>|
>| To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
>| described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
>| American constitution.
>|
>
> First amendment. No law can be passed that limits freedom
>of speech, press, or assembly. The popular interpretation is
>that you can say what you like but you can't yell "Fire!" in a
>crowded theater for kicks. Though in recent years we've come
>up with the idea of hate speech.

Hate speech is not illegal anywhere, although it could be a violation of
private college rules. Colleges are entitled to have, and they do often
have, stricter rules than the rules of the criminal law.

OTOH, the "clear and present danger" concept goes back to 1919.
>
> I don't know what retaliation means in that respect. We
>used the military to murder students at Kent State in '75.

Bad as that was, it was not murder. It was a bunch of inexperienced
reservists who were never ordered to shoot. Most shot only after one of
them did. And they shot wildly. Two of those killed were not even
demonstrators, just people on the sidelines. IIRC one or both of them
were not even watching, just going somewhere.

>But some of them were dirty hippies. You got a problem with
>that?
>
> Is Elise Stefanik legally oppressing speech if she attacks
>college administrations that don't actively push Zionism while

I don't think one should mix up "actively push Zionism" with what what
she asked about, promomoting genocide of Jews, the "murder of every
Jew". How is it that you think they are the same?

>my tax dollars fund the Israeli war machine?

Not a word from you criticising what started this, the attack and murder
of 1000 civilians including beheading babies before their parents' eyes,
setting babies on fire while alive, the rape of women, and the
kidnapping of hundreds. Those things are okay with you? You don't
think Israel should find and stop the people who did that?

And not a word here (or in your private life?) from you about the
thousands of rocket attacks on civilians over the last 15 or more years.
>I don't understand
>how she got the right to silence people.

What would the school have done if speakers at those rallys called for
the lynching of every Black student on campus? Or every Black person in
the city.

What would the school have done if the speakers at those rallys called
for every gay or trans student on campus to be beaten te death?

And what would you have said about such speeches and speakers?

> A Zionist donor/activist was threatening
>to withold 1/2 billion dollar donation from UPenn unless they
>paid lip service to Zionism,

You continue to confuse pro-Zionism with opposition to murdering Jews.

I've read this group off and on for years and I see a whole new side of
you now.

I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your dribble.

> fired their president, and vowed
>to oppress free speech among students. One thing you need
>to understand about the US: Dollars have more rights than
>anyone. Our class system is based mainly on money and power,
>both of which are more flexible than in Europe. And as much
>as we brag about our civilized system, democracy is always
>a sunny day philosophy.
>
> US law was originally founded on revolutionary efforts
>against oppression by Britain. We were officially British subjects.
>American land was officially owned by the crown. People who
>had established their own lands without help from the crown
>were being exploited and pushed into the role of peasants with
>limited rights. So it wasn't just a project of utopian idealism.
>It was a struggle against a British ruling class who
>saw no limit in how much they could milk out of those dumbass
>barbarians living in North America. But those barbarians were
>so far away that they began to think of themselves as independent
>from the crown. (I once had an English girlfriend whose mother
>explained to me that she was trying to forgive us Americans for
>breaking with Britain! What I know as ancient history was, to her,
>a recent wound to the glorious crown which might have otherwise
>ruled the world.)
>
> The result was laws based partly on resistance. It's been a
>work in progress. For example, the 2nd amendment states the right
>to bear arms. The intention of that was to say that British authorities
>could not ban local militias in the 18th century. We would defend
>ourselves. That law is now often interpreted to mean that I can
>buy machine guns and cannons in case out-of-towners trespass
>on my property.
>
> I've read that the guarantee of the right to "life, liberty and
>the pursuit of happiness" was originally life, liberty and property.
>But property owners at the time were basically the ruling class;
>So it was changed. We couldn't let just anyone own property,
>just as the Brits couldn't let just anyone own property in the
>colonies.
>
> Thus, even our
>proclamation of independence from the crown was murky and
>ambivalent. It was a bunch of clever, idealistic Deists who had
>known only long-distance monarchy, declaring democracy. It
>was inspired, but it was also a bit like spoiled, rich Gen-Zers
>declaring that everyone has a right to a minimum income, and
>that all land must be returned to the indigenous peoples -- except
>for their family vacation home in the Hamptons and their ski
>lodge in Aspen.
>
> Joe McCarthy could claim that he was defending against threats
>to the country in calling people commies. What is Elise Stefanik
>protecting other than a powerful Zionist lobby? I don't know. I
>guess she derives her authority from claims of hate speech: Any
>questioning of Israel's bombardment of Gaza is hate speech. I just
>have to assume that if she had no basis then college presidents
>wouldn't let her get away with it.
>
> The US Congress recently passed a resolution
>declaring that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism! It's part of an effort
>to classify any sympathy for Arabs as hatred of Jews. About 90
>reps refused to vote. Only 12 out of 435 voted against the
>resolution. We have a foreign country controlling our Congress.
>
> There was an interesting case back when the US attacked
>Iraq. A journalist working for National Geographic went in and did
>a sympathetic interview with an Iraqi general, if I remember
>correctly. The nation was stunned. A reporter had committed
>the treason of humanizing an enemy. It took me several days
>to find out what had happened. The reporter was fired from NG.
>TV news announced only that he had been fired for his unspeakable
>act. Had he fucked his cat? I couldn't find any report about what
>he'd done. No one could bring themselves to even speak of the
>possibility of humanizing an enemy. We might as well be
>ambiguous about Satan!
>
> So, yes, we have freedom of speech. We especially have freedom
>of the press. But that doesn't nullify mainstream consensus reality.
>Do you want to say something transphobic, for example? We'll come
>over there, climb right over those dikes, and drag your ass to jail.
>Trans people have rights! Come to think of it, you exhibit every
>indication of being a witch as well as a hater of Taylor Swift. What
>say thee in defense?!
>
>

"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Zaghadka,
>
>>> I'm trying to figure out if all those people who demand "freedom
>>> of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have the law on their
>>> side.
>...
>> They don't. It only applies to government regulation and sanction
>> of protected speech.
>
>I know that, you know that. The thing is that scores of (loud-mouth)
>Americans seem to think otherwise. Hence my "Did I miss something?"
>question.

You didn't miss anything. The loudmouths did.
>
>But I take it thats a round-about way of saying that you are not aware of
>any law updating that "free speech" amendment.
>
>> You have no "free speech" rights anywhere on Twitter, etc. if
>> the platform decides to shut down your speech.

Exactly. Twitter is not the government, therefore the first amendment
does not apply.

--
Tim Slattery
timslattery <at> utexas <dot> edu

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:41:47 -0500, Art <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com>
wrote:

>> First amendment. No law can be passed that limits freedom
>>of speech, press, or assembly. The popular interpretation is
>>that you can say what you like but you can't yell "Fire!" in a
>>crowded theater for kicks. Though in recent years we've come
>>up with the idea of hate speech.
>
>Hate speech is not illegal anywhere, although it could be a violation of
>private college rules. Colleges are entitled to have, and they do often
>have, stricter rules than the rules of the criminal law.

Actually, we have a thing in the U.S. called a "hate crime." This means
that if you murder someone, there is a sentencing guildeline, but if you
murder a black man while screaming "nixxer" at him, you get *additional*
sentence tacked on because you are doing it in "hate." It is essentially
sentence extension for thoughtcrime.

It's not technically making hate speech illegal, as an example assault
and assault with a deadly weapon are similarly differentiated, but boy it
can be used that way if a government with bad will decides they want to
chill and/or crush certain kinds of speech.

If an authoritarian government gets hold of this, they can make the
sentencing for the "hate" part egregious, then define "hate" as any
disloyalty or treason to the country (as in, I "hate" my country), and
put someone in jail for 20 years for misdemeanor battery because they
were holding a "immigrants are people too" sign while they fended off a
counterprotester. That is, they get let off with a fine or court
supervision for the battery, but get jailed for 10 years for the "hate"
component. Imagine defending yourself from a brownshirt and getting
charged with this. We have effective brownshirts here. They're called the
Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, and there are an infinite number of
militia with a lower profile ready to jump on and kick disloyal ass.

It can similarly be used to make crimes committed by the sufficiently
loyal less severely punished because there is no hate component. Bingo.
Instant two-tiered system of justice. For reals, not the way it's being
complained about now.

That none of my idiot leftist friends could see this possibility boggles
my mind. They seem to think it's only going to be used in ways they see
fit, or at the least have faith that it will be reasonably applied.

My take on history is things are eventually *not* reasonably applied.
They are abused to the fullest extent that power wills. This is so ready
to be abused. One of our candidates has even said he will use the law to
its maximum to crush his enemies. There's no reason he can't in turn get
new laws passed regarding "hate crimes" that allow him to do such things
with impunity.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 12:59:12 -0600, Zaghadka
<zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:

>As mentioned above, it is the First Amendment to the US constitution and
>known legally as the "free speech clause," to aid Googling.
>
>The First Amendment also contains the "non-establishment clause" which
>prevents the government from instituting an official religion of the
>state. It is actually the first sentence of the amendment, so when
>someone mentions "separation of Church and state," you can imagine how
>important that was to the Founders.
>
>The expansion of separation of church and state to mean that the state
>cannot express religious iconography, however, is up to common law and
>court rulings. It isn't expressly mentioned.
>
>Personally, I think so long as there is plurality in the expression of
>religious displays, it should be perfectly fine for the government to put
>up creches and menorahs and diwali displays. But, IMHO, you can't display

FWIW there are now 66 different religious symbols the VA will put on the
grave marker in a veteran's cemetery. About 18 are one or another
version of a cross, and 2 look Jewish, but subtracting those
"duplicates". there still seem to be 48 or so different religions out
there, each of which may want "equal time".

https://www.gijobs.com/va-religious-symbols-tombstones/

>the Ten Commandments in front of a court house (it has been tried).
>
>Nothing should give a specific religion government imprimatur, explicit
>or implied.
>
>(Probably more than you wanted)

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:24:56 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>> So where is it described? First amendment. That was your direct question.
>
>That wasn't the question. That was me stating which information I worked
>with.

OT - Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right described ?

Your header sir.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 09:24:56 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Zaghadka,
>
>>>> They don't. It only applies to government regulation and
>>>> sanction of protected speech.
>>>
>>>I know that, you know that.
>>
>> Why ask then? No, your initial question implies that you didn't
>> know.
>
>You are complaining about me exhibiting doubs about what I think I know ?
>Really ? :-(
>
>I think I made it quite clear that I asked for information I was /possibly/
>unaware of.
>
>And by the way, my above "I know that, you know that" doesn't mean either of
>us is right. Just that we have understood it in the same way. Ever thought
>of that ?
>
>> So where is it described? First amendment. That was your direct question.
>
>That wasn't the question. That was me stating which information I worked
>with.
>
>> You sound like the lawyer with the burning cigarette on Saturday
>> Night Live.
>
>Than you have not understood my question or where it came from. Even though
>I tried to explain that in my first post.
>
>And as you have (implicitily) accused me of playing games I don't think it
>will benefit either of us to continue this conversation.
>
You did indeed ask the question in your header. It's a weakness of
threaded conversation; I saw the question you asked because it's right
there in front of me, and had quite forgotten the snipped contents of
your first post, which referenced the first amendment numerous times.

If the header was clearer it wouldn't have happened, and I apologize for
my sloppiness and my annoyance with you. I was in a bad mood.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 12:16:19 -0500, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 12:59:12 -0600, Zaghadka
><zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>As mentioned above, it is the First Amendment to the US constitution and
>>known legally as the "free speech clause," to aid Googling.
>>
>>The First Amendment also contains the "non-establishment clause" which
>>prevents the government from instituting an official religion of the
>>state. It is actually the first sentence of the amendment, so when
>>someone mentions "separation of Church and state," you can imagine how
>>important that was to the Founders.
>>
>>The expansion of separation of church and state to mean that the state
>>cannot express religious iconography, however, is up to common law and
>>court rulings. It isn't expressly mentioned.
>>
>>Personally, I think so long as there is plurality in the expression of
>>religious displays, it should be perfectly fine for the government to put
>>up creches and menorahs and diwali displays. But, IMHO, you can't display
>
>FWIW there are now 66 different religious symbols the VA will put on the
>grave marker in a veteran's cemetery. About 18 are one or another
>version of a cross, and 2 look Jewish, but subtracting those
>"duplicates". there still seem to be 48 or so different religions out
>there, each of which may want "equal time".
>
>https://www.gijobs.com/va-religious-symbols-tombstones/
>
>
True. I chose a Presbyterian cross for my grandmother when we interred
her at Canaveral. Her husband was a veteran. There was a big chart, which
included non-affiliated symbols. Totally slipped my mind. It's a good
example of how this can be done with full support for religious speech.
For some reason, a person's religious expression is fully respected once
they're dead.

What I don't understand is why it doesn't apply to public municipal
displays too? In my town, we get snowflakes, stars, and bells... at
Christmas time. It's still, IMO, a Christmas display.

Great example though.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:55:27 -0600, jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 13:42:12 -0600, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Right to the Pursuit of Happiness? If I enjoy screwing little boys, I can
>>pursue my happiness under those ideals. It is my "right?" _Don't think so._
>>But technically it doesn't conflict with those little boys' rights to
>>life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness if I can demonstrate consent
>>and enjoyment on their part. There is nothing regarding age of consent in
>>the enforcement of liberty.
>
>Good try, but not quite.
>
>If someone wants to use your intestines in his/her art exhibit, do
>they have the right to do so (to consent or not)? You would claim
>"right of consent", or so you would state. But that starts with YOUR
>PREMISE you have the authority to make such a claim.You may--or you
>may NOT.

Hence I said, "don't think so."

But by the words of the Declaration? Yup. We do have legal objectivists
who promise to rule by strict wording, so it's not a moot point.

One has the right to the Pursuit of Happiness, and I think that includes
artistic expression. You may not agree. I don't agree, in principle. It's
just that the wording can be used to justify it. But what we have there
is a disagreement, not game, set, and match.

Rights are non-negotiable: "unalienable," both in law and in the
Declaration. So the artist has their right to pursue happiness through
artistic expression, and it can be argued that the donor also has the
right to liberty that allows them the unalienably right to offer their
own intestines as the medium.

But this is not serious. It's rhetorical.

In a serious discussion, there are significant arguments about whether
laws against suicide, especially in the case of untreatable, painful,
end-stage illness, is a violation of a person's liberty.

In short, I don't like it when people claim the Declaration as legal
precedent or the source of rights in America. That's just wrong. That's
the Constitution.

But it was never intended as such. It was a statement of principles, and
for that purpose, it is an astonishing piece of rhetoric.

Forgive my glibness, btw. ;^)

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 08:30:15 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Zaghadka,
>
>> Read, also, this excellent article regarding the regulation of
>> social media as "common carriers" in the US:
>>
>> https://www.brookings.edu/articles/social-media-companies-and-common-carrier-status-a-primer/
>
>Thank you, but currently I just want to make sure that the "freedom of
>speech" demands I hear so many throw around do actually have a basis in
>American law.
>
>Maybe after I've made (reasonably) sure I'll take a peek.
>
I can assure you they only legally apply in regards to the government, as
you said.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:05:01 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>For everyone who could not figure out what the question in my initial post
>is :
>
>Americas amendments contain a "free speech" clause, which boils down to a
>promiss that the gouverment won't retaliate if you say something about them
>they don't like.

It actually says specifically Congress *can't make a law* abridging it,
but enforcement of that law would lead to retaliation of a sort, so good
enough.

With all the separation of powers issues we have in America, though, I
shudder to think that the other two branches of government may try to
usurp the power of legislation and skirt around it. Some executive orders
come pretty close to legislation, as did Roe v. Wade in the judiciary.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Tim,

>>> They don't. It only applies to government regulation and sanction
>>> of protected speech.
>>
>>I know that, you know that. The thing is that scores of (loud-mouth)
>>Americans seem to think otherwise. Hence my "Did I miss something?"
>>question.
>
> You didn't miss anything. The loudmouths did.

Thanks for the clear confirmation. It's appreciated.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Zaghadka,

>>Thank you, but currently I just want to make sure that the "freedom
>>of speech" demands I hear so many throw around do actually have a
>>basis in American law.
....
> I can assure you they only legally apply in regards to the government,
> as you said.

THANK YOU.

Next time *start* with answering the question.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Zaghadka,

>>> So where is it described? First amendment. That was your direct
>>> question.
>>
>>That wasn't the question. That was me stating which information
>>I worked with.
>
> OT - Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right described ?
>
> Your header sir.

Yes, it is. The problem with it is that you blatantly ignore that I
described *two* definitions of that "freedom of speech".

Picking one and ignoring the other is /at least/ disingenious.

"Lying by omission" comes to mind.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Zaghadka wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:41:47 -0500, Art <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> First amendment. No law can be passed that limits freedom
>>> of speech, press, or assembly. The popular interpretation is
>>> that you can say what you like but you can't yell "Fire!" in a
>>> crowded theater for kicks. Though in recent years we've come
>>> up with the idea of hate speech.
>>
>> Hate speech is not illegal anywhere, although it could be a violation of
>> private college rules. Colleges are entitled to have, and they do often
>> have, stricter rules than the rules of the criminal law.
>
> Actually, we have a thing in the U.S. called a "hate crime." This means
> that if you murder someone, there is a sentencing guildeline, but if you
> murder a black man while screaming "nixxer" at him, you get *additional*
> sentence tacked on because you are doing it in "hate." It is essentially
> sentence extension for thoughtcrime.
>
> It's not technically making hate speech illegal, as an example assault
> and assault with a deadly weapon are similarly differentiated, but boy it
> can be used that way if a government with bad will decides they want to
> chill and/or crush certain kinds of speech.
>
> If an authoritarian government gets hold of this, they can make the
> sentencing for the "hate" part egregious, then define "hate" as any
> disloyalty or treason to the country (as in, I "hate" my country), and
> put someone in jail for 20 years for misdemeanor battery because they
> were holding a "immigrants are people too" sign while they fended off a
> counterprotester. That is, they get let off with a fine or court
> supervision for the battery, but get jailed for 10 years for the "hate"
> component. Imagine defending yourself from a brownshirt and getting
> charged with this. We have effective brownshirts here. They're called the
> Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, and there are an infinite number of
> militia with a lower profile ready to jump on and kick disloyal ass.
>
> It can similarly be used to make crimes committed by the sufficiently
> loyal less severely punished because there is no hate component. Bingo.
> Instant two-tiered system of justice. For reals, not the way it's being
> complained about now.
>
> That none of my idiot leftist friends could see this possibility boggles
> my mind. They seem to think it's only going to be used in ways they see
> fit, or at the least have faith that it will be reasonably applied.
>
> My take on history is things are eventually *not* reasonably applied.
> They are abused to the fullest extent that power wills. This is so ready
> to be abused. One of our candidates has even said he will use the law to
> its maximum to crush his enemies. There's no reason he can't in turn get
> new laws passed regarding "hate crimes" that allow him to do such things
> with impunity.
>

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance

CPS is UK's Criminal Prosecution Service. They vet submissions for
prosecution and decide which go forward and which don't.
If you survey the history of which passed and which didn't you'll find a
correlation with contemporary social factors. Two come to mind. Islamic
hatred of the West after 9/11; and recent racialist issues. This clearly
indicates that the law itself (or, rather, the practitioners of the law
itself) are biased and prejudiced; and use it differently at different
times.

Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
> Zaghadka wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:41:47 -0500, Art <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>   First amendment. No law can be passed that limits freedom
>>>> of speech, press, or assembly. The popular interpretation is
>>>> that you can say what you like but you can't yell "Fire!" in a
>>>> crowded theater for kicks. Though in recent years we've come
>>>> up with the idea of hate speech.
>>>
>>> Hate speech is not illegal anywhere, although it could be a violation of
>>> private college rules.  Colleges are entitled to have, and they do often
>>> have, stricter rules than the rules of the criminal law.
>>
>> Actually, we have a thing in the U.S. called a "hate crime." This means
>> that if you murder someone, there is a sentencing guildeline, but if you
>> murder a black man while screaming "nixxer" at him, you get *additional*
>> sentence tacked on because you are doing it in "hate." It is essentially
>> sentence extension for thoughtcrime.
>>
>> It's not technically making hate speech illegal, as an example assault
>> and assault with a deadly weapon are similarly differentiated, but boy it
>> can be used that way if a government with bad will decides they want to
>> chill and/or crush certain kinds of speech.
>>
>> If an authoritarian government gets hold of this, they can make the
>> sentencing for the "hate" part egregious, then define "hate" as any
>> disloyalty or treason to the country (as in, I "hate" my country), and
>> put someone in jail for 20 years for misdemeanor battery because they
>> were holding a "immigrants are people too" sign while they fended off a
>> counterprotester. That is, they get let off with a fine or court
>> supervision for the battery, but get jailed for 10 years for the "hate"
>> component. Imagine defending yourself from a brownshirt and getting
>> charged with this. We have effective brownshirts here. They're called the
>> Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, and there are an infinite number of
>> militia with a lower profile ready to jump on and kick disloyal ass.
>>
>> It can similarly be used to make crimes committed by the sufficiently
>> loyal less severely punished because there is no hate component. Bingo.
>> Instant two-tiered system of justice. For reals, not the way it's being
>> complained about now.
>>
>> That none of my idiot leftist friends could see this possibility boggles
>> my mind. They seem to think it's only going to be used in ways they see
>> fit, or at the least have faith that it will be reasonably applied.
>>
>> My take on history is things are eventually *not* reasonably applied.
>> They are abused to the fullest extent that power wills. This is so ready
>> to be abused. One of our candidates has even said he will use the law to
>> its maximum to crush his enemies. There's no reason he can't in turn get
>> new laws passed regarding "hate crimes" that allow him to do such things
>> with impunity.
>>
>
> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance
>
> CPS is UK's Criminal Prosecution Service. They vet submissions for
> prosecution and decide which go forward and which don't.
> If you survey the history of which passed and which didn't you'll find a
> correlation with contemporary social factors. Two come to mind. Islamic
> hatred of the West after 9/11; and recent racialist issues. This clearly
> indicates that the law itself (or, rather, the practitioners of the law
> itself) are biased and prejudiced; and use it differently at different
> times.
>
> Ed
>
If I were to put a soapbox on Hyde Park corner and shout out "I hate
Catholics and Protestants; and I loathe Islam. In fact I hate all
religious sects I've ever heard of, with their bigotry and myopic
senselessness". Well, I might get arrested and I might not. But I
suspect that whether I did or not would depend upon the size of the
crowd I drew, and whether they were heckling me or giving me serious
attention. It's the degree of public disturbance that would condition
that, not the crime itself.
Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
> Ed Cryer wrote:
>> Zaghadka wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:41:47 -0500, Art <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>   First amendment. No law can be passed that limits freedom
>>>>> of speech, press, or assembly. The popular interpretation is
>>>>> that you can say what you like but you can't yell "Fire!" in a
>>>>> crowded theater for kicks. Though in recent years we've come
>>>>> up with the idea of hate speech.
>>>>
>>>> Hate speech is not illegal anywhere, although it could be a
>>>> violation of
>>>> private college rules.  Colleges are entitled to have, and they do
>>>> often
>>>> have, stricter rules than the rules of the criminal law.
>>>
>>> Actually, we have a thing in the U.S. called a "hate crime." This means
>>> that if you murder someone, there is a sentencing guildeline, but if you
>>> murder a black man while screaming "nixxer" at him, you get *additional*
>>> sentence tacked on because you are doing it in "hate." It is essentially
>>> sentence extension for thoughtcrime.
>>>
>>> It's not technically making hate speech illegal, as an example assault
>>> and assault with a deadly weapon are similarly differentiated, but
>>> boy it
>>> can be used that way if a government with bad will decides they want to
>>> chill and/or crush certain kinds of speech.
>>>
>>> If an authoritarian government gets hold of this, they can make the
>>> sentencing for the "hate" part egregious, then define "hate" as any
>>> disloyalty or treason to the country (as in, I "hate" my country), and
>>> put someone in jail for 20 years for misdemeanor battery because they
>>> were holding a "immigrants are people too" sign while they fended off a
>>> counterprotester. That is, they get let off with a fine or court
>>> supervision for the battery, but get jailed for 10 years for the "hate"
>>> component. Imagine defending yourself from a brownshirt and getting
>>> charged with this. We have effective brownshirts here. They're called
>>> the
>>> Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, and there are an infinite number of
>>> militia with a lower profile ready to jump on and kick disloyal ass.
>>>
>>> It can similarly be used to make crimes committed by the sufficiently
>>> loyal less severely punished because there is no hate component. Bingo.
>>> Instant two-tiered system of justice. For reals, not the way it's being
>>> complained about now.
>>>
>>> That none of my idiot leftist friends could see this possibility boggles
>>> my mind. They seem to think it's only going to be used in ways they see
>>> fit, or at the least have faith that it will be reasonably applied.
>>>
>>> My take on history is things are eventually *not* reasonably applied.
>>> They are abused to the fullest extent that power wills. This is so ready
>>> to be abused. One of our candidates has even said he will use the law to
>>> its maximum to crush his enemies. There's no reason he can't in turn get
>>> new laws passed regarding "hate crimes" that allow him to do such things
>>> with impunity.
>>>
>>
>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance
>>
>> CPS is UK's Criminal Prosecution Service. They vet submissions for
>> prosecution and decide which go forward and which don't.
>> If you survey the history of which passed and which didn't you'll find
>> a correlation with contemporary social factors. Two come to mind.
>> Islamic hatred of the West after 9/11; and recent racialist issues.
>> This clearly indicates that the law itself (or, rather, the
>> practitioners of the law itself) are biased and prejudiced; and use it
>> differently at different times.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> If I were to put a soapbox on Hyde Park corner and shout out "I hate
> Catholics and Protestants; and I loathe Islam. In fact I hate all
> religious sects I've ever heard of, with their bigotry and myopic
> senselessness". Well, I might get arrested and I might not. But I
> suspect that whether I did or not would depend upon the size of the
> crowd I drew, and whether they were heckling me or giving me serious
> attention. It's the degree of public disturbance that would condition
> that, not the crime itself.
>
> Ed
>
Throughout known human history people have found other groups to blame
for their problems. The Jews in particular have had a rough time under
Christendom; they killed God, who came amongst them and warned them
against money-making, and throughout the two thousand years since then
they've been portrayed as misers and predators, and occasionally massacred.
Even amongst the intellectual elite you find this prejudice; Richard
Wagner; and even Friedrich Nietzsche with his portrayal of priests
skulking behind their raw instincts and spouting bullshit.
Can we rise above such narrowness? Perhaps to some kind of Spockian pure
logic beyond mere emotion and prejudice?
I doubt it. The best that reason can provide is "skepticism"; which
recommends a holding back until all facts are known. But meanwhile the
predators will have moved in and wrought havoc on the sheep; demanding
that the officers of the law act and protect them.
Ed

Ed Cryer wrote:
> Ed Cryer wrote:
>> Ed Cryer wrote:
>>> Zaghadka wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:41:47 -0500, Art <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>   First amendment. No law can be passed that limits freedom
>>>>>> of speech, press, or assembly. The popular interpretation is
>>>>>> that you can say what you like but you can't yell "Fire!" in a
>>>>>> crowded theater for kicks. Though in recent years we've come
>>>>>> up with the idea of hate speech.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hate speech is not illegal anywhere, although it could be a
>>>>> violation of
>>>>> private college rules.  Colleges are entitled to have, and they do
>>>>> often
>>>>> have, stricter rules than the rules of the criminal law.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, we have a thing in the U.S. called a "hate crime." This means
>>>> that if you murder someone, there is a sentencing guildeline, but if
>>>> you
>>>> murder a black man while screaming "nixxer" at him, you get
>>>> *additional*
>>>> sentence tacked on because you are doing it in "hate." It is
>>>> essentially
>>>> sentence extension for thoughtcrime.
>>>>
>>>> It's not technically making hate speech illegal, as an example assault
>>>> and assault with a deadly weapon are similarly differentiated, but
>>>> boy it
>>>> can be used that way if a government with bad will decides they want to
>>>> chill and/or crush certain kinds of speech.
>>>>
>>>> If an authoritarian government gets hold of this, they can make the
>>>> sentencing for the "hate" part egregious, then define "hate" as any
>>>> disloyalty or treason to the country (as in, I "hate" my country), and
>>>> put someone in jail for 20 years for misdemeanor battery because they
>>>> were holding a "immigrants are people too" sign while they fended off a
>>>> counterprotester. That is, they get let off with a fine or court
>>>> supervision for the battery, but get jailed for 10 years for the "hate"
>>>> component. Imagine defending yourself from a brownshirt and getting
>>>> charged with this. We have effective brownshirts here. They're
>>>> called the
>>>> Proud Boys and the Oathkeepers, and there are an infinite number of
>>>> militia with a lower profile ready to jump on and kick disloyal ass.
>>>>
>>>> It can similarly be used to make crimes committed by the sufficiently
>>>> loyal less severely punished because there is no hate component. Bingo.
>>>> Instant two-tiered system of justice. For reals, not the way it's being
>>>> complained about now.
>>>>
>>>> That none of my idiot leftist friends could see this possibility
>>>> boggles
>>>> my mind. They seem to think it's only going to be used in ways they see
>>>> fit, or at the least have faith that it will be reasonably applied.
>>>>
>>>> My take on history is things are eventually *not* reasonably applied.
>>>> They are abused to the fullest extent that power wills. This is so
>>>> ready
>>>> to be abused. One of our candidates has even said he will use the
>>>> law to
>>>> its maximum to crush his enemies. There's no reason he can't in turn
>>>> get
>>>> new laws passed regarding "hate crimes" that allow him to do such
>>>> things
>>>> with impunity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance
>>>
>>> CPS is UK's Criminal Prosecution Service. They vet submissions for
>>> prosecution and decide which go forward and which don't.
>>> If you survey the history of which passed and which didn't you'll
>>> find a correlation with contemporary social factors. Two come to
>>> mind. Islamic hatred of the West after 9/11; and recent racialist
>>> issues. This clearly indicates that the law itself (or, rather, the
>>> practitioners of the law itself) are biased and prejudiced; and use
>>> it differently at different times.
>>>
>>> Ed
>>>
>>
>> If I were to put a soapbox on Hyde Park corner and shout out "I hate
>> Catholics and Protestants; and I loathe Islam. In fact I hate all
>> religious sects I've ever heard of, with their bigotry and myopic
>> senselessness". Well, I might get arrested and I might not. But I
>> suspect that whether I did or not would depend upon the size of the
>> crowd I drew, and whether they were heckling me or giving me serious
>> attention. It's the degree of public disturbance that would condition
>> that, not the crime itself.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>
> Throughout known human history people have found other groups to blame
> for their problems. The Jews in particular have had a rough time under
> Christendom; they killed God, who came amongst them and warned them
> against money-making, and throughout the two thousand years since then
> they've been portrayed as misers and predators, and occasionally massacred.
> Even amongst the intellectual elite you find this prejudice; Richard
> Wagner; and even Friedrich Nietzsche with his portrayal of priests
> skulking behind their raw instincts and spouting bullshit.
> Can we rise above such narrowness? Perhaps to some kind of Spockian pure
> logic beyond mere emotion and prejudice?
> I doubt it. The best that reason can provide is "skepticism"; which
> recommends a holding back until all facts are known. But meanwhile the
> predators will have moved in and wrought havoc on the sheep; demanding
> that the officers of the law act and protect them.
>
> Ed
>
All of which, as I'm sure you must have recognised, argues that human
law is not universal; not like the laws of science are presumed to be.
It changes from age to age, from one fashion to another. Sometimes God's
eternal guidance calls the shots, sometimes Sadam Hussein, sometimes
emperor Constantine, sometimes hatred of Ted Bundy, Peter Sutcliffe,
Fred and Rosemary West.
Thou shalt not kill, but there are times when it is good to do so.
This is the concept of law that most people live under; others more than
others, for some are better educated than others. And while some poor
abused victim waits for justice to come to his help, and it doesn't do
so; while his life rots and becomes unworthwhile, others ascend; and he
girds up his loins and sets out to promote fairness and justice. Takes
the law into his own hands; and falls foul of its written constitution.
The law is better written in broad terms. Most people will feel a very
strong revulsion against the doings of Ted Bundy; it won't need an
academic appraisal of good and evil to enforce it.
Ed

I've read some of your later posts and tried to consider them in this
reply

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:24:23 +0100,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
>described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
>American constitution.
>
>The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if
>something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
>hear.
>
>...But almost everyone I hear seem to have translated that into a right, a
>right that may be claimed from /everyone/, not only the gouverment.
>
>
>Websites do not seem to do much better, although they restrict themselves as
>defining the right toward the gouverment (and not everyone else).
>
>Like here :
>
>https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/freedom-of-speech
>
>Which starts with "Freedom of speech-the right"

FWIW, there are legal rights, moral rights, religious rights (like among
Catholics, the right iiuc** to take Communion), and maybe other
categories.

**When dealing with a government, run by men, whose inclination is to
control others even more than good government would require and
sometimes to oppress other people, rights are very important. When
dealing with God who loves you, duties are more important and rights
either much less important or even non-existent, though when dealing
with organized religious hierarchy, rights can be important.

Legal rights in the USA can be divided into Constitutional rights and
rights unrleated to the Constitution but provided by statute.

>Or here :
>
>https://www.britannica.com/topic/freedom-of-speech
>
>which starts with "freedom of speech, right"
>
>Or here :
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
>
>where in the second paragraph starts with "The First Amendment's freedom of
>speech right"
>
>
>tl;dr:
>Where, in America's constitution or laws, is the "free speech" *right*
>described - as the "no retaliation" promiss certainly isn't it.

It seems to be that right and the "no retaliation" are two sides of the
same coin, converses of each other. WRT to a legal right, if there
will be no retaliation by the government, then one can do it without
fear of the government, and thus, in at least one meaning of "right"
that I'm used to, the most common meaning, he has a right to do it. He
wants to say these things and the government won't stop him, so he has a
legal right to say them.

>
>Remark: This is a serious question. I'm trying to figure out if all those
>people who demand "freedom of speech" toward any-and-everyone actually have

I don't know what you mean by this. That any-and-everyone should have
freedom of speech, or that any-and-everyone should not control the
speech of others.

>the law on their side.
>
>I don't think they have, but I might have overlooked something in that
>regard.
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:55:11 +0000, Ed Cryer
<ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:

>Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 10:24:23 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
>>> To explain my above "Americans and freedom of speech - where is that right
>>> described ?" question, I know there is something related to it in the
>>> American constitution.
>>>
>>> The problem is that all am able to find is a *promiss* not to retaliate if
>>> something is said about the gouverment the gouverment might not like to
>>> hear.
>>
>> This would really fit better in misc.legal.moderated.
>>
>
>I suggest it be headed "legal quibbles and how obnoxoius lawyers might
>manipulate the law". You can only do what the law has specifically
>allowed you to do.

I think you're either addressing a rather small segement of lawyers in
the first sentence here, or you're being overly harsh.

But I can see examples of what you say in the second sentence. The only
example that comes to mind now for the USA is birth control. I think
the case is Connecticut vs. Griswold. In order to find the law against
the use of birth control constitutional, iiuc they had to decide that
there was a "right of privacy" within the penumbra of the Constitution.
Seems to me that's not at all necessary, and all that is is to agree,
admit that in a free country people are free to do whatever they want
unless there is a legitimate state interest that entitles the govermnent
to stop them. (There is a lot written about Government interest, if
you're interested.)

"Privacy" seems to cover only things that happen in private, in one's
bedroom, bathroom, or maybe the living room or back yard, but my
standard is much broader. Someone asked about this in MLM, and I dont'
think anyone replied.

>Can I go for a walk in the country in early spring, see the hedgerows
>budding and all nature coming back into life? Only if the constitution
>has a clause permitting that?
>Do I have freedom of movement, speech, dress, walking speed, language I
>use? Only if it's written down in the law-books;

But still I think you're wrong here. There are innumerable acts, kinds
of acts, that people may do, in private and in public, that are legal,
in part because there is no law against them. Birth control was legal
and people were free to use it even in Connecticut before the
legistature outlawed it. So, with one exception, your previous
sentence should be "No, unless it's outlawed in the law books." The
exception is torts, civil wrongs for which someone could be sued by
another person. Because there are innumerable ways to hurt someone and
no one can think of them all in advance, new torts, torts for things
never found before to be a tort, are created periodically.

When things change, like when technology changes, like when the
telephone or tape recorder was invented, there are new ways to hurt
people and new kinds of torts can be found.

AFAIK this is all true in the UK tool, since afaik nothing related to
this has changed in the USA since 1776. (although you guys might have
changed your rules.)

> and nit-picking small
>minds have spent years refining language, defining concepts. Until you
>end up with the very opposite of life and liberty; you tread a path laid
>down by dry, soulless minds who are terrified of freedom.
>
>Ed