In alt.comp.os.windows-10, 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.
>
>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.

There are loads of laws regarding speech and, except in rare cases where
wackos were in charge of a legislature, or there was some crisis that
made people forget the Constitution or take an extreme view to the point
of incorrectness of what it meant, every law written takes into account
the First Amendment. That is, it's reach is limited by the First
Amendment, in the choice of words used in the statute itsself.

You won't find any law that says ""everyone is allowed to say anything
they like to everyone else, and at any place they like" one"*** but you
will find even where legislators and Congress would like to greatly
restrict speech, to totally restrict some kinds, the law is written in a
limited manner to abide by the First Amendement.

*** For one thing, that's not true that anyone can say anything, and it
never was intended to be true. The First Amendment was never absolute.
That applies to all of its clauses, and wrt speech, when it was adopted
in 1791 the 13 or maybe 15 states already had laws against slander,
against threats made as part of a crime, against the verbal extortion,
and probably other things I've forgotten. And the 13 colonies had such
laws before there were states.

Everyone involved in ratifying the First Amendment and the entire Bill
of Rights knew about the exceptions and knew the First was not meant to
outlaw those laws. I vaguely recall, not sure, that some colonies and
then states may have had laws against heresy. I'm sure a few people
thought those laws would remain, but iirc one was challenged and thus
all were found unconstitutional. Where heresy may be about speech,
enforcing a law agaisnt it is the estabilishment of religion. No can
do.

It's long been held by the courts that the First Amendment is primarily
but not exclusively about political speech. So there may have been a
big kefuffle when the first laws to promote truth in advertising were
paassed. I don't know details of when that was, but that's another
limitiation on free speech. Advertisers may no longer legally lie in
their advertising. In addition later laws require them to say
additional thing, like wrt food, what the ingredients are, what the fat,
caloric, et.c ontent is, except for mostly locally produced food made my
small producers, for whom it was argued it was an economic burden to
learn these things (though not to write them on the label). Large
producers already knew all this stuff, years before the law, or maybe a
regulation with the backing of law, was proposed.

>Its a simple yes-or-no question :
>
>[ ] No, I am not aware of any such law.
>
>[ ] Yes, that law exists.

I think I point out above that it's not a simple yes or no question.
Very few are.

>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
>

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 12 Dec 2023 11:54:21 -0500, Tim
Slattery <TimSlattery@utexas.edu> wrote:

>
>>> 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.

Exactly, and worth mentioning here that Alex Jones was allowed back on
Twitter today, and one other lying troublemaker whose name I forget.
What a mess Musk has made of it.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 13:44:54 -0600, Zaghadka
<zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:23:22 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Also think of Guantanamo Bay, a prison camp that the American law does not
>>permit to exist, yet it stil does.
>
>They get around that because it's technically not on American soil. So
>it, for some reason, isn't America, not subject to American law, and only
>violates the ideals, not the law.
>
>That's why it's in Cuba.

FWIW, they are down to only 30 people still held there, 16 of whom have
been cleared for release, but iirc no country will take them. The US
had to negotiate with other countries to get them to take some of the
previous ones released, but these 16 are even tougher to find a place.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 20:12:36 +0000, Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk>
wrote:

>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.
>
All of these things that you describe are flavours of authoritarianism.

That is the original form of law: prescribed by one person. Be it Moses,
Hammurabi, Emperor Justinian, or any number of intolerable egoists who
think they have the right to decide good from evil in absolute terms.

Post-Enlightement Modern democratic societies tried to shy away from this
Manichaean dichotomy. To do so requires effort, vigilance, and a strong
and vibrant civil society. Many of the members of these societies now
appear to be clamboring for the simplicity democracy lacks. It's too
hard. There's no time for engagement with Civil Society. It's easier to
sit on Facebook. No one is ever "right," and no one ever gets what they
want.

But honestly, IMO, the only thing good and evil are effective for is war
propaganda. It's excellent when you want to oversimplify, label someone
or something as "evil," and assemble the "good" to obliterate it. The
armies of good can be certain of their righteousness when they gut
someone evil. It's very effective, which is why monotheistic Manichaean
cultures have extremely effective armies.

But we deserve better.

--
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 16:43:03 +0100,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>Newyana2,
>
>> First amendment. No law can be passed that limits
>> freedom of speech, press, or assembly.
>
>Again, thats the *gouverment* telling you that it won't bother you if you do
>speak your mind.

That's right. The Constitution was/is the description of how the
government would work. It makes rules for the government.

At the time the Constitution was written, which was several years after
independence from Britain, most states had constitutions protecting
freedom of speech. When it was left out of the original draft of the
Constitution, there were complaints and the complainers got a promise in
return to add rights soon, and that was done.

And interpretation of the 14th Amendment, passed after the Civil War
ended in 1865 gradually extended many of the limitations on the federal
government to the state governments. (City and county goverments are
viewed as creations of state government)
>
>> The popular interpretation is that you can say what
>> you like
>
>Thats why I posted my question : that "popular interpretation" doesn't seem
>to be based on either the amendments or the law.
>
>To be more specific : that "popular interpretation" looks to have replaced
>"the gouverment" with "everybody". As in : *nobody* is allowed to stop
>anyone from saying whatever he wants, whereever he likes to do it.
>
>I'd just like to know if there is /anything anywhere/ supporting that.
>
>> I don't know what retaliation means in that respect.
>
>Yes, you do. Anything that will shut the person(s) up. From discrediting
>them upto picking them up just picking them off the street throwing them
>into a gulag. Or make them disappear ofcourse.
>
>
>And I'm not here to discuss politics. If I wanted that I would have posted
>my question in a politics related newsgroup. I would be pretty-much
>guaranteed a conflict. :-\

Yes, that is the trouble with them. Years ago I tried to find one that
had civil discussions and no one could refer me to one. I took their
word and didn't go check myself.

>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
>

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:10:22 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>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.
>
Fair. I don't wish to argue with you. It was nothing sinister, I assure
you. Just carelessness. Carelessness I apologize for.

May I ask the context of the claims of "free speech" that you're
referencing? Is it on college campuses? Is it on Twitter? 4chan? Nazi
demonstrations in Charlottesville?

Where are Americans claiming an absolute right to free speech?

--
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 19:05:25 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>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.
>
Lol.

Yup. I thought several of us did, but I do tend to go on. My apologies
again, but it was in the first sentence of my initial reply.

>You:
>>I don't think they have, but I might have overlooked something in that
>>regard.
>>
Me:
>They don't. It only applies to government regulation and sanction of
>protected speech. Political speech has an especially high bar as far as
>protection goes.

To qualify: Anyone who claims an absolute right to "free speech" doesn't
have any rights in the US beyond the forbiddance of Congressional
meddling as stated, and by commonlaw precedent (we're commonlaw like the
UK) this is extended to any government meddling.

Then I went round the bend because I am *very* enthusiastic about this
topic. And again, I am very sorry for that, and I am sometimes cranky.

Do check into the Common Carrier law when you have time. If all social
media sites can be regulated in the US as carriers required to
agnostically transmit any communications that don't violate the law, then
we're back to government regulation being the sole arbiter of protected
free speech, and people will again have a First Amendment right to free
speech on those platforms.

IMO, there is no way on earth Zuck or Musk should be allowed to make
those calls.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is one organization making the
argument. It's quite interesting.

--
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 16:58:07 -0500, Art <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com>
wrote:

>Everyone involved in ratifying the First Amendment and the entire Bill
>of Rights knew about the exceptions and knew the First was not meant to
>outlaw those laws. I vaguely recall, not sure, that some colonies and
>then states may have had laws against heresy. I'm sure a few people
>thought those laws would remain, but iirc one was challenged and thus
>all were found unconstitutional. Where heresy may be about speech,
>enforcing a law agaisnt it is the estabilishment of religion. No can
>do.
>
You can always have a look at Federalist paper no. 84 if you want a very
deep dive into free speech. Hamilton's primary concern was the free
press. The right was originally about the freedom of public, political
discourse, not the absolute right to call someone "a kike" in a synagogue
without fear of reprisal.

But we did let Nazis march through Skokie in 1977, where there was a
large Jewish community -- many of which were Holocaust survivors. The
concept has come a long way through commonlaw rulings in federal courts.
The ACLU was the Nazi's counsel, and it still makes me shudder. I knew
people in Skokie in the mid-90's. It was a serious blow that still echoed
in the community 20 years later.

But I leave such determinations up to my betters. IMO, we have a
ridiculously purist tradition in this country. I personally think the
Germans found a better way of dealing with the Nazi regalia problem.

--
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 18:28:05 -0500, Art <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com>
wrote:

>In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 16:43:03 +0100,
>"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Newyana2,
>>
>>> First amendment. No law can be passed that limits
>>> freedom of speech, press, or assembly.
>>
That's the error most people make. The word in the BoR is "abridging,"
which presumes all the common criminal limitations on speech: harassment,
libel, slander, incitement, etc. There was already a definition of what
free speech is. It is not restated because everyone involved knew their
British commonlaw. You can't abridge *that*. You can limit speech.

It's not very well written. The Second Amendment is even worse.

>>> I don't know what retaliation means in that respect.
>>
>>Yes, you do. Anything that will shut the person(s) up. From discrediting
>>them up to picking them up just picking them off the street throwing them
>>into a gulag. Or make them disappear ofcourse.
>>
Yes. So many people in my country claim that "You have the right to free
speech, but you don't have the right of no consequences for your speech."

And then they blacklist people. They boycott. They sue someone into
oblivion, with meritless cases, just to bankrupt or intimidate the
person. As long as the government isn't the one doing it, it's fair game,
but man is it illiberal as hell.

In point of fact, Trump discredited people all the time as President of
the United States. It is his free speech right to do so, even though his
words are the words of the government. We even accepted that his *Tweets*
were official government documents. Then it's even more protected because
political speech has a high bar.

He had no duty to be fair to anyone. His reprisals were vicious.

Which is why it's very important to understand that it's about not being
able to make laws, not about "no government reprisal." Politicians slag
each other off all the time, sometimes justifiably, for saying completely
stupid things, and all manner of baseless corruption charges are levied
against a political opponent who speaks "out of turn."

Retaliation is very much a thing, and there are plenty of legal ways to
do it as an official member of the government acting in its capacity.

--
Zag

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

"Art" <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com> wrote

| >my tax dollars fund the Israeli war machine?
| | Not a word from you criticising what started this,

What started this was Britain offering to give away land
that wasn't theirs to give. What's continued is has been
decades of born-again, upper middle class NY Jews going
to Israel on a roots trip and pushing Palestinians further
off their land with illegal settlements, building luxury
condos a stone's throw from poverty, guarded by the
Israeli military. The rock concert was rich kids having a
party just miles from starving Palestinians. No one wants
to see such violence, but their ignorance was their undoing.

The oppression and taking of land is escalating right
now in the West Bank. What if those Palestinians lose
patience and kill some Israelis? Will you claim those Israelis
were innocent victims? You'd only be fooling yourself.
There's no justice unless there's justice for both sides.

What I see is two groups with extreme hatred for each
other, and one group has no right to be there, except by
their claim that their God gave them the land 5,000 years
ago.

My impression is that most of the Israeli people are not
supporting Netanyahu's genocide. (That is what he's doing.)
I have Jewish friends who are activists taking the position
that Israel has no right to exist. They're not saying Jews
have no right to exist. They're saying that taking Palestinian
lands, based on the ruse that England had a right to give that
land away, was a dishonest and wrong act in the first place.
The only choice now, to redeen the Jewish/Israeli soul, is
probably a 2-state solution. But that's not what the Jewish
lobby in the US is pushing. Instead they're trying to shout
down anyone who raises questions... questions about my
tax dollars funding an illegal nation-state that's actively
plowing under peoples' houses for more settlements.

So, yes, I resent having my tax dollars fund a militant
invasive force and I resent the forceful guilt-tripping of
American Jewish activists, who would turn on the US in
a minute if the money was withdrawn... Religious crusaders
with God on their side are the most dangerous of all.

Art,

>>> First amendment. No law can be passed that limits
>>> freedom of speech, press, or assembly.
>>
>> Again, thats the *gouverment* telling you that it won't bother
>> you if you do speak your mind.
>
> That's right. The Constitution was/is the description of how
> the government would work. It makes rules for the government.

Which is another way of saying that anyone referring to the constitution as
containing their personal rights is rather un-informed.

Strangely enough most, if not all of those "Mu freeedom of speetch!"
loudmouths seem to refer to the constitution.

Something I just thought of :

Is there a possibility that a "Freedom of speech" right - supporting their
right to bother everyone else with theirs - is present somewhere else in the
law (and they "mistakingly" point to the constitution as its source) ? IOW,
not as a direct derivative of the "we won't bother you" promiss, but as a
stand-alone ?

Again, I don't think so, but I want to make sure.

> Yes, that is the trouble with them. Years ago I tried to find one
> that had civil discussions and no one could refer me to one.

Now-and-then I ask a question in a newsgroup. But most everytime it feels
like walking straight into a blizzard. It is fricking /hard/ to get them to
actually understand a question - no matter how concise I put it - and answer
it. Yes, this thread included. :-(

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:23:22 +0100,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>
>I'm here trying to figure out if all those American people who demand
>freedom of speech from any-and-everyone have a leg to stand on. As I

There are lots of exceptions to unlimited freedom of speech and they
existed when the Constitution was written and no one reasonably thinks
they were outlawed by the First Amendement.

Slander
Extortion (such as what Trump tried to do with Zelensky)
"Give me your money or I'll kill you."

Speech that promotes fraud

>mentioned in my initial post, I don't think so. But as I'm not all-knowing
>I'm trying to see if someone knows the answer to a very simple question (as
>in the subject line).

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Tue, 12 Dec 2023 19:43:48 -0500,
"Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"Art" <acohenNOSPAM@hailmail.com> wrote
>
>| >my tax dollars fund the Israeli war machine?

Whoever called it a war machine instead of an army implies that Israel
should not defend itself.
>|
>| Not a word from you criticising what started this,
>
> What started this was Britain offering to give away land
>that wasn't theirs to give.

Britain did not start modern Jewish immigration to Israel, which began
around 1880, and it did not withdraw until AFTER the UN voted to
partition the area between Jews and Arabs. "Viewing with favor" is not
at all "giving away", it's not what started Jewihs immigration, and
Britain pretty much renounced this position in what they called a white
paper.

What's continued is has been
>decades of born-again, upper middle class NY Jews going

You need more accuracy in your facts. If you had that, you might not
reach the wrong conclusions. There are Jews from all over the world in
Israel. ON my first trip, without even trying, I met Jews from 20
different countries.

Are there upper middle income American Jews who move to Israel? They
give up their cushy life here in the US to live what in the US would be
lower middle income life, with the added feature of alternating war,
terorist attacks and rockets. They get compulsory military service for
3 years, reserve duty until age 40 and continuous attacks from foreign
armies and terrorists.

>to Israel on a roots trip and pushing Palestinians further

The Arabs would not be in the fix they are if they would stop making war
against Israelis. Jewish immigrants to Israel bought the land they live
on. Often they moved to vacant land, vacant becuase of the malaria
swamps. They drained the swamps and made farms. Or they moved to the
desert and found varieties of crops that would grow with very little
water or with brackish water. The arabs were doing nothing with this
land. If you dont' believe me read Mark Twain's descriptions in
_Innocents Abroad_

The first murders of peaceful Jewish farmersjewiby Arab fedayeen was
1920 of

>off their land with illegal settlements, building luxury
>condos a stone's throw from poverty, guarded by the
>Israeli military. The rock concert was rich kids having a
>party just miles from starving Palestinians. No one wants
>to see such violence, but their ignorance was their undoing.
>
> The oppression and taking of land is escalating right
>now in the West Bank. What if those Palestinians lose
>patience and kill some Israelis? Will you claim those Israelis
>were innocent victims? You'd only be fooling yourself.
>There's no justice unless there's justice for both sides.
>
> What I see is two groups with extreme hatred for each
>other, and one group has no right to be there, except by
>their claim that their God gave them the land 5,000 years
>ago.
>
> My impression is that most of the Israeli people are not
>supporting Netanyahu's genocide.

If you knew English, you'd know it's not genocide. You'r e just
believeing a horrendous lie the Arabs and antisemites tell.

>(That is what he's doing.)
>I have Jewish friends who are activists taking the position
>that Israel has no right to exist.

Jews are not immune from having uninformed idiots. The two that you
know do not determine what's true and what isn't.

>They're not saying Jews
>have no right to exist.

Whoop-de-do.

>They're saying that taking Palestinian
>lands, based on the ruse that England had a right to give that
>land away,

There you are again. NO ONE has ever said that Israel's right to any
land with people living on it was based on anything Britain did. You
say your friends have told you Israel has no right to do that, and that
shows how ill-informed they are.

> was a dishonest and wrong act in the first place.

When the modern Jewish migration to Israel started, most Jews didn't
want a separate country. They just wanted to live in the Holy Land, but
violence by Arabs gradually made one big country impossible. when the
UN voted for partition, the Jews accepted it but the Arabs did not. If
they had accepted it, they would have had their own country next to
Israel, and they would have benefitted from all the improvements in
agriculture and manufacturing that the Jews did in Israel.

They could have made peace in 1949, in 1956 and in 1967.

Instead after they lost the war in 1967, they met in Khartoum. Do you
know about the meeting in Khartoum?

There they voted the 3 Noes. Did you know about the three Noes? No
peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.
How do they plan to resolve things with that plan?

International donors and organizations gave their organization millions
or billions but very little was spent on the people of the West Bank or
Gaza. Instead their leaders kept most of it. When Yassir Arafat died,
his deputies went to Paris to see his wife (She lived in Paris.) to get
more of the money he had stolen. They thought it was their share. She
said No. So their choice was to continue working and continue taking a
cut.

Why is the current leader of the PA, Mahmoud Abbas a rich man? "for many
years, [Mohammed] Rashid served as Arafat's financial advisor and was
given a free hand to handle hundreds of millions of dollars that were
poured on the Palestinian Authority and the PLO by the US, the EU and
Arab donors. According to Rashid, Abbas's net worth was US$100
million.[88]"

And that is the big reason there is no peace. As long as the Arab
leaders in the area keep the status quo, they and their deputies
continue to get rich.

BTW, while Abbas is painted as a moderate his college thesis was his
effort to prove that not many Jews were murdered by the nazis in WWII.
He's no moderate.

>The only choice now, to redeen the Jewish/Israeli soul, is
>probably a 2-state solution.

What makes it a solution? It's not. It was tried in Gaza and look how
that turned out. Calling it a solution is presenting as true what is
yet to be proven, what can't be proven in advance, what shouldn't be
anticipated, and what *won't* be true. It should be called the 2-state
plan but that would not be as undeservedly optimistic as "solution".

If it were a solution, I'd and 99% of Israeli Jews would be in favor of
it, but it's not. If the people of the West Bank or Gaza were ready for
2 peaceful states, we wouldn't have had thousands of rockets pouring
inot Israel from Gaza, with silence on the part of the West Bank Arabs.
And who else was silent? Perhaps you? How much did you complain about
the rockets sent, not to military but to civilian targets for over 10
years.

> But that's not what the Jewish
>lobby in the US is pushing. Instead they're trying to shout
>down anyone who raises questions... questions about my
>tax dollars funding an illegal nation-state that's actively
>plowing under peoples' houses for more settlements.

They don't do that either. Again your information is faulty What they
do do is destroy the homes of convicted terrorists. Israeli doesn't have
the death penalty. Even those who murder Israelis, including women and
children, only go to jail. It's hoped that fear of having their family
home destroyed will discourage them from murder and it probably does.
Things would be a lot worse if they did not do that.
>
> So, yes, I resent having my tax dollars fund a militant
>invasive force

Israel only invades when attacked. If you read the paper you'd know
that.

>and I resent the forceful guilt-tripping of
>American Jewish activists, who would turn on the US in
>a minute if the money was withdrawn...

That's nonsense. Whatever meaning you have to "turn on the US" it's
still nonsense. American Jews are among the most loyal Americans you
will find.

> Religious crusaders
>with God on their side are the most dangerous of all.

Do you know that the Arabs have not yet given up on Spain. Because they
ruled southern Spain until about 1490, they still want it back.

micky,

>>I'm here trying to figure out if all those American people who
>>demand freedom of speech from any-and-everyone have a leg to
>> stand on.

> There are lots of exceptions to unlimited freedom of speech and
> they existed when the Constitution was written and no one reasonably
> thinks they were outlawed by the First Amendement.

You misunderstood : I was not looking for how the (supposed) right to free
speech is being limited, I was looking for where that free speech right is
written down in American law.

AFAIK it never was part of it, but wanted to make sure I didn't overlook
something.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:20:14 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>I was looking for where that free speech right is
>written down in American law

US Constitution, First Amendment:

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

Amendment I

"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 "or abriding the freedom of speech" portion is the "free speech"
reference you seek. However, that only applies to the government.
Businesses are not required to allow "free speech" by everyone.

jerry,

>>I was looking for where that free speech right is
>>written down in American law
>
> US Constitution, First Amendment:
> "Congress shall make no law

Thats a promiss, not a right.

> However, that only applies to the government.

Exactly that.

bottom line :

1) it doesn't describe a right to anything.

2) it is limited to the gouverment only.

Now guess what a lot of loud-mouths and morons claim they have a right to,
and other citizens and/or private companies (social media anyone?) have to
provide them a platform for.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:48:41 -0500, in
<ql5hnilfn3ga3h9p4f0v8bqjkk759qbr5a@4ax.com>, micky
<NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

>In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Mon, 11 Dec 2023 20:23:22 +0100,
>"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm here trying to figure out if all those American people who demand
>>freedom of speech from any-and-everyone have a leg to stand on.

They are legless.

>There are lots of exceptions to unlimited freedom of speech and they
>existed when the Constitution was written and no one reasonably thinks
>they were outlawed by the First Amendement.

Yes!

The US Constitution's First Amendment starts off with, "Congress shall
make no law." That means that all sorts of other entities are not
required to give a forum to anyone who wants it and no one has a right
to require that others support their speech. Those who want
unfettered free speech had best build their own web site, possibly on
a server they own, or maybe a blog and do it there. If they want to
express their opinion in a newspaper, it's at the discretion of the
editors or requires payment for the space, with no assurance all
speech will be granted permission to be published.

The US right to free speech is a right to not be stifled by the US
government, but not a right for the govt, or anyone else to provide a
forum.

Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, as only one example, is not a
part of that right.

--
Jim H

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:17:22 +0100, in <upb7f0$128dj$1@dont-email.me>,
"R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:

>jerry,
>
>>>I was looking for where that free speech right is
>>>written down in American law
>>
>> US Constitution, First Amendment:
>> "Congress shall make no law

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

>Thats a promiss, not a right.

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called the Bill of
Rights. They're most certainly rights, not just a promise. That
doesn't mean some don't try to limit those rights more than the
framers intended, resulting in law suits and court decisions,
including the Supreme Court, but they are rights... if we're strong
enough to keep them... which is the point of the 2nd Amendment.

Where governments trample over whatever rights their people think or
wish they had, you'll find there is no right to bear arms and that
personal arms are essentially or completely banned. In the latter case
nothing their govt says is even a promise... or is one to be broken on
a whim.

--
Jim H

Jim

> Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press...
>
>
>>Thats a promiss, not a right.
>
> The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called
> the Bill of Rights.

It, as a group, can be called anything they want. It doesn't change
anything towards that particular amendment being a promiss, not a right.

And I see you ignored/dropped the part where I mentioned repeated that that
"right" of yours is limited towards the gouverment only. Not towards anyone
else. A not-so-minor "detail" I would say.

> Where governments trample over whatever rights their people think
> or wish they had, you'll find there is no right to bear arms ...

Kid, you sound as if you think you're part of a pissing contest. Good luck
with that, I've got other, likely better things to do than to play a game of
"my <whatever> is bigger/better than yours".

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

In article <m4hjripk2qbh6tqsmne5khpqo5ior2dn8l@4ax.com>, Jim H wrote...
>
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:17:22 +0100, in <upb7f0$128dj$1@dont-email.me>,
> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>
> >jerry,
> >
> >>>I was looking for where that free speech right is
> >>>written down in American law
> >>
> >> US Constitution, First Amendment:
> >> "Congress shall make no law
>
>
> Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press...
>
>
> >Thats a promiss, not a right.
>
> The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called the Bill of
> Rights. They're most certainly rights, not just a promise. That
> doesn't mean some don't try to limit those rights more than the
> framers intended, resulting in law suits and court decisions,
> including the Supreme Court, but they are rights... if we're strong
> enough to keep them... which is the point of the 2nd Amendment.
>
> Where governments trample over whatever rights their people think or
> wish they had, you'll find there is no right to bear arms and that
> personal arms are essentially or completely banned. In the latter case
> nothing their govt says is even a promise... or is one to be broken on
> a whim.

Over here, there is no right to bear arms, but a right to free healthcare (and
despite the pressures it's pretty good). (The only cashdesks you'll find in
our hospitals are in the visitors' restaurant or the gift shop.)

I know which I'd choose.

--

Phil, London

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:17:22 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>Thats a promiss, not a right.

Anything can be *claimed* to be a "right" or a "promise" or anything
else (an "offer", for example). Only the govt can make those
effective--regardless of what they are called.

>> However, that only applies to the government.
>
>Exactly that.

Who else *could* do it? DIY? Good luck with that....

>bottom line :

???

>1) it doesn't describe a right to anything.

Are you yearning for "1984" ??

>2) it is limited to the gouverment only.

The public gets the power to exercise those rights as established by
the govt. What the people choose to do with them is up to them.

jerryab <jerryab@juno.com> wrote:

>>> However, that only applies to the government.
>>
>>Exactly that.
>
>Who else *could* do it? DIY? Good luck with that....

Many people scream about the First Amendment when an online service
refuses to show their posts, or something like that. They think the
first amendment restricts actions by private entities. It doesn't. As
the old saying goes: "Freedom of the press belongs to he who owns
one." Absolutely true.

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

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:34:37 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>>>Thats a promiss, not a right.
>>
>> The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called
>> the Bill of Rights.
>
>It, as a group, can be called anything they want. It doesn't change
>anything towards that particular amendment being a promiss, not a right.

That a bit glib though, Mr. Wieser.

The point of a right is that it is legally unchallengeable by any
argument other than the violation of another conflicting right. So if the
press prints something, it's not a "promise" that congress won't
interfere or attempt to prevent it or that the executive (DOJ) will not
prosecute, it's a guarantee of a harsh judicial bitchslap when it
immediately goes to court.

Of the three branches, rights are enforced and interpreted by the
judiciary. The executive role is to support, abide by, and maintain
rights. If they think a right has been violated, they have to sue for its
enforcement. Judicial enforcement, along with a historical commonlaw
precedent that carries extreme weight in such cases, is what makes a
right special.

Eventually, commonlaw precedents become something called "settled law."
It's why so many people are upset about the overturning of Roe v Wade. It
was considered by many scholars to be "settled law." 50-year-old
precedents are rarely completely overturned. It is extremely
destabilizing, and serious jurists are loathe to take such action.

OTOH, "promises" are mercurial and are made every year before election
day. They can be challenged by a pair of crossed fingers.

So calling it a promise is quite dismissive of the judicial reality.

A right has more force behind it than a promise or even a law. It is
"the" law not "a" law: uncontrovertable yet interpretable, but even then
interpretation is severely limited by commonlaw. If you bring a right's
violation to a court of law in the US, and there are no competing rights
involved, it is a prima facie win (if you can establish standing). A law
written contrary to a right will be *nullified*, not superceded or
amended. A prosecution of the matter is *literally illegal*, not just a
poorly argued case that will fail.

I suppose you could say that any form of Constitutional government is "a
promise" that it will defend and support its defining document, but it's
glib to call it a promise when a government has consistently abided by
its written charter for hundreds of years.

--
Zag

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

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 11:29:34 -0000, Philip Herlihy
<PhillipHerlihy@SlashDevNull.invalid> wrote:

>In article <m4hjripk2qbh6tqsmne5khpqo5ior2dn8l@4ax.com>, Jim H wrote...
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:17:22 +0100, in <upb7f0$128dj$1@dont-email.me>,
>> "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >jerry,
>> >
>> >>>I was looking for where that free speech right is
>> >>>written down in American law
>> >>
>> >> US Constitution, First Amendment:
>> >> "Congress shall make no law
>>
>>
>> Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of
>> speech, or of the press...
>>
>>
>> >Thats a promiss, not a right.
>>
>> The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are called the Bill of
>> Rights. They're most certainly rights, not just a promise. That
>> doesn't mean some don't try to limit those rights more than the
>> framers intended, resulting in law suits and court decisions,
>> including the Supreme Court, but they are rights... if we're strong
>> enough to keep them... which is the point of the 2nd Amendment.
>>
>> Where governments trample over whatever rights their people think or
>> wish they had, you'll find there is no right to bear arms and that
>> personal arms are essentially or completely banned. In the latter case
>> nothing their govt says is even a promise... or is one to be broken on
>> a whim.
>
>Over here, there is no right to bear arms, but a right to free healthcare (and
>despite the pressures it's pretty good). (The only cashdesks you'll find in
>our hospitals are in the visitors' restaurant or the gift shop.)
>
>I know which I'd choose.

Oh, do tell? It's amazing that we have the right to get shot, but not the
right to treatment for hole it creates. Seems like one should follow the
other.

--
Zag

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

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:34:37 +0100, "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid>
wrote:

>And I see you ignored/dropped the part where I mentioned repeated that that
>"right" of yours is limited towards the gouverment only. Not towards anyone
>else. A not-so-minor "detail" I would say.

Did you ever look up that article I posted on Common Carrier status? At
the time you said it was more than you wanted. If you haven't, how the
hell are you making these arguments with just a single sentence from the
Bill of Rights?

There absolutely *is* a way for it to apply to entities other than the
government. The phone company - a common carrier - legally can't limit
speech; they can only transmit it. Mail can't be opened or deliberately
lost/thrown away, even by non-governmental carriers. The government not
only has an obligation to not abridge speech, but also to support speech
through regulation. That's more than a tradition. It's vetted law.

And then there is the common law element. You are interpreting a
sentence: a framework (thus, "The Framers"). If you think that is the
entirety of the matter, you are incorrect. The right of free speech also
consists of two centuries of case law, precedent, and dissents. The
United States, like the UK, has a commonlaw legal system.

Which frankly, in its totality, is beyond my ken and the ken of anyone
but scholars that specialize in speech rights. You haven't even tried.

So please, go read. At least read the article I linked. Furthermore, go
audit a course in US conlaw, and don't just read the assigned material
but take the instructor to lunch, get to know them, and have a Socratic
dialogue with them about the right to free speech over a course of
several hundred meals.

Better yet, get a JD, pay your dues, and start arguing this nonsense
before a federal judge. It'd be good for a laugh. You'll probably be
found in contempt.

My last word; that's "a promise." Please folks, let this thread die. OP
is unwilling to put the work in.

--
Zag

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