Do you advocate "speech monitors" or wet nurses for the streets of SLC?
Why not take it one step farther and restrict thoughts also?
We are talking about words here,Not actions (or Practice)
The supreme court ruled in the polygamy cases that they could restrict actions but not the belief. You are free to believe whatever you want, but when your beliefs or words turn to an action, you may be liable to restrictions or censure of the courts.
They can pass any law they want. My "INALIENABLE" rights are not granted by the government and can not be regulated nor revoked by the government.
Why not crack down on the LDS Priests that CURSE and use God's name in vain in public out loud at general Conferece?
Why not crack down on the drug violence in SLC?
Because the LDS Church can not edure God's word and they are pulling strings and will do anything to silence the Word from going out. They have spent approximately 30 million so far.
Hebrews 12 An of a trumpet, and the voice of words; which voice they that heard intreated that the word should not be spoken to them any more: (For they could not endure that which was commanded, And if so much as a beast touch the mountain, it shall be stoned, or thrust through with a dart:
If you do not like what you hear, I sugest that you take the recommendation of the Supreme Court. Put you fingers in your ears look aside and walk on by. It is not the duty of the government to be the LDS lap dog, and to make SLC a "gospel Free zone", so the LDS can have FREE course!
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 9:17 AMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] street preachers/free speech> Blaine wrote:
> > ... I think the answer lies in the degree to which
> > free speech is allowed.
>
> Already you are setting yourself up to take out the word "free" in the
> word "free speech." If speech is restricted, it is not "free speech."
> Think about it.
>Blaine: Well, then freedom of religion must be the same, I would think--we should be "FREE" to do what we desire in that area, too. But the government still places restrictions on the right to have as many wives as one can afford. Another example is the use of Peyote in religious rites. Would you also say that these practices should not come under some government control? Freedom is only the right to do what the law prescribes. Men who would go beyond the law are really not free--in fact they usually end up in jail. (:>) If this is free, then good luck.
> Blaine wrote:
> > Most if not all communities have regulations that put
> > limits on how far the concept of "free speech" may be
> > carried.
>
> That is because men like to control others and local government ALWAYS
> seeks to eliminate free speech. Most if not all communities have passed
> ordinances which have illegally infringed upon the right of free speech.Blaine: I disagree that it is because "men like to control others and local government ALWAYS
> seeks to eliminate free speech, " although that may be what happens in some instances. Rather, I think it is to protect the rights of the populace--which is the right not to have to listen to themselves being insulted, provoked, verbally abused, and thereby preventing them from pursuing life, liberty and happiness, all considered fundamental natural rights. As I said, your right to throw a punch ends where my chin begins. Applied to the concept of freedom of speech, I would say insulting, provoking, and abusing verbally is crossing the line from simply throwing a punch and actually connecting. An extreme example of this are the laws against advocating the overthrow of the government. That would be trespassing against society in general--it would be like connecting clearly and with force against where the chin begins, so to speak.
> Blaine wrote:
> > As one UofU political science professor put it,
> > "your right to throw a punch ends where my chin
> > begins." This also applies to freedom of speech.
>
> No it does not apply to free speech. Speech cannot physically hurt a
> person the way that a punch can.**Blaine: I agree. Speech does not hurt, at least not directly. But if the analogy is taken to higher level of abstraction than the literal, loose speech can do a lot of damage. As the scripture says:James 1:26 "If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.James 3:6 "Even so the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity."James 3:8 "But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison."James 3:9 "Therewith (the tongue) we bless God, even the Father, and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."> Blaine wrote:
> > To use another analogy pointed out by the supreme
> > court itself, freedom of speech does not include
> > the right to yell "fire! in a crowded theatre.
>
> Carefully about taking statements out of context. First of all, in the
> context of the Supreme Court, this concerns distinguishing between
> PUBLIC areas and PRIVATE areas. Free speech is not granted in PRIVATE
> areas such as in theaters.Blaine: It may have that connotation, but basically relates to endangering others' rights to life and the pursuit of happiness by making loose, irresponsible statements, whether in a public or a private place.
>
> Now if you are going to wrench this statement out of context, at the
> very least you ought to recognize that if there really was a fire, a
> person may indeed yell fire within the theater. Right?Blaine: I agree. As long as everyone also agrees there is a fire. Some people might conjure up fires in their imaginations, however. In those cases, yelling "fire" would not be justified.
>
> Blaine wrote:
> > Neither should it include the right to be provocative
> > or abusive in speaking to others.
>
> Wrong. The Supreme Court has rule time and time again that the content
> of free speech cannot be restricted. One can be as provocative as he
> wants to be in public areas. Now there might be some moral
> considerations for us concerning the subject of "abusiveness." No
> Christian should abuse others with speech, but in most situations, all
> prophets have been considered abusive by those within the community who
> did not accept their message.
>Blaine: The supreme court has not tried the constitutionality of all laws and ordinances held by communities throughout America. Calling someone names--termed abusive language--is still illegal in most places where civilized people live. If you doubt this, next time you see a police officer, first get his attention by flipping him the bird, then try abusing him with some expletives--some names, or try calling anyone nearby a few goodies, and see what happens. (:>)
> Blaine wrote:
> > As the article pointed out, calling young brides
> > whores was in this category.
>
> A person cannot use words to incite a riot. In this context, I grant
> you that once a person is involved in stirring people up to commit
> violence, then he has crossed the line. For example, if a man stands up
> and urges others to stone the whore, that would be crossing the line.
> However, if a man hears a woman confess her own promiscuous sexual
> behavior, and he points out that the woman is a whore because she is
> engaged in such sexual behavior, that is acceptable. If his goal is to
> call the whore to repentance, what is wrong with clarifying her need to
> repent?Blaine: This is assuming the label fits, in the first place, and in the second place, it is assuming everyone concerned agrees with the definition of the word being used. If what the person is saying is known to him as being an insult to the other person, he are definitely crossing the line, even if by his own definition the word may mean something else. If I knew, for instance, that calling an Iraqi a swine, or saying his mother was a pig, would enrage him, and I did it nevertheless, I would then believe anything that happened in the ensuing melee would be my fault. Calling Mormon girls whores, despite having personally justified such, was wrong for the street preachers to do. The same with the underwear. Their personal beliefs did not justify doing what to Mormons was purely sacreligious acts. I am sure the street preachers were aware of this, too. (:>)
>
> Blaine, do you think it should be illegal to use words like "whore" in
> public? Do you think that words like "queer" or "faggot" or "homo" or
> "homosexual" also should be made illegal? What about the word
> "fornication"? I had a student this week tell me that he thinks this
> word (fornication) should not be used by preachers. I asked him what
> alternative word he would suggest we use, but he couldn't think of one.
> I was not surprised. :-)Blaine: Using these terms per se, is often done, even in church services and church scriptural classes. On the other hand, accusing people of being such is and has been held to be basically illegal. I am surprised the street preachers who did this were not sued.
>
> Blaine wrote:
> > These guys were just out there screaming obscenities.
>
> I don't believe that for a minute. What obscenities did you personally
> hear out there when you talked with Ruben and Dean?Blaine: At that time, I heard no screaming, yelling, etc, nor had I read of any being done. While I was there, with Dean and Ruben, and there was a third guy I didn't get introduced to, I was presented with some material from certain LDS authorities, from their writings and speeches, and I think Ruben and I talked some about the temple, and what I thought about his worthiness to enter it. He suggested he might, with my help, get inside and start a discussion with the people there, which I knew could never happen-- LOL. But except for lack of time, I had fair opportunity to discuss what was being brought to my attention.Regarding the yelling, waving underwear, etc, I am not speaking from my personal experience. I am speaking of what I read about later in reliable reports. According to reports from various sources--sister missionaries assigned to stand on the streets with the street preachers, media reports, and even reports from members of Protestant denominations--there was yelling of obscenities, waving underwear, even donning some of these garments. There was individual harrassment going on as people came and went from meetings. Some of these people also verified that the insulting of young brides and children was taking place--like telling little kids their mothers were whores--in fact, if I recall, this was the issue wherein it was decided the street preachers had gone too far. That, as I remember it, was when the Mayor and many Protestant members began supporting the LDS Church's position. And as I said, the Mayor is a former ACLU attorney. It takes quite a bit of bad stuff going on to convince an ACLU attorney that the LDS Church has a legitimate concern, let's face it, considering the ACLU's record of going after the LDS Church on every little nit-picking excuse they have been able to dig up. (:>)
>
> Peace be with you.
> David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida.
>
> ----------
> "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
>
> If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
>
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online
