|
Well said, Perry.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: February 01, 2006 09:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs about
free speech thingy
Dave, sounds like you'er still a little sore for getting booted off of TT
for continuing a banned topic. Old news...move on.
I also think your concept of free speech is a little twisted.
Free speech laws apply in a public forum, but TT is not a public forum.
It is a private discussion group. The owner of the group has the right to
request common decency, and ban those who use profanity if he wishes. Just
like in your home, if says something that offends you, you can kick them
out. However, if you meet them on the public sidewalk they can
say whatever they want and you cannot do a thing (legally) to
prevent it (unless, of course, slander is committed, then you have legal
recourse). Why do you think the mormon church is trying to buy public
property? To make it private so they can control what is said there and who
says it.
You also seem to be a legalist. You seem
to forget common decency when there are "laws" that say you can do
something. Read Alexander Soltzenitsyn's address to the 1975 graduating class
at Harvard for an excellent treatise on legalism and common decency.
Perry
From: Dave Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
To:
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs
about free speech thingy
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:35:17
-0800
free speech has
limitations. We recognize that.
DAVEH:
Really! Who determines those limitations? In a theater,
governmental law determines whether one can yell fire or not. Same
with going into one's house. And...the same can apply to standing
outside someone's house and disrupting the peaceful sanctuary of what goes
on in that house. There are many circumstances (such as the time of
day, as well as the content AND the context) that determines what is lawful,
and what is not. The point is, that those things are determined by
law.
On the other hand, it seems that some
SPers have little regard for what others want to hear, and hence feel within
the law to preach however they want, disregarding others' ears and what they
want or not want to be heard. However, when the shoe is on the other
foot, it seems like the SPers want to forget the free speech
protections, and only consider what THEY want to
hear.
For instance, is it illegal for an obscenity
to be posted on TT? So far, nobody has made that claim. There
seems to be no rule beyond the ad-hom rule that applies....other than what
the moderator makes up at his whim. Sexual content would seem likewise
applicable to the free speech edict, but not when a moderator wants
to make his own rules, or a SP complains that he is offended. At that
time.......the free speech must stop, or one gets booted from
TT.
But....when others don't want to hear
the SPers preaching, and do something lawful to prevent such happening (such
as buying a street to provide a buffer), then the SPers cry foul and claim
their freedom of speech is being impinged. Seems to me that if you
want the right to bombastically assault others' ears, then one shouldn't
complain when others do likewise.
However, when
one respects the rights of others to hear what they want (or not want to
hear something particular), then one might expect to receive the same
treatment....whether legalities are observed or not. I don't see that
many SPers feel that way, though.
They want to regulate what is
done outsides their buildings as well as inside.
DAVEH:
That's the way I see it, and don't have any problem with it being that
way. Kinda like you not wanting obscenities on TT, eh
DavidM!
buy all the property in the world so that nobody can
express their own viewpoint or gather their own assembly to hear what they
have to say?
DAVEH: That's kinda how I perceive
heaven. Those who want to exercise free speech there to say
whatever they want in an effort to offend others, may find themselves
removed. Isn't that the way it works in TT?
The church of
Jesus Christ should be most open to
dialogue
DAVEH: Who says??? Why do
you conclude that, DavidM? Do you have Biblical support for that
theory?
I understand you guys invited James White. Why not
the Street Preachers too?
DAVEH: I'm not privy to
what happened behind the scenes with JW, but I suspect one determining
factor is the respect he gives, and receives like in return. IOW....I
don't think JW waved underwear in the faces of those he expects to listen to
him. My guess is that JW understands the real nature of free
speech, based on his experience speaking to an LDS audience from within
the Tabernacle, while some SPers prefer to demonstrate their right to
free speech by waving underwear on the sidewalk.
David Miller
wrote:
Dave, free speech has limitations. We recognize
that. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no
fire, and one cannot go into someone's house, turn off his TV, and start
preaching to him. Obscenity also is not considered acceptable when
we talk about free speech.
The idea of free speech is that people are free to speak and gather
assemblies together in public places. I think I do understand why
your religious organization wants to spend millions of dollars to
privatize what would otherwise be a public area. Nevertheless, such
is very telling on your organization and the people who run
it. They want to regulate what is done outsides their
buildings as well as inside. What will they do next, buy all
the property in the world so that nobody can express their own viewpoint
or gather their own assembly to hear what they have to say?
The church of Jesus Christ should be most open to dialogue,
not only allowing it outside their buildings, but inviting those outside
to come in and talk with them. If I had homosexuals or others
gathering outside and protesting, I would invite them in and give them a
platform. I'd say, "let's hear what you have to say." Then I
would discuss it with them. I would ask if anybody else there wanted
to address what was said. The truth has no fear of being
challenged. Only people who embrace falsehood are afraid of the
truth.
If I were your President in the LDS, I would get my best debaters out
there and engage the preachers, not spend millions of dollars buying up
land hoping to create a bigger buffer between them and the church.
Do you realize how much less money it would have cost if you guys had just
offered to pay their expenses to come out and have a forum in one of your
buildings, and debated them in a public forum? I understand you
guys invited James White. Why not the Street Preachers
too?
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006
12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] the FWs
about free speech thingy
DAVEH: Why are street preachers such
proponents of free speech when it benefits
them......
You don't really believe in free speech, do you.
......yet
are so opposed to it.......
please do not forward
posts to us that use the F word.
........
when it offends them?
When LDS folks
take offense at SPers' antics in SLC during Conference time, the SPers
do not seem to understand why LDS folks do not appreciate their
offending tactics. Then SPers cry foul when they perceive their
rights to free speech being restricted when
the LDS Church buys a city street.
David Miller wrote:
Lance, please do not forward posts to us that use the F
word.
David Miller
I have a reasonable expectation that they should obey the law. Speech is
meant to be responded to with speech, not with illegal activity such as
theft, battery, discrimination, or murder. You don't really believe in free
speech, do you.
David Miller.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain six email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
----------
"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.
|
