Bill of Responsibilities

Started by Tory Potter, June 01, 2020, 09:00:11 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Calypso Jones

Trump Won

Anti Social Distancing

Defund Police....start with former presidents' secret service.

Sick Of Silence

With all these lawyers with cameras on the street i'm shocked we have so much crime in the world.

There is constitutional law and there is law and order. This challenge to law and order is always the start to loosing our constitutional rights.

Frauditors are a waste of life.

Calypso Jones

Trump Won

Anti Social Distancing

Defund Police....start with former presidents' secret service.

taxed

Quote from: Tory Potter on June 01, 2020, 09:00:11 AM
I hear a great deal about the Bill of Rights. Most western democracies have a Bill of Rights. What we are missing is a Bill of Responsibilities, for with every right, there needs to be a corresponding responsibility. I am thinking of the First Amendment for example. To be free to say what ever you like carries the responsibility to be honest, respectful and civil.
I am sure there is provision for this somewhere, and Solar will enlighten me as he always does. In Canada, the right to free speech has the corresponding responsibility to not engage in child pornography or hate speech.

Why are you inclined against freedom?
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Tory Potter

Aside from your mis-judgement of me, which is unimportant, it is refreshing to see you fully exercise you right of free speech. I take it that if a Conservative posted something that was supportive of something you disagreed with as long as he backed it up with solid links, you would support his exercise of free speech as well.
"My luck is so bad, if I bought a cemetery, people would stop dying."
Mary Taylor (Fictional character on Coronation Street)

Tory Potter

I've been a Conservative activist for 35 years and belong to the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatism in Canada is a bit different than in the US, although there is a growing element of American style conservatism. It's good to know that when I post something stupid, and I no doubt will, I'll have you there to set me straight.  :thumbsup:
"My luck is so bad, if I bought a cemetery, people would stop dying."
Mary Taylor (Fictional character on Coronation Street)

Solar

Quote from: Tory Potter on June 06, 2020, 02:28:20 PM
Aside from your mis-judgement of me, which is unimportant, it is refreshing to see you fully exercise you right of free speech. I take it that if a Conservative posted something that was supportive of something you disagreed with as long as he backed it up with solid links, you would support his exercise of free speech as well.
What you fail to understand about the Right is, we have a shared set of Core Values, something the left has no use for. So it is uncommon for a Patriot to spew nonsense.
The left has no issue with killing babies and selling body parts, the left is absent of basic human Rights, they want special rights, over and above what is already guaranteed for everyone in the Constitution.
The left uses an age old tactic of Divide and Conquer, which is why they despise our Republic.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

taxed

Quote from: Tory Potter on June 06, 2020, 03:08:48 PM
I've been a Conservative activist for 35 years and belong to the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatism in Canada is a bit different than in the US, although there is a growing element of American style conservatism. It's good to know that when I post something stupid, and I no doubt will, I'll have you there to set me straight.  :thumbsup:

You can be a conservative and support for authoritarian control?
#PureBlood #TrumpWon

Solar

Quote from: Tory Potter on June 06, 2020, 03:08:48 PM
I've been a Conservative activist for 35 years and belong to the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatism in Canada is a bit different than in the US, although there is a growing element of American style conservatism. It's good to know that when I post something stupid, and I no doubt will, I'll have you there to set me straight.  :thumbsup:
I must have been typing when you posted this.

Join them, save Canada. :thumbsup:
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

slider1

Joining this a bit late, but I find these questions interesting.

Is" the Freedom Of Speech only about saying or doing something?
"Should" people say or do something?
"Should" people have to experience people saying or doing something?

First, I think the Supreme Court has expanded the concept of what constitutes free expression.  Maybe too much, but that's  another discussion. But, there's a lot of things people should not say even if they have the First Amendment right to say them.  E.g., just saying F u to everyone you meet, calling people racial epithets, saying Nancy Pelosi should be President.  As to experiencing it, I think anyone can cover their ears if they wish.  But if you hear something you don't like, it's tough.

"What" is hate speech?
"Who" decides "what" hate speech is?
"Who" decides on "who" gets to decide what hate speech is?

Outside of incitement to riot no such alleged hate speech should be illegal.  Not sure exactly how far that goes.  Check a law book.  As to who decides, legislators, and judges interpreting the law, and voters decide who they are.

I would agree that the concept of hate speech is not well defined.  I would think using racial epithets would be a good example, but I would defend your right to use them.  But I don't think you can make a statute that says hate speech in general is illegal.  But society does have norms of behavior and speech that are constantly evolving and are generally just decided by we the people. 

"What" is acceptable speech?
"Who" decides "what" is acceptable speech?
"Who" decides on "who" gets to decide what acceptable speech is?

Same as above with respect to freedom of speech. Maybe add in libel and slander.  That being said, society does have a way of deciding what is acceptable speech, although no one gets to enact it into law - except under narrowly defined circumstances.  30 years ago it was acceptable to dog whistle women walking by.  Now that's generally frowned upon as sexist and inappropriate.  But you're still free to do it.  100 years ago, using racial slurs was common and not particularly controversial. How and why that changes is still a mystery.

"Should" there be consequences?
"Who" decides if there "should" be consequences?
"Who" decides on "who" decides if there "should" be consequences?

There are always consequences to what you say.  Always has been.  Tell your boss she has nice boobs, and you can expect to be fired.  The first amendment doesn't protect you if you say something stupid.  It just means you won't be prosecuted.  Who and how consequences are decided vary greatly on the context.

"What" are the consequences?
"Who" decides "what" are the consequences are?
"Who" decides on "who" gets to decide what the consequences are?

Depends on what was said.  If libel and slander then monetary damages.  If you reveal classified information, or incite a riot, or yell fire in a crowded theater than criminal.  Per our laws decided on by our legislators who in turn are elected by we the people.  If you just told your boss she has nice boobs, then she gets to decide and she can fire you.  Other consequences can simply be ridicule, loss of friends on Facebook, shamed by others, shunned by society in general.  All depends.

"Can" the consequences go to far?
"Who" decides if the consequences go to far?
"Who" decides on "who" decides if the consequences go to far?

Well, of course.  If you tell your boss she's got nice boobs, you shouldn't be prosecuted by the government or face other legal action besides your termination. If you use racial epithets at people, I don't think that makes you a target for violence.

"Does" speech equate to violence?
"Who" decides if speech equates to violence?
"Who" decides on "who" decides if speech equates to violence?

In extreme situations it is possible.  Shouting fire in a crowded theater is a violent act.  Incitement to riot is a crime.  It's defined by  legislators who in turn are elected by the people.

"Should" there be violence?
"Who decides if there "should be violence?
"Who decides on "who" decides if there should be violence?

In a free society only the government should have a monopoly on violence.  Even if you incite a riot.

"What" violence is appropriate?
"Who" decides "what" violence is appropriate?
"Who" decides on "what" violence is appropriate?

Well incitement to riot can cause imprisonment.  Not the death penalty for sure.  That should only be reserved for advocating for Nancy Pelosi's presidency. 

If I believe that you have committed hate speech, can I equate it to violence?

Well, you're free to make any conclusions you like, logical or illogical.  And to state such.  But you can't take the law into your own hands.  If you think someone's speech has crossed a line into a criminal nature, the correct response is to report it to the police. 

Bottom line is the First Amendment doesn't mean you get to say anything you want to anyone at any time and not have something bad happen to you.  I've never heard anyone make such an argument before.  If that's not what you're saying, well, then I misunderstood.  Again, you may be free to say something, but that certainly doesn't mean you ought to by any means.  Maybe you Need to be far more specific in your questions.

Oh and go Nancy Pelosi. (Just kidding, please don't shoot me!)

Slider1 out!

Sick Of Silence

When I bring this up, I didn't mean the goverment. I meant the left. They equate wrong opinion as violence, to be violated in return.
With all these lawyers with cameras on the street i'm shocked we have so much crime in the world.

There is constitutional law and there is law and order. This challenge to law and order is always the start to loosing our constitutional rights.

Frauditors are a waste of life.

slider1

Ok. But, respectfully you should say that a bit more precisely.  And concisely as you've just done.

And I agree.  Many on the left are willing to use violence against those who offend them, or, what is much worse, have the government use its monopoly on violence against you.


Sick Of Silence

Quote from: slider1 on June 09, 2020, 04:02:51 PM
Ok. But, respectfully you should say that a bit more precisely.  And concisely as you've just done.

And I agree.  Many on the left are willing to use violence against those who offend them, or, what is much worse, have the government use its monopoly on violence against you.

Hence, why I posed the questions as such. I tried to question it as such to focus on who decides who gets punished, what gets punished, and how it is punished.
With all these lawyers with cameras on the street i'm shocked we have so much crime in the world.

There is constitutional law and there is law and order. This challenge to law and order is always the start to loosing our constitutional rights.

Frauditors are a waste of life.

Calypso Jones

You know the answer to this.  The left believes that THEY have the moral gravitas to decide all these things and then to pronounce the rules and the judgements.   

We will be in a world of hurt if that ever happens. 
Trump Won

Anti Social Distancing

Defund Police....start with former presidents' secret service.