** In related news: water is generally wet, and although flashlights are brighter than laser pointers, the pointers can burn out your retinas.
** In theory, the government can validly restrict almost any form of speech under the right circumstances. The question here is whether the restriction is valid.
** But its constitutionality, or lack thereof, is absolute. It doesn’t matter whether it’s challenged or not.
** Precisely: an arbitrary distinction is being made.
** Invalid reasoning.
** It was clearly intended to be harassment. Dewey said as much.
** If they organized, yes it would. And since Dewey suggested that people should do this en masse…
Amazingly, you have just managed to quote from two separate founding documents (the Declaration of Independence’s “all men…” and the Constitution proper’s 3/5 Compromise) and paraphrase from an amendment that didn’t pass until after slavery was abolished (the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause, mandating equal treatment under the law), none of which is in the Bill of Rights, which is what I asked you about in the first place.
Not only that, but you contradict yourself; rather than criticize vague aspects of the Constitution, you attack a very specific provision. The 3/5 provision in the Constitution was not an example of a vague or ambiguous law subject to myriad interpretations – indeed, it was quite clear and well-understood. To the best of my knowledge, the judiciary has never had occasion to interpret the 3/5 provision.
The first amendment, on the other hand, is a whole 'nother ball of wax. It is written in broad terms, and of necessity must be interpreted by the judiciary, and is susceptible of many differing interpretations. So again I ask; would you strike the first amendment from the Constitution, since it violates your basic tenet of clarity and specificity?
(Also as an aside: it was the southern slaveowners who wanted slaves to count as a full person, since it would increase their representation in the House; it was actually the abolition-minded folks in the North who were militating to not count slaves as persons at all. It would actually have been better for the slaves had they not counted as people, because that would have increased the North’s power, and thus the likelihood of abolition).
Dewey and I both pointed out that precedent treats commercial and non-commercial speech differently. This is a MATTER OF LAW. Then, you whined and complained about how “stupid” you thought it was. Only then, did I point out that it is NOT stupid, but is in fact quite logical. Now you want to pretend like the first step in the discussion never occurred. Very poor debating form.
How much more specific do you want? Dewey practically wrote you a TREATISE on commercial vs. non-commercial speech.
That’s why we have laws.
Well, I think your opinion is myopic, selfish, and materialistic, but you are of course entitled to hold that opinion. All I can say is that caselaw in this country does not support your view.
But it would be a problem. As I have said I don’t know how many times, the courts have ruled again and again that pure speech must enjoy the highest level of protection. Regulating pure speech, while eliminating the Denver judge’s objection, would undoubtedly raise OTHER objections. Hence the Catch-22.
Again, the power of government to regulate incoming phone calls in principle is not at issue.
I just have to comment on the irony of this statement, since this twisting of precedent to serve one’s purpose is exactly what the Denver judge has been criticized for. Yet you are vehemently supporting him.
50 million people have asked not to be constantly harassed by a ringing phone every day, only to have their wishes thwarted. How does that “honor justice”?
** No, you asked about the men who wrote it. Get it straight.
“Equal treatment under the law” is a doctrine that was present when both the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution were written. It just wasn’t stated in those terms, and it didn’t apply to blacks and women. Nevertheless, our legal system does not formally recognize social class, religion, and a variety of other distinction-prone properties, and it never has.
** I’m not attacking the 3/5ths rule for its ambiguity, I’m pointing out that it is contradictory to the espoused intent of the law, as well as its letter, which wasn’t recognized for decades.
** What Constitution? It would no longer exist, having been replaced by a document without ambiguity.
Please show me where I said this. I believe, and have stated, that what I proposed is no more harrassment than the encouragement of lots of people to call their congressmen to complain about proposed legislation. **
So grass-roots political campaigns encouraging people to call their congressmen and tell him or her their opinion on a given matter are encouraging “harrassment”?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’m wondering how you distinguish between a “contradiction” and an “exception.” Or in your scheme of things must one particular value trump all others in every conceivable situation? **
Such a beast does not exist, and cannot exist.
The first amendment’s free speech protection reads: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” How would you change this? How would you craft free speech protections in such a manner as to avoid all ambiguity?
I’m quite serious. I want to see your proposed ambiguity-free alternative.
I can virtually guarantee that no matter what you write, I will be able to find wiggle room in the text. In fact, I am virtually certain that the more detailed you make your free speech proposal, the easier it will be for me to find loopholes within it.
*. Sure. You encourage lots of people from all over the country to call one judge, who does not normally receive lots of calls about his rulings. Repeatedly. Preferably right around lunchtime.
Ah, but you never used the word “harassment”, so therefore you didn’t advocate it.
Congressmen expect feedback from the people they represent; judges do not. Congressmen represent a lot fewer people than desire the list. People contacting congressmen do so with the intent to communicate; thus, they do not call en masse at inconvenient times.
I’ll bet you hear a lot of lawyer bashing, Dewey. People who didn’t even hate lawyers before are probably converted as soon as they meet you.
** No man serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or love the one and hate the other. Two principles that lead to mutually exclusive conclusions cannot be held equally.
In your universe? Correct. However, we live in a world that extends beyond your personal universe. Such a document is indeed possible.
** First, I would define “freedom of speech”. Then I would ensure that Congress passed no laws abrogating that freedom. It’s quite simple.
The fact that the judge “does not normally receive lots of calls” does not change the analysis. The judge is a public official. Having many people call a public official during business hours at their offices to complain about their decisions is not harrassment. It is vigorous civic engagement. **
As a public official, judges should expect comments from the public about their rulings. The fact that the public at large elects to so comment less frequently to the judiciary in no way changes that fact. **
So if I suggest that lots of people, including those who live outside of New York, call Chuck Schumer’s office to complain about some Senate action, I’m “harrassing” Schumer because he only represents New York? **
I specifically suggested that people call to share their constitutionally-protected views with the judge; what is that, if not an intent to communicate? And lunchtime is still during business hours, which are the hours of the day one would expect such calls. **
Watch yourself, Sparky. You are treading quite close to violating the rules of this forum.
This is, to put it mildly, insane. The law is full of principles that conflict which require balancing depending on the situation. Free speech is a treasured value, one that frequently trumps security concerns, but if some fellow is inciting a crowd to riot then suddenly security concerns can trump free speech. **
I’m a Missouri kind of guy, Sparky. If such a thing is possible, then show me. **
Oh, is that all? Shucks, and I thought it would be hard… :rolleyes:
If it’s so damn simple, why don’t you do as I requested and draft your own version of the first amendment’s free speech clause? I’m eager to see this ambiguity-free work of art.
Durning this interlude I’d like to award** Dewey** 23 points for his devastating left hand hooks and his oh-so-effective right hand jabs.
And, if I may be permitted, I’d also like to award **TVAA **15 points for the 15 times he’s been knocked cold dead, but each time getting up off the canvas and mindlessly and fearlessly rushing back to the fray to be battered about again. What spirit!
** And one principle must necessarily be higher in the hierarchy than the other. They cannot both be equal, because the actions required to follow them are mutually exclusive.
Pretending that all of the values enshrined in law are equal, or need to be interpreted anew with each case, is, to put it mildly, both insane and stupid.
According to what principle? I’m not challenging this claim, specifically, merely asking for clarification. What principle allows this judgment to be made, and who is permitted to make it?
Mostly because the first amendment, as written, contains concepts which cannot be rendered into logic because they are insufficiently precise.
Mr. Milum, if you’ve finished observing the shadow boxing, the main event is taking place just over there…
Attempting to represent concepts like “the freedom of speech” in logic is a nightmare, mainly because the natural languages are far less specific than the unnatural ones. Some concepts which are inherently invalid, such as “free will”, exist only because the imprecise and general nature of natural languages allows people to ignore the inherent logical contradiction and necessary compartmentalization of such a concept.
This is the language of the fundamentalist zealot: one value must trump all others, in all circumstances, without exception. **
Most folks recognize that no one principle is absolute in its application, that principles conflict, and that the resolution of those conflicts depend on the nature and potential outcome of such a conflict. Free speech that threatens security is permitted in most cases, but in situations where the harm to security is both significant and imminent, free speech may be curtailed. **
You claimed that you could replace the Constitution with an ambiguity-free governing document. I challenged you to come up with one small part of such a document, namely one that protected free speech. Now you’re balking.
Which is it? Are the concepts embedded in the first amendment capable of precise definition and ambiguity-free application or not?
Laws are written in natural languages. That’s a barrier you’ll just have to deal with, unless you can come up with a practical way to draft laws using more formal notation.
Still waiting for this miracle of legal draftsmanship from you, TVAA. Come now, don’t keep me waiting.
** It’s difficult to point out self-contradiction if you lack reading comprehension.
The ambiguity of the existing document is precisely why I would abolish it. I’m not suggesting that the existing right should be rendered differently – it must be replaced with a right that can be properly defined and applied.
Which is obvious if you read even two of my posts and have an IQ above room temperature.
** No, that is the language of the rational being.
If there’s an exception to a rule, there is necessarily a rule that describes and justifies the exception. Thus, the exception is correct by that standard.
There can be no exceptions to the ultimate set of laws. There are no exceptions to the actual laws of physics.
Ridiculously shoddy thinking. Without such absolute principles, there can be no applications, because no events can ever be resolved. In a system in which there are no rules, there can be no outcomes, no decisions, and no events.
** What rules describe the outcomes of such conflicts? What is their nature? How do they work?
Your claims are as impressive as the idea that the world rests on the back of a giant turtle. What does it rest on? Another turtle!
…thus ignoring the fact that the problem is not being resolved, merely put off to a higher level of analysis.
** Define ‘significant’. Define ‘imminent’. How can we determine whether someone is applying these concepts improperly?
** I cannot come up with a ambiguity-free governing document that protects “free speech”, as that concept is inherently ambiguous. It would necessarily be replaced by a concept without such uncertainty. Thus, a replacement.
