** The notation is incidental: what is important is the concepts behind the notation.
The right to communicate shall not be denied.
It’s catchier in the unnatural languages, but that approximately suffices.
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 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 right to communicate shall not be denied” - TVAA
No TV, the concept “Comunication” like a pipeline has two ends and we certainly don’t want to imply that the good citizenry must be forced to listen.
But I agree- Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and the gang were brilliant in their wording but the world didn’t stop when they died so let’s try to improve the semantics here and now. How about…
Neither Congress nor any State or Judgeship shall pass any law or give any decision that abridges the right of the people to express free opinions in assemblies, in letters, or in the press; and the right of the people to peacefully reddress the State, the Congress, or Judgeship* for grievences can in no way be restrained.
*** I stared to mention the Denver Judge by name but I thought that might be too heavy-handed.**
Let me see if I get this straight.
First, you claim:
Then, without blinking an eye, we get:
Believe it or not, you seem to have noticed the extent to which you are talking out your ass, because you move quickly on to a different piece of nonsense.
In the following, you seem to have changed your mind about the difficulties of language, and have hit upon a different reason why what you say is virtually meaningless:
Followed, as far as I can tell, by an attempt to replace “free speech” with a concept you claim to be without ambiguity of any kind:
Is it really necessary to point out that this concept is just as ambiguous as the one you reject?
Take the cases at hand. You claim I should not contact the judge and express my opposition to his opinion. Is this not equally a denial of my right to communicate as it would be an infringement of my right to free speech?
Suppose someone comes to my doorstep and attempts to sell me a vacuum cleaner. Am I not denying him the right to communicate with me by slamming the door in his face?
Are spies being denied the right to communicate by being prevented from revealing troop movements to the enemy? Are anti-abortion advocates being denied their right to communicate if they are prevented from publishing the home addresses of abortion providers on the Internet?
Let’s make this easy. Please name a single way in which your formulation regarding “communication” is less ambigous than the ‘right of free speech’.
Or else post something that completely contradicts whatever you said before, and we can get back to business as usual.
Regards,
Shodan
** We don’t?
What do you mean ‘we’, Kemosabe?
** [sigh] Not quite, Shodan the Magnificient.
The concept behind the U.S. Constution’s “freedom of speech” is extraordinarily vague, as can be seen in its common usage. So is “freedom of the press”. As written, that phrase can be validly interpreted as meaning anything between “a specific method of transmitting data is approved” to “someone seeking information to transfer is not subject to any further law”.
** But it isn’t. It’s still somewhat ambiguous, but that’s because I was forced to render it in English.
** Communication works both ways, as Dewey was so kind to point out. And a right necessarily includes its equal and opposite form; otherwise, it’s an obligation. This is obvious even in English.
The right to speak is also the right to be silent. The right to privacy implies the right to be public. The right to life requires the right to death. Do we really need to discuss elementary logic and semantics?
What the fuck are you talking about?
As far as I can tell, you are saying that I would have the right to call up the judge and tell him what I thought. And he would be obligated to listen to every word I said, otherwise my right to communicate would become an obligation. (Whatever that means.)
And therefore I ask again - on what do you base your opposition to everyone and his brother calling this judge up and haranguing him for hours about his decision?
I tell you what - in order that you not deny me my right to communicate, you are obligated to go back and read each and every post I have ever submitted to the SDMB.
Same for everything else ever written on the Internet.
Start now. When you are done there, get going on the Federal Register.
Regards,
Shodan
And who, pray tell, gets to define the “ultimate set of laws”?
Unlike physics, there is not an empirically knowable answer to this question. Even if we posit that the ultimate goal of all laws is “justice,” we’re still left to figure out just what the hell “justice” means. There is no set of experiments we can run, no equations we can create, no program code we can execute that will generate a metaphysically correct answer to that question.
Unless we name TVAA supreme totalitarian dictator for life, we’re left with competing visions of what justice is, and what it means for any given situation. Which brings us right back to conflicting principles: in a given situation where free speech conflicts with security, what is the “just” outcome? Different people are going to have very different ideas on just what justice requires that outcome should be. Your universal principle is a false god. **
And yet, somehow, the world has kept on turning all this time, with events and conflicts arising and being resolved, in spite of its pesky insistence that no principle is truly universal. **
We use human judgment, as fallible and occasionally inconsistent as that may be. A threat that is “imminent” in one context might not be “imminent” in another. A speaker whipping a crowd into an anti-globalization frenzy, encouraging them to riot and trash corporate establishements is a less imminent threat if he’s doing so in an open field than if he’s doing so in front of a Starbucks. **
Whatever. I eagerly await your replacement text. (I certainly hope your “communication” language isn’t this magical bit of draftsmanship; I’ll deal with that shortly).
To hell you say. You’re drafting a law, a law that must be applied to myriad situations by many different human beings. Since you claim to be able to draft with the complete absence of ambiguity, your law must clearly communicate how it should be applied to any possible situation that might arise. The notation, far from being incidental, is critical. **
I’m flabbergasted that you think your formulation contains less ambiguity than the first amendment.
Shodan’s already provided several good examples of real-life situations where your language, if taken literally breaks down. Allow me to add the following:
Suppose I wish to outfit a van with massive speakers and amps that go to 11, and drive down your street blaring a message at top volume at 3 am. Can the government prevent me from doing so under your formulation? If so, where in the text of your formulation is this allowed?
Suppose I wish to smear someone’s name by starting false rumors about them, rumors which I know are false. Can the person prevent me from spreading these falsities without abridging my right to commuinicate?
Suppose I’m speaking in front of a crowd, and am communicating the idea that the crowd should run wild in the streets, looting every store they see; further suppose the crowd is cleary responding to my rhetoric. Can the government force me to step off the lectern?
Suppose I wish to communicate to a hitman my desire that he kill a business rival of mine for a given price, payment to be made upon confirmation of the deed. Is a conspiracy charge violative of my right to communicate?
Suppose I wish to communicate my love of the outdoors by walking down the street naked. Can the authorities make me cover my ugly ass up without infringing on the right you’ve formulated?
I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Your formulation is a long, long way from being totally unambiguous.
Dewey Colorado case or no Coloarado case the U.S. Supreme Court has stipulated commercial speech is protected speech by the First Amendment. The Central Hudson case makes this clear.
Telemarketing is commercial speech. They are trying to make a profit. They are selling a product. They are trying to sell a service. This is commercial speech and unless the commercial speech is false or misleading, then it receives First Amendment protection.
Now in order to determine if the regulation of the commercial speech is reasonable requires an analysis of the state law, the state interests, and the relation of the law to these state interests under the Central Hudson factors.
Kindly point out where I said anything different in this or any other thread. Indeed, if you’ll read my lengthy post about the Colorado decision on page 3 of this thread, you’ll see that I clearly laid out the elements of the Central Hudson test and applied them to the case at hand.
I have never, not even once, suggested that commercial speech did not receive first amendment protections. What I did state, and what Central Hudson clearly notes, is that commercial speech receives less constitutional protection than noncommercial speech. Governmental regulation of commercial speech is only subjected to the intermediate level of scrutiny found under Central Hudson, rather than the strict scrutiny applied in other contexts.
Your post attacks a strawman. Nice try.
Are you saying that citizen SHOULD be forced to listen to anything the government deems worthy? How about anything that commercial interests deem worthy?
** (emphasis mine) I think we’ve found the problem.
** No one “gets to define the ultimate set of laws”. How could they be subject to human determination if they’re the ultimate laws?
** Says who? Your blanket assertions are not arguments worthy of these boards.
What makes you think ethical concepts are any different from concepts used in physics? Are you suggesting that all conclusions are equally justified and there are no grounds for preferring any answer?
** And yet the universe exists. I’m sure you can go explain to stars billions of lightyears away that they should have different spectral lines, since the basic principles of physics don’t apply to the entire universe.
Lawyers. Feh.
** It doesn’t matter what notation you use to represent an ambiguous concept – the result is always ambiguous.
** I know. This is because you do not grasp logic.
** But you’re not taking it literally. You perceive defective and incorrect implied meanings of the words and apply them improperly. Some time spent with a dictionary would be helpful.
I think you should especially look up the difference between “having properties I value” and “ambiguous”. You seem to have problems differentiating them.
Dewey I did mischaracterize your argument a bit. It was not intentional I was just hastily reading your position and wanted to get a post in before I left campus.
However, I will disagree with your analysis of the case under the Central Hudson Factors.
As you already noted there are three questions to ask under Central Hudson.
-
Is there a substantial governmental interest in regulating the speech? Yes, as you noted protection of the citizens privacy, i.e. their right to be left alone inside their homes, is a substantial governmental interest. But there is a question as to how substantial the interest really is. However, with all of the exceptions these registries have permitting other entities to call and intrude upon the privacy interests of its citizens demonstrates this is not as an important or substantial government interest after all. If it really were, then they would not have made all of the exceptions. If protecting the privacy interests of the citizens in their home was truly substantial then the state would have forbidden most if not all unwanted and undesirable calls to cease to be made to residences by commercial or charitable entities or non-profit entities. Hence, how substantial is this interest to the state? Not very otherwise we would not have all of these exceptions.
-
Does the regulation directly advance the substantial government interest? Now this is debatable and I think all of the exceptions to these registries is what plagues them under this particular inquiry.
First it can be argued particulary inquiry is met because the law is protecting the citizens quiet enjoyment of their residence free from numerous and unwanted outside interference, i.e. free from unwanted telephone calls from telemarketers. They are free from being disturbed or interrupted by an undesirable and unwanted telephone call.
However, the real problem is that the Court in Central Hudson said the regulation may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government’s purpose. (Central Hudson Gas and Electric v. Public Service Commission). With all of the exceptions made to the do not call registry idea, the fact charitable organizations can still call and a host of other entities, then the privacy issue is not being directly met as the calls from these entities can be just as unwanted, undesirable, and as much an invasion of privacy as telemarketers. Hence, the state’s interest is only partially met, or remotely met, and ineffective to protecting this interest since people’s privacy is still going to be intruded upon by other charitable or not for profit entities that are not telemarketers.
For these reasons I think the registries are unconstitutional and the rulings are correct.
Jimmy1: Your points, in order (I note from the outset that all cases, including the Colorado district court opinion, are linked to in my long post on page 3):
-
The substantiality of a government interest is not dictated by the extent to which the government tries to remedy it; as the court notes in another context, the government is not required to move on all fronts in order to move on any front. More to the point, none of the parties to the lawsuit have argued that the privacy interest set forth by the FTC is in any way insufficient for Central Hudson purposes, and for good reason – they’d fail. The Colorado court recognized that the government’s interest in “protecting the well-being, tranquility and privacy of the home is of the highest order in a free and civilized society,” and cited a whole raft of precedent in support of that proposition. Thus, the argument that the proffered privacy interest is insufficient for Central Hudson analysis is without merit.
-
Your second argument is more substantial, and forms part of the basis for Discovery Network, the case upon which the Colorado district court rested much of its opinion. Suffice it to say that I view a reduction in telemarketing calls of upwards of 60% to be effective and direct support for the government’s purpose (unlike the newsrack regulation in Discovery Network, which only caught 62 out of 2,000 newsracks). The state can partially meet its goal and still satisfy the direct support test; again, the government is not required to move on all fronts in order to move on any front.
I also think this case can be further distinguished from Discovery Network on grounds I outlined in my earlier post.
sigh
Look, if these “ultimate set of laws” exist independent of human thought, then they can be discovered and identified. How, exactly, do we go about doing that? If someone claims to have discovered them, how do we know he isn’t just making it all up? Please, do enlighten us. **
Fine. Please describe what set of experiments we can run, or equations we can create, or program code we can execute to discover the ultimate, one true meaning of “justice.” **
Because ethical concepts are wholly man-made. The universe exists whether we want it to or not. Ethical concepts only exist because, for various reasons, we want them to. **
I’m not a total moral relativist, if that’s what you’re asking. I think our view of ethical norms is dictated by some degree of common consensus and by the observed results of deviations from those norms throughout history. But neither do I think that this area is so crystal clear that anything approaching a universal constant can be identified. **
Please indicate where I suggested any such thing. This post is really quite bizzare. **
15 year olds. Feh.
Dear TVAA, do you mind telling me how old you are? Are you male of female? It is none of my business. I just like to get a mental fix on the people I read. Thank you.
Milum.
Dear TVAA, do you mind telling me how old you are? Are you male or female? It is none of my business. I just like to get a fix on the people I read. Thank you.
Milum.
You’re dodging. This is just a convenient way for you to avoid having to provide any of your miraculous draftsmanship for our examination.
Tell you what: just once, give us an applied example of your idealized, 100% logical, ambiguity-free, Mr.-Spock-would-be-proud utopian government in action. Take any of the examples I proffered and step us through how the question gets resolved under your wonderful system. No shortcuts, either – I want to see your work. **
The presence of gaping holes in your formulation does not belie some flaw in my logical fallacies. Far from it. **
Your formulation, with dictionary links:
“The right to communicate shall not be denied.”
Having looked through the definitions of each word, I fail to see how any of the problems I’ve noted go away with a literal reading of your text. **
So under your formulation, in response to the questions I asked…
…I can blare a message on your street at 3 am…
…I can libel and slander others with impunity…
…I can incite riots…
…I can hire hitmen without fear of a conspiracy charge…
…I can walk my ugly ass out in a public park buck naked…
…and you’re OK with all of it? You think all that stuff is worthwhile? The problem with those results is that I don’t value them, and not a defect of your text?