Berzerker
Deity
The Declaration of Independence speaks of these rights that come from our creator, then it says governments are instituted among men to protect them.
[RD] Does free speech even exist as a concept?
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
The Declaration of Independence speaks of these rights that come from our creator, then it says governments are instituted among men to protect them.
Berzerker
Deity
lost in translation? 
they didn't write the declaration of independence
they didn't write the declaration of independence
Yavid
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2018
- Messages
- 49
lost in translation?
they didn't write the declaration of independence
LOLOLOL
Listen, I'm not saying our rights aren't important. I'm just saying the government gives us the rights. That's why when the government tramples on someone's rights IMO all Americans should be outraged. As Patrick Henry said "The constitution is not to restrain the people but to restrain the government on what it can do to the people."
Broken_Erika
Play with me.
Because the Dutch are Special.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Patrick Henry was correct, and you should pay attention to what you quote him as saying. There are distinctions between "the government will give you the right to free speech" and "the government shall not infringe on your right to free speech." The semantic distinction is that the latter implies that you already have the right, that it came from somewhere; while the former implies that it is a creation of the government that is then bestowed. I don't know about the constitutions of other countries, but I know how the drafters of the US constitution chose to phrase it.
The more important distinction is in application. If the government claims the authority to create and bestow this right, then it is incumbent upon the government to ensure you get to exercise it. In the latter phrasing, which is actually used, there is no such taking on of responsibility. As it stands, if you call me names and I prove to be louder, more persistent, and more cutting in my own retaliatory response, leaving you silently crying and huddled on the floor with your ego shattered, the government is under no compulsion to act. However, if they were the creator and guarantor of your right to free speech it would be their responsibility to ensure that it was maintained by preventing me from taking such actions.
And I would agree with you if we didn't need a job to survive. Since that is not the case, I believe everyone does have a right to a job. Why? Since we need to work to survive that directly ties our ability to work to our ability to live. And since it is universally recognized in the US that everyone has a right to life, then denying someone a job because of their political beliefs (or any other reason not directly related to job performance or qualifications) is a violation of that person's right to life.
Find a way to allow people to live comfortably without having to work, and then I'll be completely on your side that employers should be allowed to fire people for whatever reason they wish.
yeah it's not like you can make it on your own these days, unless you inherit wealth you need an employer to survive as a human being. Now, there can definitely be a middle ground - I could support the employer distancing themselves from a disturbing individual - but it has to be of their own volition; it absolutely cannot be done as a result of a twitter witch hunt like donglegate was. That is unacceptable.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
This glosses over a couple things, and also runs contrary to my previous post that you liked.
First the gloss...MaryKB has been talking about a situation where the employee's political beliefs do in fact impact their job performance. Most of my working life after the Navy was spent in sales in one form or another. I sold stuff for other people, I sold services for other people, I sold services for my own company, whatever. There is NO QUESTION that when I was working I would have to have been far more circumspect about my political views than I am now. Selling is hard enough when you don't start out as a "known enemy." So for sales people, or any employee who has a front line interface with the public, to become known as "that guy" is in fact going to impact job performance and justify letting them go...by your own admission.
Now, where is that contradiction. You seemed to like the statement that the government, in committing to "not infringing" is not taking responsibility as a guarantor. They promise not to infringe on your free speech, but can't promise that I as an individual will be made to give you any particular opportunity. This "right to life" of which you speak, I presume, would be similar. And yet you are suggesting that the government is not only imposing a limit against infringement on itself, but somehow responsible for preventing the employee's actions from inclining the employer to fire them, an act which may "end their life." Is that not the same as what was specifically cited for free speech NOT to be?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Typical European inefficiency.
Last edited:
I don't agree with you about how you say a job is needed for survival. What I think you mean is you need basic essentials of life, like housing, food, medicine, and such, but I don't believe you have to have a job to have those things guaranteed. You can have safety programs, or even something like a universal basic income, but I totally don't at all feel that's the same thing? I feel your employment has to be earned, like should you be promised a job and forced to remain employed if you won't work, but you just lazy around and do nothing? or if you're completely incompetent? I feel if I'm an employer I'd have rights to decide who's working for me and who's representing me, of course with limits that I'm not discriminating for obvious things I really shouldn't have to list. I feel if you're talking universal guaranteed employment, you can only make that work if you're going full on communism, because you'd have to control all production and you'd also have to remove rights, like your right to be a lazy bum (oh dear, I'm not saying you're one, I'm just talking hypothetically, right?) Like you have your right to be lazy, or useless, or a despicable person, but these types of things may have consequences especially you might not be able to stay employed.
I feel @Timsup2nothin makes some excellent points, but I'd like to expand on what he says to add to you also can hurt your employer through reputation, and that often depends on your position. Like if you're an executive or something, and you are publicly a member of the KKK, well people are going to be upset, and your company might face serious public backlash and harm to its revenue, so I'd feel they'd have every right to dismiss you because your values hurt their image, you know what I mean?
I agree that dongle guy didn't deserve to lose his job, I feel he should've been on probation and had to do sensitivity training, but I also don't know his history at his work, maybe he had more going on. But I do feel as men you all sometimes don't understand how such casual sexism builds up and wears you down over time, and it's really difficult to put up with constantly. It's like each time it happens you feel a little bite being taken out of your soul, and maybe she'd just had enough of his type of nonsense. If he'd been CEO or something maybe different, or like that guy at Google who sent out that horrible sexist memo about how women don't belong in technology (I myself am basically a programmer). I feel when you're in a higher position you have more responsibility and you're more accountable for your actions and decisions and you certainly have to be more careful, because a little slip-up like what John Schnatter did can really hurt your company and should certainly cost you your job.
Oh dear, sorry to sort of go back to your employment thing, I personally am totally a proponent of universal basic income, lol.
sophie
Break My Heart
It's guaranteed by the 6th Amendment:
And is reaffirmed in the reading of the Miranda Warning:
The problem is that compensation for being a public defendant is comically low, particularly considering how much more lucrative it is to work in other fields of law. This translates to public defendants are lower in quality, and there are far fewer of them than the justice system needs to function adequately. Public defendants are tasked with representing dozens of clients at once, with nowhere near enough resources at their disposal to do the actual research necessary to mount a good defense. Particularly given that the American Legal system often slaps people with harsher penalties for taking a case to trial, it often behooves both the public defendant and the client to take whatever plea deal the prosecution is offering from the start, rather than risk being represented by a less skilled defendant who has zero actual interest in your case and may actually get you more jail time than you would have gotten if you had simply rolled over and plead guilty or taken the deal.
Of course this only applies to criminal cases. Beyond that, no, there is no guaranteed representation, no. But given the state of public defendants, would guaranteeing that right really effect any difference?
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Public Defender offices aren't necessarily stocked with crappy lawyers. That's a common misconception. They do have problems retaining top talent, because the talent they attract can make a lot more money in private practice with a few years in a PD's office, but by the same token, the PD offices that handle capital offenses and other serious felonies tend to be equipped to mount a proper defense. They have to be if prosecutors want their prosecutions to stand up to appeal.
As far as civil court is concerned, most people are insulated from that by virtue of not having any money. You aren't going to get sued for something if you can't afford to pay the judgment, because no plaintiff's lawyer is going to take a contingency case where they risk not getting paid. And a potential plaintiff isn't going to spend thousands on legal fees to get a verdict they can't collect.
It's about the only silver lining to not having money.
As far as civil court is concerned, most people are insulated from that by virtue of not having any money. You aren't going to get sued for something if you can't afford to pay the judgment, because no plaintiff's lawyer is going to take a contingency case where they risk not getting paid. And a potential plaintiff isn't going to spend thousands on legal fees to get a verdict they can't collect.
It's about the only silver lining to not having money.
Thanks
Here it is for legal and administrative proceedings. Not only criminal law, but also civil law, which includes proceedings against unlawful acts of the government.
We have BTW 23 groundrights in our constitution and not 20 as mentioned before. The last 6 are more like social ground rights:
On legal support, on sufficient employment, on security of means of subsistence, on habitability/environment, on national health/housing and on education.
Here it is for legal and administrative proceedings. Not only criminal law, but also civil law, which includes proceedings against unlawful acts of the government.
We have BTW 23 groundrights in our constitution and not 20 as mentioned before. The last 6 are more like social ground rights:
On legal support, on sufficient employment, on security of means of subsistence, on habitability/environment, on national health/housing and on education.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Isn't it clear that some constitutions claim to originate from a higher power as a way to make them seem more legitimate? If some farmer named Billy Bob wrote the American constitution, that carries a lot less weight than: "Tis the Lord's will" or whatever.
It reminds me of how most Monarchies in the world (and in history) claim that their power derives from the supernatural. "Oh yeah, we're totally God's chosen family". You can't even argue against it, I'm not surprised it still exists as a "yeah this is totally really legitimate and you should pay attention to it" mechanism
It reminds me of how most Monarchies in the world (and in history) claim that their power derives from the supernatural. "Oh yeah, we're totally God's chosen family". You can't even argue against it, I'm not surprised it still exists as a "yeah this is totally really legitimate and you should pay attention to it" mechanism
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
For the record, the actual text of the Declaration of Independence appeals to "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". It's less a claim of divine sponsorship than an argument from natural rights. In the context of the late eighteenth century, it's essentially secular language.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for or against it being secular. I'm just saying it's a very common way to claim that a document or royal family or whatever has legitimacy. It's derived from the supernatural! What could be more legitimate than that?
In today's world it seems a bit out of place, but historically speaking it seems to be a very common strategy.
In today's world it seems a bit out of place, but historically speaking it seems to be a very common strategy.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
But the appeal made in the Declaration of Independence explicitly not a supernatural one. It contains the word "God", but it doesn't follow that they're invoking the sort of heavenly sponsorship proclaimed by a European king. If anything, it should be read as a direct rebuke of such claims, posing legitimacy as originating not from divine intercession but from universal principles.
Similar threads
