The Constitution

[k4dje]

You should proofread your posts before posting.

The first amendment applies only to government. A private citizen, business or whatever can censor you to any degree it wants.

[kc9esf]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa4rqg @ Oct. 06 2003,01:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just curious, has any one had any First Ammendment issues with the folks at eham.net, I #an looking for to see if there is cause to persue it.

73's
wa4rqg[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
no, there is not. &quot;Free speech&quot; does not mean free speech on someone elses computer discussion forum. you have something to say, and someone elses computer forum wont let you say it, you are free to create your own to say what you want.

there is no reason for someone elses computer forum to be fair, conistent, reliable or any other argument you may wish to bring up.

Notice I did not say which particular person(s) or service(s) in the above, as it does not matter. your &quot;free speech&quot; does not force you to withhold the owners rights

[K9STH]

I guess the person asking about the &quot;Forst&quot; ammendment removed his/her post before I saw it. #Frankly, I didn't know that Mr. Forst had gotten elected to Congress, let alone gotten an ammendment passed by 2/3rd of the states!

I know of an actor with the last name of Furst, but don't know anyone with a last name of Forst!

Glen, K9STH

[w3sy]

Maybe that was the &quot;joke.&quot; Post a message about &quot;free speech&quot; then arrange to have it &quot;disappear&quot; by deleting one's own message. Funnnnyyyy...

[k4dje]

Tater1337 has the full message as a quote

The first ammendment is freedom of the press.

That means that whoever owns the paper in question gets to lie, slander and push his own agenda as much as he wants.

[KI4BOO]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w2fgv @ Oct. 07 2003,02:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That means that whoever owns the paper in question gets to lie, slander and push his own agenda as much as he wants.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Push his own agenda, yes. Lie and Slander, No.

Well, you can lie. As long as it isnt slanderous. You dont REALLY think the batboy exists, do you?

The amendment states that you can publish whatever you want. However, you may not publish libel (slander), or hate speech. These are not covered by the Constitution.

[W5HTW]

Some of us are concerned with our secand amendment rights, and our thurd ones, too, as well as our furth ones. But I'll take the fafth on any of those, I guess.

Ed

I took the fifth.. but when I was done my eyes were double-crossed, my brain was fuzzzy, and I couldn't pass the field sobriety test in order to get up from the table.

Now.. about the 'sexth' amendment..... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Or maybe the 'neinth' (Must be the German Constitution)
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[K3UD]

I always thought that the first amendment is the one to be used when trying to destroy some of the other amendments http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

73
George
K3UD

[KC5ZQM]

I will use my First Amendment rights to say that W3SY left something out of his post...

HAW!

Out.

[KC2KFC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The amendment states that you can publish whatever you want. However, you may not publish libel (slander), or hate speech. These are not covered by the Constitution.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Bill of Rights
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.

From what I read the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech or of the press, but it does not guarantee the truth. That's left up to case law and who knows how that can be interpreted.

Just my 2 american cents worth.

This sure is more interesting than the bazillion code vs no code posts. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KI4BOO]

The Supreme Court always rules against Hate Speech.

Thats why when you see Nazi and KKK Propaganda laying around, they speak of a better America. They dont address how they plan on going about getting there.

[ke4pjw]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KI4BOO @ Oct. 06 2003,11:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Supreme Court always rules against Hate Speech.

Thats why when you see Nazi and KKK Propaganda laying around, they speak of a better America. They dont address how they plan on going about getting there.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Huh? Please define &quot;Hate Speech&quot; and cite an example court case where such speech was not allowed to take place.

I have never heard that the Nazis and KKK were not allowed to say or print what is on their mind.

If that is the case, we are all in trouble because the 1st amendment means squat at that point.

Gee Glen, haven't you ever heard of Jack Forst? When it gets cold? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

TOM K8ERV

[AE6IP]

Cornell Law School's first amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/first_amendment.html) section has a reasonably short summary of the legal ramifications of the first amendment, from which:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message.

[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

[W5HTW]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ke4pjw @ Oct. 07 2003,11:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KI4BOO @ Oct. 06 2003,11:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The Supreme Court always rules against Hate Speech.

Thats why when you see Nazi and KKK Propaganda laying around, they speak of a better America. They dont address how they plan on going about getting there.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Huh? Please define &quot;Hate Speech&quot; and cite an example court case where such speech was not allowed to take place.

I have never heard that the Nazis and KKK were not allowed to say or print what is on their mind.

If that is the case, we are all in trouble because the 1st amendment means squat at that point.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Can you spell &quot;Rush Limbaugh?&quot;

Whoops -- he isn't in court yet. But he did exercise his right to his opinion. And had to resign over it.

(Nope, I'm not a Rush fan, not by any means! Or is that &quot;fanatic?&quot;)

Actually free speech only applies to politically correct speech. We have already lost our right to to complain about things that don't fit into that category. Americans with positive (PC) opinions about things do indeed have the right to free speech. Try expressing a non-PC opinion and you will have a label: bigot, racist, criminal, a__hole, etc.

The result is you must toe the PC line or remain silent.

Ed

But of course, what's &quot;PC&quot; is conditioned into people's minds by the media... and whatever 5 or 6 people control that (with a little help from Mike Powell) really control the whole country...

[AE6IP]

the Rush Limbaugh deal at ESPN had nothing to do with free speech. It was a business relationship, and it went sour. ESPN got what they paid for but didn't really want it when they got it.

AE6IP hit the nail on the head.

ESPN WANTED someone who they KNEW would attract viewers who would tune in 'just to see what MIGHT happen' and ESPN received EXACTLY what they were hoping to get.

And as IP noted.. when they got it.. they FOUND OUT that it generated MORE heat than they expected or were READY to deal with. IN short ESPN wimped out..

Just goes to show.. 'Be careful what you wish for.. you MAY just get it!' ESPN wished for attractants to bring people in.. and they got it.. but NOT what they expected! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

The INTERESTING thing about listening to Limbaugh explain his thought process to people who were upset that he didn't just 'stand on his principles' and force ESPN to fire him.

He stated (in summary) that he resigned because he saw and felt and believed that it wsa causing the rest of the ESPN team a lot of discomfort and personal upset.

As he put it.. &quot;The ESPN job was a part time job for me, but a FULL TIME job for the other cast members.&quot;

What I got from that is that he made a good decision. HE KNEW that the other 4 guys did that for a living and it was their MAIN source of livelyhood.

He KNEW that they'd get lots of heat.. pressure, and it would reflect negatively on THEM - even though they had NOTHING to do with what HE said.

He knew that the ESPN management would NOT be really 'into' putting up with the pressure and would try to manipulate the situation and POSSIBLY put the other guys in a position of job damage.

So.. he made the RIGHT choice and resigned so that it would save the other guys from having to undergo a great deal of pain, heat, frustration, and hassle that wasn't theirs to have to deal with.

I thought about it a bit and realized that his decisoin was the RIGHT one and it was a far more compassionate and proper decision to make than 'sticking to the principles' when far greater damage potential may come to your friends and coworkers.

I suspect it was a line of thinking of 'win the battle and lose th war' thinking.

73

Chuck K3FT

[ae4tr]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif The furst ammendment declairs that you can ignore all the other ammmmmmennnddmmments! If any of the others don't suit you, just go back to the furst one. HAW!!!!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC9CEW]

Isn't Rush a drug user,can't really take him serious anymore.
Off to detox he goes.

[ki4bgo]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC9CEW @ Oct. 11 2003,12:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Isn't Rush a drug user,can't really take him serious anymore.
Off to detox he goes.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I never did take him seriously anyway! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif