"I'll digress with your interpretation of the 9th. Nearly every right granted is taking away another"
No, there is a strong difference between arbitrary limits, and natural limits.
[link]
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
your right to free speech, or bear arms, is limited by other people's right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Hence murder and slander charges.
your right to free speech doesn't end because someone else is offended, or an official doesn't like your speech.
No, there is a strong difference between arbitrary limits, and natural limits.
[link]
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
your right to free speech, or bear arms, is limited by other people's right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Hence murder and slander charges.
your right to free speech doesn't end because someone else is offended, or an official doesn't like your speech.
"your right to free speech, or bear arms, is limited by other people's right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Hence murder and slander charges.
your right to free speech doesn't end because someone else is offended, or an official doesn't like your speech."
That's my point though. We establish one right (in this case, the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) over the right to free speech or bear arms. In other words, we take away a right most people don't value (the right to take another's life) and exchange it for something most people do value (the right to live).
your right to free speech doesn't end because someone else is offended, or an official doesn't like your speech."
That's my point though. We establish one right (in this case, the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness) over the right to free speech or bear arms. In other words, we take away a right most people don't value (the right to take another's life) and exchange it for something most people do value (the right to live).
my point is that its a naturual end to that right, there are no absolutes, HOWEVER the where the rights end are clearly defined, and its not arbitrary.
My point is that it isn't natural though. There is no 'obvious' pointing in, it's just where we've set it.
And it IS arbitrary. It's where we want it. It's not some mysterious random law. It's human preference.
And it IS arbitrary. It's where we want it. It's not some mysterious random law. It's human preference.
its very obvious actually, and its not. Its also not human preference.
No one needs to protect inoffensive speech. Also, all speech is inherently political.
One just needs to look back to the 1980s and 1990s, when the Parents Resource Music Center, tried banning rock and roll for being "pornographic", promoting drug use, and sex among teens. This is the same era they encouraged youngsters to get into the then new britney speers dancing around half naked in a catholic school girl uniform.
When you got down to the so called "pornographic" lyrics of many of the rock bands that where singled out, they where pretty strongly criticizing, governments, large corporations, and the same pop stars promoted earlier.
The fact that someone let "Free Speech" be defined as "Only when we say so", almost saw my one of my favorite musicians "Dead Kennedys" singer, and former San Francisco mayoral canidate "Jello Biafra" get 20 years in prison for tastefully drawn penises(drawn by famed surrealist HR Geiger himself) on the cover for the sole sake of mocking Tipper Gore and her witch hunt against critics. Previously, the Dead Kennedys have been a very vocal political band, mocking both the government and its corporate sponsors.
Of course, the case was eventually thrown out, nearly bankrupting Jello, and forever breaking up one of the greatest bands in existence.
No one needs to protect inoffensive speech. Also, all speech is inherently political.
One just needs to look back to the 1980s and 1990s, when the Parents Resource Music Center, tried banning rock and roll for being "pornographic", promoting drug use, and sex among teens. This is the same era they encouraged youngsters to get into the then new britney speers dancing around half naked in a catholic school girl uniform.
When you got down to the so called "pornographic" lyrics of many of the rock bands that where singled out, they where pretty strongly criticizing, governments, large corporations, and the same pop stars promoted earlier.
The fact that someone let "Free Speech" be defined as "Only when we say so", almost saw my one of my favorite musicians "Dead Kennedys" singer, and former San Francisco mayoral canidate "Jello Biafra" get 20 years in prison for tastefully drawn penises(drawn by famed surrealist HR Geiger himself) on the cover for the sole sake of mocking Tipper Gore and her witch hunt against critics. Previously, the Dead Kennedys have been a very vocal political band, mocking both the government and its corporate sponsors.
Of course, the case was eventually thrown out, nearly bankrupting Jello, and forever breaking up one of the greatest bands in existence.