Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Unbanned!

Expand Messages
  • William
    Dick may elect to tell this group to get lost but he doesn`t have to. Susan`s interpatation of the first amendment leaves me asking where she got her legal
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 1 5:22 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dick may elect to tell this group to get lost but he doesn`t have to. Susan`s interpatation of the first amendment leaves me asking where she got her legal degree along with her existential credentials or any vestage of humanitarianism.
      Now I would invite Mary to the spiders web and challenge her to join existential- ism. It is a new group that wants members to express their own philosophies in their own terms. I am sure Dick is the owner but he might play fair. I would really enjoy hearing where you are really at. I am writing an extended version of my personal philosophy and if you want a piece of me well there it is. Remember, I show you mine you show me yours. Bill
    • Susan Schnelbach
      Then, let s have a discussion of what the first amendment says. That might be fun. What is your view of the free speech part of the first amendment? And it is
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 2 7:22 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Then, let's have a discussion of what the first amendment says. That might be fun. What is your view of the free speech part of the first amendment?

        And it is usually more productive to have a discussion/debate without the insults, even if that is easier. :)


        - Sue




        On Jul 1, 2012, at 8:22 PM, William wrote:

        > Dick may elect to tell this group to get lost but he doesn`t have to. Susan`s interpatation of the first amendment leaves me asking where she got her legal degree along with her existential credentials or any vestage of humanitarianism.
        > Now I would invite Mary to the spiders web and challenge her to join existential- ism. It is a new group that wants members to express their own philosophies in their own terms. I am sure Dick is the owner but he might play fair. I would really enjoy hearing where you are really at. I am writing an extended version of my personal philosophy and if you want a piece of me well there it is. Remember, I show you mine you show me yours. Bill
        >
        >



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mary
        My understanding is that public governing bodies must guarantee, not infringe upon free speech. The Law is subject to interpretation in the courts. It means to
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 2 8:23 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          My understanding is that public governing bodies must guarantee, not infringe upon free speech. The Law is subject to interpretation in the courts. It means to ensure this right incurs expensive legal defense and that in the privacy of my home I can violate to my heart's content and that you, not being a government, can as well.

          Philosophically, our freedoms imply limits; in fact they beg for them. And this is what the Constitution does; as a living instrument, it philosophically encourages further definition and reason. A law for a freedom presupposes limits in the same manner a law denying freedom presupposes the limit of its enforcement.

          Mary

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Susan Schnelbach <susan@...> wrote:
          >
          > Then, let's have a discussion of what the first amendment says. That might be fun. What is your view of the free speech part of the first amendment?
          >
          > And it is usually more productive to have a discussion/debate without the insults, even if that is easier. :)
          >
          >
          > - Sue
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > On Jul 1, 2012, at 8:22 PM, William wrote:
          >
          > > Dick may elect to tell this group to get lost but he doesn`t have to. Susan`s interpatation of the first amendment leaves me asking where she got her legal degree along with her existential credentials or any vestage of humanitarianism.
          > > Now I would invite Mary to the spiders web and challenge her to join existential- ism. It is a new group that wants members to express their own philosophies in their own terms. I am sure Dick is the owner but he might play fair. I would really enjoy hearing where you are really at. I am writing an extended version of my personal philosophy and if you want a piece of me well there it is. Remember, I show you mine you show me yours. Bill
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        • Susan Schnelbach
          That was my understanding as well, Mary. Governments cannot infringe on our free speech rights, but individuals are free to violate to their hearts content,
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 3 6:58 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            That was my understanding as well, Mary. Governments cannot infringe on our free speech rights, but individuals are free to "violate" to their hearts content, because it isn't a violation. An individual cannot really stop me from speaking my mind, because I can walk away from that conversation/group and say what I want elsewhere. Governments, however, would have the power to completely control speech. Therefore, they cannot be trusted not to abuse that power.

            - Sue


            On Jul 2, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Mary wrote:

            > My understanding is that public governing bodies must guarantee, not infringe upon free speech. The Law is subject to interpretation in the courts. It means to ensure this right incurs expensive legal defense and that in the privacy of my home I can violate to my heart's content and that you, not being a government, can as well.
            >
            > Philosophically, our freedoms imply limits; in fact they beg for them. And this is what the Constitution does; as a living instrument, it philosophically encourages further definition and reason. A law for a freedom presupposes limits in the same manner a law denying freedom presupposes the limit of its enforcement.
            >
            > Mary
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Susan Schnelbach <susan@...> wrote:
            > >
            > > Then, let's have a discussion of what the first amendment says. That might be fun. What is your view of the free speech part of the first amendment?
            > >
            > > And it is usually more productive to have a discussion/debate without the insults, even if that is easier. :)
            > >
            > >
            > > - Sue
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > On Jul 1, 2012, at 8:22 PM, William wrote:
            > >
            > > > Dick may elect to tell this group to get lost but he doesn`t have to. Susan`s interpatation of the first amendment leaves me asking where she got her legal degree along with her existential credentials or any vestage of humanitarianism.
            > > > Now I would invite Mary to the spiders web and challenge her to join existential- ism. It is a new group that wants members to express their own philosophies in their own terms. I am sure Dick is the owner but he might play fair. I would really enjoy hearing where you are really at. I am writing an extended version of my personal philosophy and if you want a piece of me well there it is. Remember, I show you mine you show me yours. Bill
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > >
            >
            >



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mary
            There is however philosophical import, even belief in a moral authority or universality, behind such guarantees, to the extent that they get suspended for what
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 4 8:52 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              There is however philosophical import, even belief in a moral authority or universality, behind such guarantees, to the extent that they get suspended for what some consider pragmatic reasons or exalted whenever children taunt one another or an authority which keeps them from speaking out. Furthermore the Internet is forcing a redefinition of the differences between free speech and laws against libel, slander, defamation, etc. Schools and work places can enact rules against verbal bullying in their respective domains, but should their authority extend into cyberspace or the sidewalks beyond.

              Philosophically speaking, the Law contains contradictions that only a challenge can expose. The Bill of Rights is an indictment against the tyrannical tendency of government, but this doesn't mean that "we" the people aren't capable of the same. The Law points to the contradictions inherent in itself; it exposes how universality actually lies in the singular example of it. If the right of free speech isn't guaranteed for anyone in any situation, how can it ever have a basis in Reason (philosophical, not common)? If we constrain this freedom, the reasoning for such will show this right to have contradictions.

              On what basis is this freedom granted or restrained? I suggest it is both that which is in excess of itself (what we love and defend beyond our understanding) and absolutely nothing (where Real freedom exists).

              Mary

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Susan Schnelbach <susan@...> wrote:
              >
              > That was my understanding as well, Mary. Governments cannot infringe on our free speech rights, but individuals are free to "violate" to their hearts content, because it isn't a violation. An individual cannot really stop me from speaking my mind, because I can walk away from that conversation/group and say what I want elsewhere. Governments, however, would have the power to completely control speech. Therefore, they cannot be trusted not to abuse that power.
              >
              > - Sue
              >
              >
              > On Jul 2, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Mary wrote:
              >
              > > My understanding is that public governing bodies must guarantee, not infringe upon free speech. The Law is subject to interpretation in the courts. It means to ensure this right incurs expensive legal defense and that in the privacy of my home I can violate to my heart's content and that you, not being a government, can as well.
              > >
              > > Philosophically, our freedoms imply limits; in fact they beg for them. And this is what the Constitution does; as a living instrument, it philosophically encourages further definition and reason. A law for a freedom presupposes limits in the same manner a law denying freedom presupposes the limit of its enforcement.
              > >
              > > Mary
              > >
              > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Susan Schnelbach <susan@> wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Then, let's have a discussion of what the first amendment says. That might be fun. What is your view of the free speech part of the first amendment?
              > > >
              > > > And it is usually more productive to have a discussion/debate without the insults, even if that is easier. :)
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > - Sue
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > On Jul 1, 2012, at 8:22 PM, William wrote:
              > > >
              > > > > Dick may elect to tell this group to get lost but he doesn`t have to. Susan`s interpatation of the first amendment leaves me asking where she got her legal degree along with her existential credentials or any vestage of humanitarianism.
              > > > > Now I would invite Mary to the spiders web and challenge her to join existential- ism. It is a new group that wants members to express their own philosophies in their own terms. I am sure Dick is the owner but he might play fair. I would really enjoy hearing where you are really at. I am writing an extended version of my personal philosophy and if you want a piece of me well there it is. Remember, I show you mine you show me yours. Bill
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.