Look before you leap think before you drill.

Agreed 100%. This is not their boat. But will the right people on this site get it?

In Perrie's boat...

Ask them if they know which types of speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Also, ask them to show where in the Constitution appear the words "Freedom of Religion."

Be a long time before you get an answer to that one...

Let's face it, the owner is the boss, and makes the rules. If we want to go there, we obey those rules or "Goodbye Charlie" (an obsolete term typical of the ones on the article I just posted).

But you might get a lot of bunk dancing around those questions as a way of trying to look like they answered them, when they clearly did not.

Here's another eye-opener for the "Freedom of Religion" fans.

The Supreme Court of the United States has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute.

And if one really thinks about it, attempts to proselytize are de facto attempts to recruit "thinkers-of-disparate-religious-thought" and stop them from thinking their way and think the way of the proselytizers thus attempting to have people reconsider both their "freedom of speech" and so-called "freedom of religion."

At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice, and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity, idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.

Aldous Huxley

To whine about free speech is nothing but a canard. This isa private site, and as such the owner of the site can make any rules he/she wants.

It all about being vindictive for some imaginary slight. Most men/women (those with a backbone) would take their complaint direct to the boss. If a resolution could not be reached, than that person has two choices. Play by the rules of the site, or GTFO. It's really as simple as that.

The display of childish behavior, under the false flag of ''freedom of speech'' only shows that those participating in thischildish, vindictive behavior have little or no backbone.

It seems that thewhiners intent is to drive off certain members that do not align themselves with their whining viewpoint. Yet, at the same time, they accuse members oftrying to get XX banned.

Personally I don't care if XX is here or not. I rarely comment on his articles, and see no need to comment on them. Call it what you will, I really don't care, because none of the whiners have clean hands.

Et tu Brute?

Yep Mac, very true...

James Madison.....

The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well - meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.(Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec. 3, 1821).

Benjamin Franklin...

When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when, it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its
Professors are oblig'd to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. (Letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780).

Harry Truman...

As I say, not all of Jefferson's ideas were popular, though most of them were absolutely right.... He was also called an atheist because he didn't believe in a state church, an official church of the government, and in fact made it clear that he didn't much like any church at all, though he did admire many, though not all, of the teachings of religion.... And you'll recall that it was Jefferson, as governor of Virginia, who wrote the Statute of Religious Liberty in 1786, which
said that 'no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship' but that all people 'shall be free to profess ... their opinion in matters of religion.' He summed up very bluntly one time his view that no man harmed anyone else in choosing and practicing his own religion, or no religion. 'It does me no injury,' he said, 'for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.' (Where the Buck Stops;
The Personal and Private Writings of Harry S. Truman, ed. by Margaret Truman; New York: Warner Books, Inc., 1989, pp. 212-213).

JFK....

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew or a Quaker- or a Unitarian- or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril. (Speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, September 12, 1960).

Jimmy Carter....

I don't accept human definitions of what I have to believe, you know, to be a Christian. (Interview, USA Today, May 12, 1986).

From our founders and great leaders, these are but a few, understood that religion, the acts of the faithful, are between him and his god and no one else.

"The display of childish behavior, under the false flag of ''freedom of speech'' only shows that those participating in thischildish, vindictive behavior have little or no backbone."

when you say "childish" are you including those who put up articles to MOCK others religion?

"ask them to show where in the Constitution appear the words "Freedom of Religion."

WOW, a trick question, Just because the exact words "freedom of religion" are not used in the Constitution I'm sure you are NOT going to try and tell us we have NO freedom of religion.

I believe the first sentence in the Bill of Rights covers that argument quite well.... don't you?

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.

Proselytizing in and of itself is not the problem. Just create a blog or group for it and go crazy, but keep it off from the Front Page because, no matter how you cut it, it is advertising to sell a product and that's not allowed on the Front Page.

WOW, a trick question, Just because the exact words "freedom of religion" are not used in the Constitution I'm sure you are NOT going to try and tell us we have NO freedom of religion.

It's only a trick if one uses the phrase as if it were written thus and guaranteed thus in the Constitution -- which it is not. Rather than speculate on what you think I may or may not be trying to tell you, first grasp what I am telling you.

"Making no lawrespecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does not bless nor encourage the idea of proselytizing, lobbying, coercing or otherwise attempting to alter or change another's religious beliefs or the lack thereof.

Overtly stating or strongly implying that one's religious beliefs are somehow invalid, sinful, out-of-step or non-conforming, ARE SINGLY AND COLLECTIVELY, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, ATTEMPTS TO ABROGATE THE SO-CALLED "Freedom of" or "the free exercise" of religion and a form of an attempt to abridge the freedom of speech.

Exercising one's freedom of anything to thwart another's freedom of anything is over-the-line in terms of personal freedom. To view freedom as an absolute without boundaries is simply a failure to comprehend the very idea of freedom in a democracy.

There is a significant difference in "mocking" a religion and pointing out the hypocrisies of those who talk-its-talk but fail to walk its walk. Mockery is making fun -- calling out hypocrisy -- particularly pointing to the specifics that show lip service vs. true belief, is legitimate and fair game.

Love it or hate it, at least it's been exciting, and generated a ton of discussion.

And isn't that what blogging is all about?

If we can go back-and-forth on a hot topic and good points are made articulately from all sides of the issue, it doesn't get any better.

A strong, hard to viably rebut comment is more valid and more satisfying than a mere insult made out of frustration and anger.

,..." does not bless nor encourage the idea of proselytizing,"

Lets go to the next part of the first sentence where it says "or abridging the freedom of speech" I believe " proselytizing" is covered under free speech. Don't you?

You asked if we knew what was not covered under free speech. Actually NOTHING is excluded from free speech. That's not to say that what is said has NO consequences.

AS my NO vote qualified that the denigration are subject to the same requirements the rest are...

Equal time, equal balance.

No republithug = no democrap

No evanglizing = no religious insulting.

Fair & balanced.

It's already in the CoC, just adding more specific words cause some don't get the balance.

...but mostly I think it's just fear and pointless vindictiveness.

Now there's a thought!

I believe " proselytizing" is covered under free speech. Don't you?

I believe it to be borderline but it is probably a form of "free speech," more an issue of the "spirit of the law" than the letter. It depends on how coercive or intrusive are the attempts to proselytize.

By definition convert or attempt to convert (someone) from one religion, belief, or opinion to another

advocate or promote (a belief or course of action) : Davis wanted to share his concept and proselytize his ideas.

You asked if we knew what was not covered under free speech. Actually NOTHING is excluded from free speech. That's not to say that what is said has NO consequences.

I asked if you knew which forms of speech were not protected by the 1st Amendment. There are, in fact, a number of exclusions

Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (includes libel, slander)
• Child pornography
• Perjury
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crimes

"Isn't it okay to mock other's religion... I mean isn't that free speech?" I simply asked if wnen he used the word Childish did it include those who Mocked others religion. I said NOTHING about NOT being able to do it......

"It's not that ya'll care about free speech, ya'll mostly want to mess with the Left.

Ya'll didn't want the Left to be able to call ya'll racists, and I didn't see a metaplosion over that bit of overt censorship." Really? how delusional of you. You have NO idea as to what my political views are!

metaplosion ? did you mean to say metaplasia?

I loved that!

"Toevery thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven"

RW, I also think it is in POOR taste....

LR, what do you think. Am I including them, or am I speaking to a specific series of events currently taking place on NT?

It seems fairly clearwho/what my comment included. But you can make your decision.

Thank you for your question.

Kav, who am I to stand in the way of thePot calling theKettle black......

"Which types of speech are not protected by the First Amendment?

Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:"

You need to get a NEW list.....

You need to get a NEW list.....

OK.

Unprotected speech means speech that is subjected to regulations issued by the government. It means speech that is completely prohibited subject to governmental regulations. Unprotected speech can be classified into obscenity, fighting words, fraudulent misrepresentation, advocacy of imminent lawless behavior, and defamation. Threats are also treated as unprotected speech because they constitute intimidation.

Here's one

While freedom of speech in the United States is a constitutional right, these exceptions make that right a limited one.

Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection.

Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection.

I can post specific laws from certain states too

California Penal Code Section 422 Californias law on criminal threats defines criminal threats as the crime of threatening to kill or seriously injure someone. The crime is committed when you intentionally place another person in fear of being killed or seriously injured.Criminal threats charges can be filed as either a misdemeanor or a felony. In both scenarios, the penalties can be severe and life changing. Under California penal code 422 a threat made:

Say when

AP November 30, 2014, 7:08 PM

When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?

cbsnews...

Need more?

I disagree completely. I see lots of holes in the boat that have been drilled in the last few days.

Yes it is, and we are fighting to keep it that way.

So there are a few holes in the boat and the ship is listing slightly, do we argue about who created the holes or do we plug them with every available finger?

When first responders put out a fire started by an arsonist, once the fire is extinguished, is there, ex post facto, no arsonist?

This is a metaphor of course, but are you suggesting that anything goes as long as we can fix it down the road? What I am saying is, metaphorically stated, "think before you drill and consider the potential consequences."

....Or learn to live with soggy shoes.

(sorry but most people I know prefer dry shoes)

Was it the Byrd's that sang that song?

They did with slight revisions, and Pete Seeger did as well.

I wish it was that simple.

The shoes I'm talking about or referring to are metaphoric in nature, and very expensive to "Dry Out" if you can even afford to try.

Emphasis on "All"

"Say when" say when for what? when are you going to STOP confusing state, federal and local laws with the Constitution / Bill of Rights?

Of course I'm sure you can show us EXACTLY where in the Constitution it says I can't say FUCK. an obvious obscenity. Show us EXACTLY where in the Constitution it says I can't say AMac is a Leper......Please show us EXACTLY where in the Constitution it says I can't Yell Fire in a crowded theater. and show us EXACTLY where in the constitution it says I can't say I want to whoop your ass......

Like I said earlier,... Free speech has NO limits, it does however have consequences.....

Soggy shoes dry out eventually,

But the foot infections linger and sometimes leave permanent damage.

Enthused over bullshite garbage.

Wonderful, something every intelligent poster wants to strive for.

is this a meta article?

This is an article about the potential consequences and collateral damage that might result from individual behaviors that either ignore, or, inadvertently create untenable situations.

Does that constitute "meta" content?

As an adjective, "meta" means

referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.

You tell me.

Yes consequences,

Laws run the gamut from all law, (complete totalitarianism)

to no law, (complete anarchy)

So are you saying that your an anarchist LR? That a society doesn't need some form of rules? you mention consequences, having to respect the chance of consequences implies that there are rules one might be deemed applicable.

The question becomes how many rules.

You seem to be advocating the fewest possible, since you are stating that you recognize the need for at least some.

How many are good in your mind?

Because you are clearly stating your belief that there is no limit to anything that comes out of your mouth.

Like I said earlier,... Free speech has NO limits, it does however have consequences..

A note of truth here, My own brother got his ass thrown out of my own house physically cause he held to such beliefs.

So in essence, your allowed to say anything anywhere you wish until someone kicks your ass for saying it?

Do I understand your position correctly?

Pretty bullish way of viewing free speech don't ya think?

when are you going to STOP confusing state, federal and local laws with the Constitution / Bill of Rights?

Possibly when you understand that federal and local laws that violate the Constitution, are, in fact, "unconstitutional."

Please show us EXACTLY where in the Constitution it says I can't Yell Fire in a crowded theater. and show us EXACTLY where in the constitution it says I can't say I want to whoop your ass......

Did you know we have a Supreme Court that determines the meaning, scope and implementation of those situations not stipulated EXACTLY within the Constitution? Check out a law library sometime and you will realize that, as it turns out, much in the law is written after litigation.

"Possibly when you understand that federal and local laws that violate the Constitution, are, in fact, "unconstitutional."" WHAT??? You are NOT making any sense NOW. Unless you are talking about the stae and federal laws according to AMac being Unconstitutional.

Needless to say you just got your butt kicked to the curb with YOUR list and reasoning,....just pick yourself up and brush yourself off.... all is good And that's southern speak for, ... you figure it out....

Needless to say you just got your butt kicked to the curb....

Not hardly.

AS I see it, you can claim it, but it doesn't make it fact.

But that is what you get when you ignore the point then claim some sort of "Victory"

Unless you are talking about the stae and federal laws according to AMac being Unconstitutional.

Your inability to comprehend, that combined with your apparent need to try and denigrate anyone who hands you your ass in the form of specific and accurate responses to YOUR QUESTIONS

makes me feel sad for you.

Possibly you don't fully understand your own questions, hence, not the answers to them as well.

The fact that states have laws restricting certain types of speech, and, that those laws continue to stand, indicates that they are consistent with the U.S. Constitution -- otherwise, such laws would be overturned at one or more levels of the judicial system.

NOT ALL SPEECH IS PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Here's an example PERJURY IF ALL SPEECH WAS PROTECTED, IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO CHARGE ANYONE FOR LYING UNDER OATH IN A COURT OF LAW.

well then show us EXACTLY where in the Constitution is says we can't commit prudery......I'll wait

prudery

the act of claiming to be easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity

As I explained, many legal precedents, tenets laws do not express every conceivable permutation in EXACT terms. That is why courts and appellate courts and legal scholars continue to keep busy.

He can call me stupid all he wants, ....I'm NOT the one getting kicked to the curb,.....

Some explanations don't require interpretation; but I look forward to your interpretation of the comments LR posted that led directly to my responses (interpreted above by you).

I'm not moderating here, I'm posting as a member.

Your apparent need to interpret specific, relevant language to the vernacular, is unnecessary for the more literate.

But, providing a service is admirable.

Obviously you guys live on a different planet than everyone else.

One where fact and knowledge is dismissed.

Sad, very sad.

But I didn't call you "stupid," your counselor implied that I did.

I'd use someone more erudite.

Why not go back and explain why the comments you interpreted are not specific and germane, in sequence and directed to what preceded them?

The "entire community!"

In that case, I should close my membership and go. I do not wish to be where I am not welcomed.

Than you for your candor.

I will learn from this

"Skirting the CoC and shitting on other members."

I should be ashamed (as should any among us who would do such things).

"Skirting the CoC."

WTF was I thinking?

Thank you for being a MONITOR.

As for

Why not be forthcoming?

Metaphorically "kicking ass," that is, specifically addressing disparaging remarks that clearly show frustration rather than understanding and doing so in standard english rather than in vernacularize, is in fact, being "forthcoming."

What is not "forthcoming" is posting stuff like you know.

I'm sorry it has gotten to this, BF. I like you but sometimes you cross the line then become offended and aggressive when properly called on it.

I didn't say you were moderating, reread my comment.

Your words, BF.

This concludes an Episode of How Amac Moderator and chief insults and skirts the CoC on his Meta article.

Mocking is not, calling out hypocrisy is.

The point is walk your talk, and allow others their ideals.

Both libertarian staples.

So mocking a religion is fair game but promoting one however generically isn't?

Did I not answer that just above?

If I repost it, will you still question as if I never addressed your question?

In response again