Think about it. We could have ran some sort of plan that extended constitutional protection to freedom of assault. Then when the questions came, we could have demonstrated exactly what type of new freedom was being protected. What would those judges have done? Seeing as most of them were pretty unfit for any type of physical activity, I venture to say not much.

Man alive, we would have dominated. You disagree?! Don’t make me go Thrasymachus on your ass! Now that’s an Argumentum ad baculum. I’ve always wanted to use that phrase. It’s totally verbose to do so, but it works so well in this situation. Sorry.

I, DmacAttack, support an individuals right to:
(A) Free speech
(B) assault someone for speaking
(C) Neither A nor B
(D) Both A and B

Answer Key
(A) Excellent, that’s the right answer.
(B) Great job. This too is a correct answer if you say so.
(C) Another excellent answer and if you support neither free speech nor the right to assault someone for speaking it too is 100% correct.
(D) I’m sorry. This answer is definitely wrong but I was afraid you would select it because you previously wrote the following:

“And those head knockers have just as much a right to their opinion and their freedom of speech as the guy burning the flag. And in the end, their right to knock a knot on your head should also be protected as well. (paragraph break) I take freedom of speech very seriously, as we all should.”

You see, in this passage you support free speech, assaulting one who speaks and then free speech. What you don’t seem to understand is that freedom of speech and freedom of assualt are mutually exclusive. If you have freedom of speech and I have freedom to assault you then you don’t have free speech.

You reiterated this point in your next post:

“When referning the flag burners, I firmly believe that anyone who wants to burn a flag has the right to do so under the auspices of free speech. The flip side is that a person who decides the way to stop the flag burning they don’t agree with is to slap somebody up side their head should be afforded the same guarantees of free speech.”

So there it is again: A juxtaposition of supprt for free speech with the assertion that violence against the speaker is to be reasonably expected. Taken together, these quotes make it clear that you think assaulting someone for engaging in offensive speech either is or should be a right protected under the first amendment.

You asked how your original message could be construed as condoning assault on a child. Let me show you how anyone could reach the same conclusion. You wrote:

“…Will’s rights to exercise the same should be wrapped in the very flag he refuses to acknowledge. Regardless of where you stand on same gender marriage, the right to stand up for what you believe in should never be compromised. It is the tenet of a free society, but it comes with knowledge that you accept both the good and the bad in the process.” (end of paragraph)

What is this “bad” of which you speak? Let’s read the next sentence and see if we learn more about the “bad”.

“Those that choose to burn the flag in protest have the right to do so as long as they realize that their actions are going to spur others that feel differently to knock a knot on their head.”

You say that Will should be willing to accept the good and the bad that comes as a result of his protest but you don’t define the “bad”. In the very next sentence you draw a parallel between Will’s protest and flag burning. In the case of Will, you indicate that “bad” should be expected. In the case of flag burning you indicate that the “bad” that results from such a protest is violence against the protester.

If I misunderstand you, answer the obvious question: What is the “bad” Will should expect as a result of his protest it it is not a knot on his head?

I know you will say I’m misrepresenting what you said but there is a basic fact here. The discussion is about a ten year old protesting for rights to be extended to homosexuals. You raised the possibility of violence and said it should be protected speech and then repeated that claim. If you are not suggesting assault on a ten year old or a homosexual, who are the intended victims of the assaults you say should be constitutionally protected?

Let’s continue:

In your second post you wrote:
“My point is, was and continues to be that you can’t puff out your chest and soapbox the cause of free speech, then turn around and deny someone else that baisc right because they don’t agree with your point of view.”

I agree and yet that is exactly what you are doing. You are supporting free speech and then stating that people who object to speech have a right to use violence to stop the speech.

If you condone violence against someone engaging in objectionable speech or say violence is a right that should be protected (as you have repeatedly) you don’t believe in free speech at all. It’s the exact opposite of free speech.

I think we both agree that free speech should be protected but you and I define free speech differently so supporting free speech means very different things to each of us. I define it the way the constitution and the courts define it. You seem to define it the way Timothy McVay does.

You suggest that I am spewing typical liberal crap. I don’t know how you define liberal or conservative. The only opinions I have espoused here is support for free speech and a condemnation of discussing violence in the context of a 10 year old and homosexuals. Does that make me a liberal in your book? You must have a very interesting definition of liberal and conservative.

Please write more. I really enjoy it.

I think your problem might be that you mistakenly believe that “What [you] do and what [you] say is protected by the Constitution.” There is that first amendment that protects most speech, but I’m not familiar with the right to do anything. Extending that nonexistent right to protect unwanted physical on another person is really pretty shocking. I know this is just a discussion, but if you don’t understand why free speech is valuable and protectable while assault is not, then you will never see why making a statement is worth applauding while attacking someone who is making a statement is not.

Yes unfortunately if 90% of people did believe this way, they get the right to express it. Whatever the percentage is, its just some people kissing, in context of all the crazy stuff that gets on TV its rather lite.

You always have to wonder when someone does an act that achieves them fame. This kid seems genuinely intelligent and ready to talk at length about this topic.

If 90% of the people believe something THAT is a bigoted belief, they still have the RIGHT to believe that way and exercise their freedom of speech when expousing those beliefs.

I took the 90% road because “they” tell us that 10% of the population is gay. I’ve had gay people tell me they were offended by Lambert’s performance. Take away all of the “imprompteau moments” and it was still not a performance worthy of inclusion aired on network television.

You’re barking up the wrong tree here. I have a daughter that is in a committed same sex relationship and she and her partner have 100% of my backing and approval. This issue NEVER WAS about homosexuality..it’s about trotting out a ten year old boy using “freedom of speech” to promote an agenda that his parents are probably benefitting financially from.

The “typical liberal crap” comes from people taking a point of view and twisiting the context to fit their argument and agenda. That’s the way it always is. If you can’t refute the point being made with a valid argument, then head it off at the pass by changing the subject.

That’s the only tyipcal “liberal crap” I’m talking about.

Also, this “90%” of people should be allowed to express their views. It would fall to the job of the media to intellectually explain why this is a bigoted belief.

“Those that choose to burn the flag in protest have the right to do so as long as they realize that their actions are going to spur others that feel differently to knock a knot on their head. And those head knockers have just as much a right to their opinion and their freedom of speech as the guy burning the flag. And in the end, their right to knock a knot on your head should also be protected as well.”

Yopu said this:

“Second, haven’t we learned anything about suggesting violence as a means of dealing with those in favor of the rights of homosexuals? Some people actually believe it is perfectly acceptable to put a knot in a gay’s head before dragging them behind a truck until dead or tying them on a fence and leaving them to die of exposure. There’s a big down side though. Homosexuals work out a lot and there is nothing more embarrasing than getting your butt kicked by a homosexual. That’s pretty hard to live down at the next klan rally.”

Perhaps I misunderstood though and the writer is suggesting someone assault the ten year old instead. ”

That’s a highly selective intepretation of my words. I never once infurred (or would I condone) violance against anyone based on race, gender or sexual prefereance. I also do not see how what I worte could be consistent with me suggesting an assualt of a ten year old.

My point is, was and continues to be that you can’t puff out your chest and soapbox the cause of free speech, then turn around and deny someone else that baisc right because they don’t agree with your point of view.

Here’s another perfect example…

Adam Lambert had every right in the world to prance around on the stage, dry hump his dancers and kiss his wash tub player, but him and his followers just can’t fathom the backlash because, after all, he was just expressing his artistic freedom. (Forget the choreography. If tnat’s the best song he could come up with after almost a year in the studio, his career is in serious trouible.)

But his antics also offended the 90% of the viewing population that isn’t gay and the Lambert fans act like those so offended shouldn’t be allowed to voice their opinon about how crappy his performance was on the AMA’s.

Again, freedom of speech is a big deal as long as the exercising of same promotes YOUR agenda. When referning the flag burners, I firmly believe that anyone who wants to burn a flag has the right to do so under the auspices of free speech. The flip side is that a person who decides the way to stop the flag burning they don’t agree with is to slap somebody up side their head should be afforded the same guarantees of free speech.

You don’t get to have it both ways. What I do and what I say is protected by the constituion, but since I don’t agree with YOU, you don’t get the same treatment. That’s my point entirely.

How you stretched that into I was advocating violance against gays and children is beyond me.

Oh, wait. I get it. I don’t agree with you, so my point of view is moot.

Typical liberal crap.

“Those that choose to burn the flag in protest have the right to do so as long as they realize that their actions are going to spur others that feel differently to knock a knot on their head. And those head knockers have just as much a right to their opinion and their freedom of speech as the guy burning the flag. And in the end, their right to knock a knot on your head should also be protected as well.”

Will these others be wearing a cone hat and a sheet perhaps?

My first observation is that assault is not speech.

Second, haven’t we learned anything about suggesting violence as a means of dealing with those in favor of the rights of homosexuals? Some people actually believe it is perfectly acceptable to put a knot in a gay’s head before dragging them behind a truck until dead or tying them on a fence and leaving them to die of exposure. There’s a big down side though. Homosexuals work out a lot and there is nothing more embarrasing than getting your butt kicked by a homosexual. That’s pretty hard to live down at the next klan rally.

Perhaps I misunderstood though and the writer is suggesting someone assault the ten year old instead.

I do agree with dmacattack that we need a constitutional amendment to protect the right of adults to assault effiminate men and children up to 4’8″ and 70 pounds.

Personally, I always thought the pledge of allegiance was pretty inane. It wasn’t as inane as the pledge to the christian flag I had to say in second and third grade. That always made me think it was time to saddle up and invade the middle east to rid it of the infidels. Years later I know better and I recognize that I am one of the infidels.