Entry: The Rather Bill Monday, September 20, 2004



Arguments for.....

Though I am for free speech I do think that it is important us to have sensible speech legislation. We can not continue to allow organizations such as Swift Boat Veterans and Moveon.org to have unchecked free speech. We put our children at risk everyday by allowing assault speech on the streets.

When they come home, they are subjected to hate speech from cruel newscasters, hence the title of the bill

This is not about infringing on your free speech, it's about sensible free speech laws. We would follow similiar laws on the books which will guide who should not be allowed to have speech, much less assault speech.

¤In 1998, hurt speech speech was used to hurt Monica's feelings, as well as the well known damage to the first family. In Iraq, nobody accused the President of sexual immorality. 16 cases of hurt speech and 0 cases of assault speech in Cuba, 13 cases of hurt speech and 2 assault speeches in North Korea. 16 cases of hurt speech and 1 case of assault speech in Canada, while there were 29,685 cases of hurt speech and 9390 cases of assault speech in the United States.

¤Homes that have speech are 22 times more likely to be used in domestic arguments, while hate speech notes often accompany suicide-related thoughts. When someone is home, a hurt words such as 'get out' often don't have the same impact as assault speech words such as "move an inch and I shoot. Only two percent of criminals overcome the psychological impact of assault speech during crimes.

¤A study that compared 26 industrialized countries reported that the unintentional hurt feelings rate for children 0-14 is nine times higher in the U.S. than in the other 25 countries combined.

¤During 1999, 52% of all free speech victims under 18 in the U.S. were hurt by assault speech. In 1998, a total of 3,792 Americans ages 19 or under cried because of hurt speech, assault speech and mean thoughts. For every child devastated by assault speech, four are hurt by hurt speech.

Millions of children are subjected to hurt speech in the classroom, while teacher take a potty break. How can our children even learn in the classroom with hurt speech so rampant?

And if that is not enough, many children are forced to walk home or ride the bus with a distracted driver. This is were unmonitered speech turns into assault speech. Many children come home crying because they were subjected to assault speech. What's worse is that assault speech leads to even more violent behaviour. Our children are becoming addicted to assault speech at an alarming rate and school suspension have risen 33% since 1943. This is mostly due to fighting which sprung up from assault speech.

We cannot allow Dan Rather and other assault speech addicts corrupt the minds of our children. We are seeing forged test on the rise. Children in states that the SBVFT Ads were played are now questioning whether or not their parents graduated high school, and just last week, BobInNY spanked his son because his son called him 'Hitler' after watching a Moveon.org commercial on the internet.

How It Works
McCain Fiengold did not do enough, we must do more for our children, we can do better!" Assault speech ban to include five day "cooling off" period. All speech should be applied for through the FBI. When you feel like saying something, you submit it to the FBI assault speech division where it will be analyzed and a background check will be done to see if you have abused speech and/or prohibited from owning a gun. Of course, if you weren't responsible enough to own a gun, why would you be responsible enough to have speech?

After five days, your speech is either approved or rejected. If rejected, you may submit speech two more times. The three strikes and your out rule is enforced. If your speech is approved then you may take the speech and use it at your free will, however, it will expire 30 days after approval.

This is not about infringing on anybodies right to free speech, but we don't believe that a nine year old should use a bazooka of assault speech in his backyard either. If parents can not raise their children properly, then the government needs to do something.

All speech will have the same restrictions as gun laws. Source of information

   6 comments

Christian Lott
September 22, 2004   10:25 AM PDT
 
Nice 360!

Good perspective. However, the FBI seems to be the weakest point in your argument.

There should be lists. People maintain lists of issues. Under the lists of issues, we place arguments (of all sides). Going down a list of arguments, we have facts.

It's not much different than doing inventory. And in implementing laws accordingly wouldn't involve much more than programming. Nature does it, our biology does it, so why should our politics not?

Let's recap. List of issues. List of arguments (under the issue). And list of facts, under the arguments.

This is of course not the only way to derive knowledge, yet the application is politics and thus just laws (programmed).

All issues not being equal, we give those issues ratings of importance measured in voter volume. Voter volume consists of a voter bank account. With computers this is suddenly plausible and gives more accurate resolution to your vote. No longer will we rely on the ONE vote every four years, we will have a constant status account (like a bank account) where we set points to individual issues. Polling votes is outdated.

Importance of an issue depends on weight. How many people are sitting on the for/against of it. Weight (or as I said earlier, volume) shows the issues importance to the American people.

This is just a rough draft of a new voting scheme. Have you ever heard of anything like this or anyone attempting to implement anything like this? It would certainly allow for more people to express their beliefs in the vote and in a more effective, exact and consistent manner.

Tell me what you think. The FBI is bound to fuck up. Just like cops, they collect evidence and enforce the laws which mean the most to them. There is a certain kind of person who becomes a cop, and sometimes they do not represent what the majority of Americas voters would hold dearest.

Fuck the FBI, let's put this system to the vote. A rolling constant vote which truly represents America at every new phase.

So where do the issues stop? If we can vote on any and all issues all the time, swaying this way and that with the percentage points of our one vote, at what point, for what issue are we not allowed to vote? None.

The system, much like the stock market includes volume. Voter volume. Didn't someone already put this idea forth in some guise?

John Poindexter. Anyone else?

It's the evolution of the voting system using computer technology.

Christian Lott

c65@cox.net
Libertarian
September 22, 2004   12:29 AM PDT
 
Haha, point taken Jeffery. But then again, you probably would also agree, extremism exists on both sides of the debate. Just as there are many lunatic and whacko liberals out there, there are also sizeable minority of those from the right who are real nut-jobs.

The best way to deal with idiots like these is to just ignore them. They contribute nothing to the debate, and only fuel the flames of hatred and intolerande.

And just for the record, even though we have our differences (though I'd aay they are slight, as conservatives and libertarians have much in common), I have never thought of you as fascist, redneck or moron.

You've always been patient and sensible, and willing to engage opinions that differ from your own in a reasoned debate. In other words, you're ok. =)
Scott Salyer
September 22, 2004   12:28 AM PDT
 
what i mean is, i see what you're saying but don't think the comparison works. mean words don't cause massive chest wounds. and there is restriction on speech. you cannot, as the classic example states, falsely yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre, because that could get people killed. why the hell is it so hard to wait 5 days for a gun anyway. you can't plan a hunting trip in advance? you are pretty sure your house will get robbed tomorrow? i think not.

do you really think that the government will take away your hunting rifles and handguns? hell no! the lobby is too big and the backlash would be enormous.

the point is that every freedom we enjoy in this country has restrictions. my freedoms must be balanced with yours.
Scott Salyer
September 22, 2004   12:19 AM PDT
 
if there's no problem with restricting speech, do you have a problem with restricting guns?
Jeffery
September 21, 2004   09:50 PM PDT
 
I understand that, but it also seems to me that tolerance means that some people in society can do whatever they want to whoever they want, yet at the same time can get offended over the slightest thing. Take a look at the other Andrew in the side. He's exactly what I am talking about.

Tolerance should not be the one way street that it has become.
Libertarian
September 21, 2004   02:25 AM PDT
 
I'm sure you realise that even in the gay community there are many different types of people. As far as I know, the gays who I know are "normal", meaning having the same values as you and I, EXCEPT that they are gay. This also means that they find things like NAMBLA an aberration.

I hope you understand, there is a sizeable gay demographic who vote Republican, as they believe in limited government, freedom and liberty for all.

The thing is, there are 3 positions you can take. The first one is a hands off position. Government does not interfere with private consensual activities between adults. I'm sure most people will agree with this position whether they are gay or not.

The 2nd position is making laws which in some way benefit gays ONLY. I'm sure that there are plenty of gay conservatives who would openly opposed such a position, much less straights.

And the last position you can take is making laws that take away rights from gays ONLY. And this is where the crux of the problem lies.

I agree with you Jeffery, that us straight people don't care about what gay adults do in the privacy of their own homes. But then that's only YOUR position. I'm sure you realise that that's not the mainstream position in Republican politics. The consensus seems to be that gays are not "normal" and therefore do not deserve the same rights as straight people.

Although I'm not gay, I'm sure you understand my position as a libertarian. As much as I don't give a shit about what gay adults do in the privacy of their own homes, I must support them having the same rights as the rest of us. Liberty and justice is for all. Even Ronald Reagan would agree.

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments