Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Well that Chik-A-Phil thing was more the other way around: the public boycotting a store because of the owner's beliefs. That's much less controversial, since you have the right to take your dollars elsewhere.

A little bit more than that. It might have had to do a bit more with where the chain's money was going.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Also peeps, not sure if poking fun at the brand or not, but it's Chick-Fil-A. Happy Debating.

[Reelya]

The original Hippocratic Oath forbids a lot of things. Surgery in general, for instance. We've updated it a few times.

It only forbid's giving a pessary to cause an abortion. Since it doesn't mention any other method, those are completely fine. You can't use a knife either, that's banned. But an axe isn't a knife or a pessary, so get creative with solutions.

When you read those sorts of documents you should be on the lookout for loopholes or wording you can exploit. That's how it's done.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

Can we just ban all official forms of public address and advertisement as related to religion? If you have a religion, fantastic, do it behind closed doors. Churches are still cool, just can't be spreading the word outside it or your own home.

Free speech. That violates it.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Can we just ban all official forms of public address and advertisement as related to religion? If you have a religion, fantastic, do it behind closed doors. Churches are still cool, just can't be spreading the word outside it or your own home.

Free speech. That violates it.

The US (EDIT: Mostly through legal precedent) has frequently (in a historical sense) put limitations on free speech.

[MrRoboto75]

Freedom of Speech is mainly about speaking out against the government and not being disapeared/killed/sent to gulag over what you said.

[smjjames]

The original Hippocratic Oath forbids a lot of things. Surgery in general, for instance. We've updated it a few times.

It only forbid's giving a pessary to cause an abortion. Since it doesn't mention any other method, those are completely fine. You can't use a knife either, that's banned. But an axe isn't a knife or a pessary, so get creative with solutions.

When you read those sorts of documents you should be on the lookout for loopholes or wording you can exploit. That's how it's done.

The general idea of the Hippocratic Oath is 'do no harm'. Though this gets complicated when it comes to abortions.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Freedom of Speech is mainly about speaking out against the government and not being disapeared/killed/sent to gulag over what you said.

Still relevant, as if what I suggested was actually law, there could be legal consequences--on both state and federal levels.

Also, considering that most "preaching" or "religious advertisement", as I'll call it, should probably be classified somewhere between obscene and commercially false speech already, it should be regulated anyways.

And furthermore, I'm not sure it's infringing on your freedom of speech at all, as this only affects the blatant advertising of religion. You can still talk to people about religion wherever you want, but if begin to bother people about it, or intend to do so loudly where others can't avoid you, and you're a clergyman/self-associated with a religion/or otherwise some manner of spokesperson, it's a crime.

EDIT: Freedom of Religion should extend to Freedom from Religion as well. Ideally anyways.

EDITEDIT: AND FINALLY, just because something is "constitutional" does NOT mean it SHOULD be that way. Especially if the changes uphold the spirit of the original document (which I believe mine do.)

[smjjames]

Freedom of Speech is mainly about speaking out against the government and not being disapeared/killed/sent to gulag over what you said.

Still relevant, as if what I suggested was actually law, there could be legal consequences--on both state and federal levels.

Also, considering that most "preaching" or "religious advertisement", as I'll call it, should probably be classified somewhere between obscene and commercially false speech already, it should be regulated anyways.

And furthermore, I'm not sure it's infringing on your freedom of speech at all, as this only affects the blatant advertising of religion. You can still talk to people about religion wherever you want, but if begin to bother people about it, or intend to do so loudly where others can't avoid you, and you're a clergyman/self-associated with a religion/or otherwise some manner of spokesperson, it's a crime.

EDIT: Freedom of Religion should extend to Freedom from Religion as well. Ideally anyways.

EDITEDIT: AND FINALLY, just because something is "constitutional" does NOT mean it SHOULD be that way. Especially if the changes uphold the spirit of the original document (which I believe mine do.)

Does blatant advertising include those people who ring doorbells and give pamphlets?

Also, hate speech (which would be 'obscene') is considered free speech, meaning you won't be charged with a crime for doing it, but when you act on it or incite violence with it, yes it's a crime. I'm just saying that there are things which are considered obscene, and are rightfully condemned, but is still free speech.

[Shadowlord]

You should probably actually read the first amendment, Urist.

[smjjames]

Besides, if someone is bothering people about it or shouting so loudly that people can't escape from it or otherwise creating a scene, that's when you call the cops and have them deal with it. Because being a nuisance is a thing.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

I'd say yes to the door-knockers and pamphleteers. I'm of a pretty strict ideology that you should not be bothered in your own home (not without exception.)

Also the thing is obscene or libelous/slanderous hate speech isn't protected. You can say you hate jews freely sure, but if you call Randy McJewstein down the street the ultimate evil who regularly commits sodomy and dodges taxes--you're losing a libel or slander case.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

You should probably actually read the first amendment, Urist.

read the first amendment, Urist.

first amendment

amendment

Hmmm, almost like it amended something--adding or changing a previously different interpretation of the base Constitution. But we can't do that now, can we? The Constitution DEFINITELY ISN'T a living document to be changed based partly on the will of the people.

EDIT: You should probably actually understand how both amendments in general and the process by which they can be applied to the constitution work.

[smjjames]

You should probably actually read the first amendment, Urist.

read the first amendment, Urist.

first amendment

amendment

Hmmm, almost like it amended something--adding or changing a previously different interpretation of the base Constitution. But we can't do that now, can we? The Constitution DEFINITELY ISN'T a living document to be changed based partly on the will of the people.

Pardon for asking, but are you American? Then again, some Americans may miss the point of the First Amendment too.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Yes.