The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 23, 2010, 06:08 PM   #26
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2007
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 154
Good luck with that dude.
Finem Respice Consider the end
Principils Obsta Resist the beginings
Ditto_95 is offline  
Old December 24, 2010, 02:43 PM   #27
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,536
Actually, I believe it is protected....

Freedom of speech....

As far as I'm concerned any network or news organization trying to send a public message has a responsibility to impart accurately contexed information.

Fear mongering through out of context and inaccurate to even entirely misrepresented information by political oriented groups is not protected under freedom of speech, it's fraud and it's meant to deceive gullible people into acting based on emotional reactions.
Our legal protection of free speech applies only to the government taking action against us. Inaccurate, and/or deliberately false speech comes under the heading of slander or libel, and that is only applicable to parties "harmed" by such speech or writings.

You and I can be deliberately mislead, or even lied to, and unless that causes us definable, personal harm, we have no legal recourse.

Yes, anyone putting out a public message has a moral responsibility to tell the truth, but there is no legal responsibility to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, outside of sworn statements in court.

Remember Mark Twain's quote (attributed to him, anyway)
"If you do not read the newspaper, you are uninformed.
If you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed."
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old December 24, 2010, 03:58 PM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 633
Justice Black explained that language in Reid v. Covert and really laid to rest the question
Thanks for posting that, gc70. I had not read that before.
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old December 25, 2010, 02:40 AM   #29
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,068
It's amazing what people - and nations - can accomplish when they cooperate. A treaty is simply an agreement to cooperate on something where cooperation is perceived to be of mutual benefit. It does not imply an abdication of sovereignty. It is a practice of sovereignty. Human rights and the international arms trade are both areas in which cooperation can be effective.

Acting as if one's nation were not only sovereign unto itself but the sovereign ruler of the world does not seem, on balance, to contribute much to that nation's security or the ultimate preservation of its sovereignty
With all due respect, that's analogous to describing a Jew walking into a death chamber at Auschwitz as exercising an act of self-defense. Nation-states with deep and abiding respect for their own national sovereignty do not permit other nations to meddle in their internal affairs. Period.
csmsss is offline  
Old December 25, 2010, 10:25 AM   #30
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Proclaiming an intention or making public promises to sign/ratify a treaty, to knowingly(or not) find yourself in violation of same, doesn't seem like a productive way to govern unless you want UN sanctions placed against your country. Yeah we got the Constitution.

Why even collaborate on such a thing?
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old December 25, 2010, 11:25 AM   #31
Join Date: September 28, 2010
Location: hopewell va
Posts: 73
bottom line is,we need to get the hell out of the u.n. and kick them out of this country.
dusterdude is offline  
Old December 25, 2010, 11:38 AM   #32
Glenn E. Meyer
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,553
A touch too much thread drift. If we want to get back to the specifics and NOT wander off into a vague rant on the UN, ok.

Otherwise, it will be closed.
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 25, 2010, 02:55 PM   #33
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,730
i've been an NRA member for over 50 years. i do not like it one bit when the NRA exaggerates these issues: It degrades the credibility of that organization. The NRA-ILA did the same thing when the BATF came out with their proposed new regulation on manufacture, transport and storage of ammo and explosives: A regulatrion that SAAMI and the Insititute of Explosive Manufacturers asked for.

The fact is that a UN treaty does not trump the US Constitution.

Last edited by thallub; December 25, 2010 at 03:05 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old December 25, 2010, 05:10 PM   #34
Senior Member
Join Date: September 14, 2010
Location: Placerville, Ca
Posts: 589

You miss my point, at this time the freedom to say any lie or misrepresented and out of context rhetorric is protected under the "freedom of speech". A lie or misrepresentation is fraud plain and simple. Should lies and rhetoric designed to deceive the public be protected under the freedom of speech? NO. If the public is that dense it needs to be effectively presented with accurately vetted information so that intelligent decisions can be made.

My point exactly is that the media has a responsibility to make sure that lies and misrepresentation is not excercised as freedom of speech. Let's say gross misrepresentations cause whole factions of people into thinking armed insurrection is the way to go, that is harming our very society and it is happening by a political group. That is not freedom of speech, it's fraud and deception and it's designed to do so.

It is of huge concern to me that there is a whole faction of people that absolutely cannot differentiate lies with the truth because they "believe" anything that is publicly aired as "must be the truth or it wouldn't be on TV or written".

We hear out alarming out of context gun issues that are way off base and it is geared to get people up in arms.

The same inaccurate, unfounded, and proven wrong numbers and quotes get used constantly and a whole group is duped into thinking that is the reality.

There is no topic as important as gun related topics that needs to be more accurately represented. Fearmongering by extrapolating incorrect and out of context hypotheticals that deviate from reality is not freedom of speech when it is meant to deceive to support an agenda. Good information has a need on both sides of the fence in terms of anti gun protagonists just as it does for pro gun supporters.

More often than not I hear an issue that alarms me and dig in to find out what's up and it has been grossly blown out of proportion. What scares me is a faction of people who don't stop to get a clear perspective, they instead jump into an issue fight based on a full faith and belief that they have the straight scoop, which they aren't even close to having.

That is not to say that there aren't issues that in fact do need to be slapped down. Misrepresentation creates a deaf audience.

The NRA hurts itself by sending out alarms that are not well grounded in fact. It has made me ignore them when in fact there are occassionally things we should be alarmed at. Pro gun people and organizations would be much stronger as a group if they didn't go overboard on non issues.

Back to thread topic, there is too much representation of what this UN treaty means, no president is coming after this country's privately held guns. It's deceptive to represent it as such.
Fiction is harder to write than the truth, fiction has to make sense, the truth can be unbelievable.

Last edited by woodguru; December 25, 2010 at 05:17 PM.
woodguru is offline  
Old December 25, 2010, 05:59 PM   #35
Glenn E. Meyer
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,553
So I watched this thread, and it wanders off topic. The UN, put people in jail for utterances. It's not on topic or useful anymore.

Fight political untruths with your truth, express your opinion. We don't need the courts and law for that.

NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old December 25, 2010, 06:21 PM   #36
44 AMP
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 18,536
The problem is seldom what they will do,

But what they will do tomorrow, or the day after, using the groundwork already laid.

For better, and worse, a large segment of humanity is always swayed by what they see in print, or get on a screen, nowdays. Yellow Journalism is not something that was limited to the Spanish American war, it thrives today.

In all its many forms, call it propaganda, advertisement, or some other name swaying people to their viewpoint is what the media, buisnesses, political groups, social/religious groups and governments all do.

Everybody slants things, sometimes beyond all reason, to get their point across and win converts for the cause. "protected" political speech is some of the most blatent.

One of the big reasons pro gun people have such a difficult time "winning the masses" is because our arguments are logical, rational, and true. I think as a group, we embellish things the least.

I've been getting NRA warnings about things all my adult life. And, yes, lately they have been sounding more and more extreme, considering what is actually currently coming at us. However, I consider the dire warnings to be true enough, as to what could happen, if we do nothing.

Everything today seems to be more extreme than it used to be. Calm, rational discussion seems to have little weight. Unless you are raving over the top about something, you mostly get ignored.

So, I'll accept some license from the NRA, knowing they, at least are trying the best they know how.

My point exactly is that the media has a responsibility to make sure that lies and misrepresentation is not excercised as freedom of speech.
Agreed. That is what the media should do. Unfortunately, our media is a for profit group, and no matter what political cause they publically espouse, when it comes to their personal profits they are very ...dedicated. Cloaking themselves in the mantle of "the public has a right to know", everything, true and untrue seems to be grist for their mills.
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Closed Thread

government , gun control

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10511 seconds with 8 queries