Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

the price of free speech

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 2:20:34 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So, i heard that Terry Jones, that dope in Florida who was looking to burn the qu'ran, is being charged with the price of $200K for his protection during his little fiasco.

As a libertarian i believe that this is actually one of the functions of government, i.e. to protect our free speech. I might not like what he says or does, but i don't think that we should have a price tag associated with our basic freedoms as stipulated in our Bill of Rights. Furthermore, i believe that such decision will impede further expressions of free speech when the risk might be high.

Should he have to pay it?
Should our government be charging such a fee?
Should the government be providing such protection?
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 2:26:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 2:20:34 AM, innomen wrote:
So, i heard that Terry Jones, that dope in Florida who was looking to burn the qu'ran, is being charged with the price of $200K for his protection during his little fiasco.

As a libertarian i believe that this is actually one of the functions of government, i.e. to protect our free speech. I might not like what he says or does, but i don't think that we should have a price tag associated with our basic freedoms as stipulated in our Bill of Rights. Furthermore, i believe that such decision will impede further expressions of free speech when the risk might be high.

Should he have to pay it?
Should our government be charging such a fee?
Should the government be providing such protection?

From what I'm inferring from this post they didn't protect him in the traditional sense that the government does. It was more like they were protecting him like a private security firm would protect a client. Am I right?
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 2:27:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 2:26:47 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/25/2010 2:20:34 AM, innomen wrote:
So, i heard that Terry Jones, that dope in Florida who was looking to burn the qu'ran, is being charged with the price of $200K for his protection during his little fiasco.

As a libertarian i believe that this is actually one of the functions of government, i.e. to protect our free speech. I might not like what he says or does, but i don't think that we should have a price tag associated with our basic freedoms as stipulated in our Bill of Rights. Furthermore, i believe that such decision will impede further expressions of free speech when the risk might be high.

Should he have to pay it?
Should our government be charging such a fee?
Should the government be providing such protection?

From what I'm inferring from this post they didn't protect him in the traditional sense that the government does. It was more like they were protecting him like a private security firm would protect a client. Am I right?

That is correct. I couldn't find the article on line, but heard it on the radio this morning.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 2:28:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 2:20:34 AM, innomen wrote:
So, i heard that Terry Jones, that dope in Florida who was looking to burn the qu'ran, is being charged with the price of $200K for his protection during his little fiasco.

As a libertarian i believe that this is actually one of the functions of government, i.e. to protect our free speech. I might not like what he says or does, but i don't think that we should have a price tag associated with our basic freedoms as stipulated in our Bill of Rights. Furthermore, i believe that such decision will impede further expressions of free speech when the risk might be high.

Should he have to pay it?
Should our government be charging such a fee?
Should the government be providing such protection?

Did he enter into a contract with the state that he would hire state workers for personal protection. If so and the price is valid that would seem reasonable to me. If he merely phoned up the police and said "woah... I was gunna burn some Korans and now the Muslims want to kill me... wow I so did not see that coming... can you send some officers around before they decapitate me", then the price tag is unreasonable as the police are there to protect us from crime, even if we are retarded.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 2:31:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 2:27:43 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2010 2:26:47 AM, Korashk wrote:
At 9/25/2010 2:20:34 AM, innomen wrote:
So, i heard that Terry Jones, that dope in Florida who was looking to burn the qu'ran, is being charged with the price of $200K for his protection during his little fiasco.

As a libertarian i believe that this is actually one of the functions of government, i.e. to protect our free speech. I might not like what he says or does, but i don't think that we should have a price tag associated with our basic freedoms as stipulated in our Bill of Rights. Furthermore, i believe that such decision will impede further expressions of free speech when the risk might be high.

Should he have to pay it?
Should our government be charging such a fee?
Should the government be providing such protection?

From what I'm inferring from this post they didn't protect him in the traditional sense that the government does. It was more like they were protecting him like a private security firm would protect a client. Am I right?

That is correct. I couldn't find the article on line, but heard it on the radio this morning.

Then I think he should have to pay it, but I also don't believe that the government should provide that kind of protection.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 2:33:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 2:31:56 AM, Korashk wrote:
Then I think he should have to pay it

...if he instigated the arrangement.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 5:23:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Of course he should pay. Freedom of speech, especially if we talk from your viewpoint which is a libertarian one, is your freedom to express yourself and deal with the consequences. If there is a libertarian society, the government is not going to pay for your visit to a doctor if you have overdosed on marijuana.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 6:47:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
My particular brand of libertarianism would say that this is a case where the government needs to protect the right of free speech. I don't think that he made arrangements with the police for special protection, but i think they felt the need. Either way, i believe that it is within the function of government to protect my freedoms, and the exercise of my freedoms. If i am forced to pay for them, or others are also going to incur a bill for their freedoms then they are less free because that is a limitation in and by itself. We are protected by our first amendment that insures us free speech, and it is the responsibility of the government to maintain that freedom whether or not the individual citizen can afford it or not.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 7:48:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 2:20:34 AM, innomen wrote:
So, i heard that Terry Jones, that dope in Florida who was looking to burn the qu'ran, is being charged with the price of $200K for his protection during his little fiasco.

As a libertarian i believe that this is actually one of the functions of government, i.e. to protect our free speech. I might not like what he says or does, but i don't think that we should have a price tag associated with our basic freedoms as stipulated in our Bill of Rights. Furthermore, i believe that such decision will impede further expressions of free speech when the risk might be high.

Should he have to pay it?
Should our government be charging such a fee?
Should the government be providing such protection?:

The government has no obligation to have a protection detail because he's an idiot. Just because he's allowed to say whatever he wants doesn't mean the tax payer needs to bail out his idiocy. Whether speech is free or not, it's not necessarily without consequence.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 8:07:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
There's a question of what exactly this "protection" he was given entailed, and who initiated it.

If the police took it upon themselves in the interest of public service, as per their job, then no, he shouldn't really have to pay it.

If he said that he requested the services of officers in a capacity outside of normal police duties, or more than what the police thought was needed, or perhaps called in a private firm, then yes, he has to pay it. There's a certain line to be drawn where you go from proper police protection, to excessive and unwarranted requests for such protection. The police's time and resources can't exactly be tied up in projects where their manpower isn't needed.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 8:18:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 8:07:40 AM, Volkov wrote:
There's a question of what exactly this "protection" he was given entailed, and who initiated it.

If the police took it upon themselves in the interest of public service, as per their job, then no, he shouldn't really have to pay it.

If he said that he requested the services of officers in a capacity outside of normal police duties, or more than what the police thought was needed, or perhaps called in a private firm, then yes, he has to pay it. There's a certain line to be drawn where you go from proper police protection, to excessive and unwarranted requests for such protection. The police's time and resources can't exactly be tied up in projects where their manpower isn't needed.

I don't know the answer to your question because i just heard the little bit that i put on the OP. However, if this man was threatened, should he report that to the police? If the police reacted by providing additional protection without a request per se, is it still within the obligation of the police? Is the freedom of speech proteced or merely allowed? - actually that could go for paradigm as well.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 9:33:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Everyone should have to pay if they want protection, and be free to go without protection if they don't want it. Having only one person have to do it is bad stuff though, especially if they're not running it as a preliminary test to making it that way for everyone, whether he phoned up the police or not. Instead of just introducing responsibility for the services one desires, it makes a caste division between those whose speech is liked by the authorities and those whose speech is not.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 9:37:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 9:33:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Everyone should have to pay if they want protection, and be free to go without protection if they don't want it. Having only one person have to do it is bad stuff though, especially if they're not running it as a preliminary test to making it that way for everyone, whether he phoned up the police or not. Instead of just introducing responsibility for the services one desires, it makes a caste division between those whose speech is liked by the authorities and those whose speech is not.

Do you hold no (sort of) secular sacred value on the intrinsic rights of man as Jefferson believed? It seems that some of my young libertarian friends here (like you) flirt with anarchy a lot.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 9:51:29 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 6:47:46 AM, innomen wrote:
My particular brand of libertarianism would say that this is a case where the government needs to protect the right of free speech.

What kind of libertarianism is that?

I agree with Mirza. If I get sick from smoking pot, the government has no responsibility to protect me from the repercussions of acting within my civil liberties that allow me to smoke pot. If that guy thinks he needs protection (and he probably does), he can inquire with a private protection agency and pay for it himself. How can you expect the police to protect everyone with an opinion? It's not exactly fair nor cheap and just seems very contrary to libertarian values imo.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 9:59:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 9:37:36 AM, innomen wrote:
At 9/25/2010 9:33:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Everyone should have to pay if they want protection, and be free to go without protection if they don't want it. Having only one person have to do it is bad stuff though, especially if they're not running it as a preliminary test to making it that way for everyone, whether he phoned up the police or not. Instead of just introducing responsibility for the services one desires, it makes a caste division between those whose speech is liked by the authorities and those whose speech is not.

Do you hold no (sort of) secular sacred value on the intrinsic rights of man as Jefferson believed? It seems that some of my young libertarian friends here (like you) flirt with anarchy a lot.
The rights of man (which are not intrinsic but objective) include not having to pay to protect anyone else.

Some of those on this site are anarchists. I'm just the very next closest thing.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2010 10:31:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/25/2010 9:51:29 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 9/25/2010 6:47:46 AM, innomen wrote:
My particular brand of libertarianism would say that this is a case where the government needs to protect the right of free speech.

What kind of libertarianism is that?

I agree with Mirza. If I get sick from smoking pot, the government has no responsibility to protect me from the repercussions of acting within my civil liberties that allow me to smoke pot. If that guy thinks he needs protection (and he probably does), he can inquire with a private protection agency and pay for it himself. How can you expect the police to protect everyone with an opinion? It's not exactly fair nor cheap and just seems very contrary to libertarian values imo.

In the early nineties there was a movement within the Libertarian party started by someone name Gene Burns, i believe he's a talk show host in Cal somewhere now. At one point he was the vice presidential nominee for the libertarian party. After some disappointment with the party and it's lack of cohesion he looked at bringing it together with what he would call the Jeffersonian party. I was pretty caught up in it at the time, and it was based on the libertarian philosophy with a very large Jeffersonian perspective. Most libertarians agree that some level of government is required, but the problem within the party has been how much, and what are the responsibilities of government. The protection of man's inalienable rights, and border defense were the allowable government responsibilities. Also, complete isolationism except in matters of commerce.
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2010 5:46:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/27/2010 5:25:05 AM, feverish wrote:
At 9/25/2010 5:23:15 AM, Mirza wrote:
overdosed on marijuana.

lol

I second with a http://1.bp.blogspot.com...
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown