But police don't--or shouldn't--aim to arrest as much as possible, only as much as is necessary. I don't see how "the right to censor" is part of freedom of speech. There are specific limitations on those freedoms, but it all centers around what an individual can or cannot say--not an individual's right to silence others.

I didn't like much of what was eventually erased, but I don't support any of it being wiped away. Even so--and I say this with no malice--this is Adam Corn's world, and I'm just lurking in it.

Guys, but seriously, who voted?

I didnt vote. Actually the first time in awhile. To be honest the reason was primarily laziness, but also practicality I think. The thing is I live in San Francisco, and in addition to the presidential election there is the state and city proposals including those running for office. For me to make an informed, CERTAIN decision on each of these proposals borders on preposterous. Sure, there are those in other countries who would love the freedom to vote, but on the other side of the coin who knows what these different candidates really stand for and in all of the informational literature it often degrades to 'he said/she said' or 'I'm right/they're wrong' kind of dialectic, so I sorta washed my hands of the whole thing this year The only thing I felt fairly certain of was to have Obama over Romney and being in California I felt my vote wouldn't make any difference there. Otherwise the only way I could have voted with sound conscience was to research every proposal and candidate for months in advance of election day, and, c'mon people, that isn't gonna happen. So, I don't know. In my mind, the government owes it to the people to make very transparent meetings in advance of the election where every proposal and every candidate can make an appeal to the public which are (as much as possible) unbiased, so we don't have to go on junk mail and unsolicited phone calls. Granted there is the voter literature, but that is pretty confusing as it is. But the literature is not bad, so it goes back to me being lazy. Cause if I can't get my own life on the track I want, how am I qualified to guide the nation? That is my excuse

I originally came up with the notion in 2007 and I posted a short essay in 2009:

http://quarkcognition.blogspot.com/2009 … ation.html

did you not know there was a vote to replace the death penalty with lifetime labor?
or one to fix the "three strikes" law so it would be what it was meant to be in the first place (ie, only applicable to violent crimes)?

I'm pretty sure that most places in the US - certainly California - aren't going to throw out a ballot if you don't vote for all or even half of what's in there.

(incidentally, the death penalty stayed in place, but the three strikes law was thankfully fixed)

OH, that's good to hear that three strikes law was fixed. Now if you guys could get rid of death penalty finally, but I assume it will be pretty impossible in the southern states, unless they turn into democrats

I remain unconvinced. Individuals have the right to censor for themselves, but not for others. If you don't like what Person X says you have the right to ignore/avoid/disregard it, but you don't have the right to deny everyone else the opportunity to hear it.

THIS. YES. THANK YOU. At least now I know I'm not completely insane.

Other than that,

Explaining in a nut shell my whole argument:

I believe in less government, not more government, and certainly not more taxes. Government needs to spend our tax dollars more wisely, rather than asking for more.

Why do people want to pay the government more than they already do? Or give the government more control of their lives? Paying the government more money just gives them more control over our lives, especially if/when they're in charge of paying police officers, teachers, and medical professionals. And sometimes, our tax dollars aren't spent on what politicians say they're actually spent for. The governmen's going to spend more money on programs and initiatives that keep the populace in check, rather than actually benefiting them. The government's not a charity institution. The government exists to perpetuate and authoritarian system.

More money spent on education doesn't mean smarter kids. It just means more money spent. Maybe the teachers will be getting higher salaries, maybe even that schools will have more/better computers, so kids can spend more time texting to each other and spending more class time looking at lolcats instead of paying attention to lectures, but more money spent on education doesn't necessarily mean smarter kids.

More money spent on police just means police are more able to enforce parking and speeding tickets, while we're still completely left to fend for ourselves in the event of a home invasion. For that matter, police fines just generate even more revenue for our already bloated government. People say that corporations consist of greedy pigs. But what about Corporate America? It's got "Corporate" part of the term, after all!

Excessive regulations have made it more expensive for companies to hire new employees (e.g., having to offer benefits, severance packages, paid leave, etc., costs employers more money) and thus less willing to hire, train, and employ people. This explains why so many of us college grads can't find work, even if we have legitimate degrees from legitimate institutions.

Of course, if you ask me, up until now, most college degree programs haven't taught transferable skills; it's just that companies used to be more willing to take risks and hire people who essentially knew nothing, but companies were actually willing to train people if they thought that said people had decent enough aptitude to actually learn the skills they needed to perform their jobs.

It's important for people to vote, and oppose these radical legislations that ask for more hand outs from government, because those hand outs come from our pockets in the first place!

By jove you are right. I remember hearing about this proposition and thinking it was a no-brainer to eliminate the death penalty in favor of life imprisonment, but I later forgot about it until you mentioned it. I guess it makes sense to just skip what you aren't certain of but to vote on what you know.

I disagree with you. As an example, the Ku Klux Klan made attempts to deliver fliers to my high school in the early 90s. I am very glad that the authorities intercepted and destroyed (censored) those fliers. The KKK and similar organizations should be denied both freedom of speech and the right to exist, in my opinion.

I'm conflicted on this. Freedom of speech aside, the "right to exist" -- if you deny them that, how are they going to react? Can we really drown them out by telling them they no longer have the right to peaceably assemble?

I'd like to think it would just cause them to dissipate, but what if instead it causes some maddening extremist reaction?

This same sort of "what if" applies to a whole lot of groups the world over, not just in the US. But the KKK and um ... Westboro Baptist (I assume they're all in the KKK anyway)? I want them to shut up, but to say they're not even allowed to organize or define themselves in a particular way... could be tough!

I'm conflicted too. Growing up, I was always taught that the KKK was evil, without really being told what they stood for. Same deal with Hitler and Japan in World War II...American textbooks teach us they were the enemy, without really going into the damage the Great Depression had on the Weimar economy (which effectively enabled Hitler to take power) or Japan's dire need of external resources and general political instability of the time. It makes it harder to reconcile the fact that Germany and Japan are two of our closest allies nowadays, less than 100 years later.

It's been clear we disagree, Jodo, and it is not my aim to change your mind. But whereas others may be conflicted, I feel more resolute.

Groups cited, such as the KKK, are reprehensible and I in no way support them. But as long as their actions don't infringe on the rights of others or break laws, they are allowed to assemble and they are allowed to speak, whether you like what they have to say or not. That's what freedom of speech is.

If you advocate the ability to revoke people's freedom of speech, there are many questions that need to be answered. Not everybody can decide to censor on behalf of others--otherwise, eventually, all would be silent. So who gets to decide who can speak freely and who cannot? What is the basis for such a decision? What checks and balances are in place to ensure that this power to silence or restrict speech is not abused?

When you start to legally sanction speech, you open up some ugly pathways that ultimately rescind the very philosophy behind Amendment #1. And when you start to assert that certain people don't have the right to exist, I don't see any point in continuing a debate with you.

Wrong approach to the problem. That's just shielding the young people from external threats. It would've been far more effective to actively discuss these flyers in class and dismantle the bullshit spread by the clan. Everything else is just wrapping things up in cotton and pretending the problem doesn't exist.

There is a reason why the Third Reich / Nazi Germany fills a large amount of the history class here in Germany (or at least it did when I went to school). Confront the young people early with these problems and don't let them be snatched away by the crazies later.

Small side-remark / story: Some years ago the german (born in Turkey) cabaret artist / musician Serdar Somuncu did a reading tour where he read from Hitler's Mein Kampf (and provided commentary). Asked by the usual outraged people why he was doing this, since it could have potentially bad influence on (mentally-unstable) people, he replies (in a nutshell): Asking why I do this is the wrong question. You better ask why it's necessary to read it to the people. 80% of the german population today don't know the content of the book. And now some Turk comes in the year 1996 and reads it to them and they're flabbergasted and say "We didn't know about that". And now to question "why". It's tremendously important to look into the Nazi idiology, because it still works till this day. It's important to debunk the Nazi bullshit with arguments, and not just by affectivity.

I don't understand a certain part of your reasoning. This part here: "But as long as their actions don't infringe on the rights of others or break laws, they are allowed to assemble and they are allowed to speak"

They have repeatedly violated the rights of others.

I do find that interesting. However, an assumption must be made: students are capable of understanding or caring about the discussion. There's always the chance that some students are already racist and any discussion will cause violent outbreaks. My high school had a huge racial fight (in the building) after classes one day, so that might be why the authorities blocked the KKK. My high school didn't need anything to exacerbate the problem.

And those violations, those actions, are subject to law and consequences. That's not what I'm referring to; speech and action are two different things. And before you argue that speech can lead to action, ask yourself if you would have become racist and/or violent if the KKK succeeded in distributing their flyers at your school.

I asked myself and he said to ask me, but I don't know how to do that. Sorry, man.