A Victory for "Freedom of Speech"

[Thorfinn]

But Grojlach, the point is that the First Amendment is a restriction on government, not a grant to say anything you like. You always could say anything you like, but the intent of 1st A was to prevent government from punishing you for so doing. "Congress shall make no law, etc." The First Amendment in no way obligates any person or company to provide a forum for you to express your opinion. Just as no Jehovah's Witness can barge into your home at dinnertime and lecture you and claim it as his First Amendment rights, the mall is not obligated to allow Mr. Downs to express his opinion on their grounds, either.

Timber Loftis, I am going to have to let the asbestos question slide. I am just not certain where I read that the variation of asbestos in Canada was not a health issue. I'll see if I can find it if you would be interested in reading it.

And I'm not sure that my one argument does undercut the other. I agree that corporations can do things and hide behind their liability shield. What should be done, then, is eliminate the liability shield. If Congress wanted to really protect workers, they would remove the Worker's Comp cap, and eliminate the corporate shield so that the principals of the company are again responsible for their actions, and not just in cases of gross negligence or outright fraud. Let the workers prove their damages, and companies will factor that into the bottom line. Limiting the claims simply prevents the market from clearing, and the net result is damages end up being externalized, in the asbestos case, upon workers and their families, rather than upon the people who make the decisions to put people into harms way without informed consent.

Cloudbringer, I do, in fact, take freedom pretty seriously. When I look at the changes I have seen in America since my childhood, I am dismayed, and have a fervent desire to do what I can to give my kids the same kind of advantages I had.

Though I belittled the website about the sweatshops, I did explain myself, and more importantly, my criticism not aimed at harleyquinn, but at the politically charged website itself.

I agreed early and often that unfairness should be dealt with if possible, but as I have nearly as often said, you must correct that unfairness with fairness, not with yet more unfairness.

I am definitely not hot under the collar -- I was actually hoping that maybe, just maybe, I would be able to show at least a few people the extent to which our nation has changed, in many ways for the worse, IMO, in employee relations and many other ways. I believe it was Lord Acton who said of the United States, "The finest opportunity ever given to the world was thrown away because the passion of equality made vain the hope for freedom."

Anyway, if anyone was offended by tone or semantics, I apologize.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: But Grojlach, the point is that the First Amendment is a restriction on government, not a grant to say anything you like. You always could say anything you like, but the intent of 1st A was to prevent government from punishing you for so doing. "Congress shall make no law, etc." The First Amendment in no way obligates any person or company to provide a forum for you to express your opinion. Just as no Jehovah's Witness can barge into your home at dinnertime and lecture you and claim it as his First Amendment rights, the mall is not obligated to allow Mr. Downs to express his opinion on their grounds, either.

If you go back to the first pages of this thread, you'll find I and other pointed that out about the First Amendment. Generally, while you have the right to say whatever you want, you don't have the right to make me listen, nor do you have the right to do it on my private property, and the government (I know - not at issue here) can reasonably limit the time, place, and manner of your speech.

I am definitely not hot under the collar -- I was actually hoping that maybe, just maybe, I would be able to show at least a few people......

Without getting into specifics, I'll say I stopped my quotation here because it is nearly impossible to show people things. While many of us are here trying to educate our fellow man, those on the other side of the issue feel the same way. I have learned from folks on IWF, and I think I have changed minds on IWF, but these changes come very slowly, with patience and constant repitition of the lessons. Old dogs are not quick studies, you see, and all of our prejudicial inclinations we've developed over out lifetimes make us extremely loggerheaded, even in the face of prevailing arguments. But, I wish you good luck nonetheless.

[Thorfinn]

Yes, Timber, I did read it, but it just seemed to me that it got lost in the discussion again. I suppose I should have just quoted the appropriate posts, but I guess I was just too lazy to reload page one. I think the same point was made by several people, including an extensive reply from Cerek, IIRC.

And, yes, I know it is hard getting people to think about things another way. Gawd, it took me several years after reading the likes of deToqueville, Bastiat, Jefferson, Mill, Paine, and the rest of that ilk to swing me into libertarian, and maybe even into market-capitalist territory. The arguments were there, and in retrospect they were obvious, but I refused to let go of my prejudices.

I could still be swayed, I suppose, but it would probably have to start with a refuation of Bastiat's Broken Window, which was the starting point for my change in worldview...

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Thorfinn: But Grojlach, the point is that the First Amendment is a restriction on government, not a grant to say anything you like. You always could say anything you like, but the intent of 1st A was to prevent government from punishing you for so doing. "Congress shall make no law, etc." The First Amendment in no way obligates any person or company to provide a forum for you to express your opinion. Just as no Jehovah's Witness can barge into your home at dinnertime and lecture you and claim it as his First Amendment rights, the mall is not obligated to allow Mr. Downs to express his opinion on their grounds, either.

Once again (third time in this topic, I think ), I know the mall was well within its rights and I'm not questioning that either. But that doesn't mean I can't think that it's very drastic and also a bit on the childish side from the mall's side of the matter to actually refer to it so rigorously to keep someone from wearing a relatively harmless slogan on a t-shirt in their mall. That's the point of view I was referring to in my post and would still keep if he was promoting comparable pro-war slogans, nothing more, nothing less. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I only dragged the First Amendment into my post to help to illustrate why I wouldn't defend Stephen Downs if he wore a "NUKE IRAQ" message on his t-shirt; it's both distasteful and close to being a message of Hate (which I assumed was being dealt with in the First Amendment in the US); but like I said in my previous post, I'm not too familiar with the exact definition of the First Amendment and how it compares to European equivalents, nor am I even sure if it's that particular part of the law I should be referring to (but I'm referring to whatever part of US law makes discriminatory and similar remarks punishable by law). Sorry if there's been some confusion over that.
But my addressing of the First Amendment for that last part wasn't really connected to the rest of my opinions. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Grojlach - First of all, I'm relieved that you weren't angered by my post. As I said, I am having this same debate in two separate forums...and it has become quite heated in my private debate. So I've had to just step back from both debates for awhile, so that my frustration from one thread doesn't "spill over" unfairly into the other.

I'll grant that my example of "Nuke Iraq" was a by-product of that and WAS a bit "over the top". Your examples of equivalent "pro war" messages was much better. After extensive discussion on the "Peace T-shirt" incident, I've reached several conclusions.

The only "bad guy" in this story is the mall itself. While they do have a right to institute whatever policies they deem necessary...this was obviously a "knee jerk" reaction to a previous incident. On Dec 21, a large group of Peace Protestors came to the mall - many of whom wore "Peace T-shirts". According to reports from the mall, the "peace protest" degenerated into a "near riot". However....I have not been able to find ANY verification of this AT ALL!!! If ANYBODY can find an article documenting a different version that supports the malls accusation...I would LOVE to see it.

So - the mall institutes a ban on all "message apparal". An ill advised policy at best, since it was almost certain to lead to just such an incident as occurred with Stephen Downs. Then - when their policy "blew up in their face", they make the securtiy guard a scapegoat and place all the blame on him. So the didn't have the backbone to stand behind thier own policy.

I support Stephen Downs right to state his opinion and I don't have any problem at all with his shirt or his son's. I also support his right to "test" the mall's policy...but I do NOT support his reaction of claiming to be an innocent victim when he learned that the mall would enforce it's policy. He broke the rules and refused to remove the shirt or leave the premises. His arrest was the result of his own chosen actions.

Robert Williams is the true victim in this case (IMO, of course). He had worked as a guard at the mall for 9 years and was simply doing the job he had been told to do by his supervisor (who quickly refused to take any responsibility for the incident). And he was fired for doing his job. The irony is that - if he had NOT approached Downs and asked him to remove his shirt - the mall would have had legitimate grounds for dismissal since they could prove he was NOT doing his job of "enforcing mall policy". In addition, Crossgates has told him they will NOT be paying Unemployment Benefits, so he shouldn't even bother filing. This is the largest injustice in this whole affair.

[John D Harris]

Welcome Thorfinn, one self empolyed business owner to another! Preach it Brother Preach it!

[Seraph]

However, the only studies of which I am aware of link asbestosis to only a particular type of asbestos, primarily obtained from Africa. The types of asbestos that come from Canada, for instance, the type that Manville used, appear to have no adverse health effects, or at the very least were very overstated.

Don't take this the wrong way, but this is total BS. According to the NYSDOH report on the enviromental hazard of asbestos, exposute to asbestos will cause problems. It doesnt matter if its chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite or actinolite, (I belive thats all the forms) its not good stuff.

Actually, all asbestos can cause these problems. Asbestos is a geometric crystal fiber shape, not a chemical compound. IIRC, Any substance fiber that is less than 2 microns wide and whose length is 10 times its width or more is "asbestiform."

First, all asbestos can cause problems, but they are all not equal in how bad they are. Second, An "asbestiform" and asbestos are not the same thing. Asbestos is specificly a hydrated mineral silicate, an "asbestiform" is a much broader catagory.

IIRC an "asbestiform" has to be 3 microns in width, not 2. But I may be recalling "3" from the 0.3 micron standard for HEPA filters, so you may be right.

Timber Loftis, I am going to have to let the asbestos question slide. I am just not certain where I read that the variation of asbestos in Canada was not a health issue. I'll see if I can find it if you would be interested in reading it...

Timber Loftis is basicly (there may be minor errors I missed somewhere) correct when it comes to asbestos. It is very nasty stuff, there have even been documented cases of workers famlies getting ill due to the asbestos that workers brought home with them. New York even had a case where, some belive, a kid got mesothelioma from watching is father change a set of asbestos containing breaks.

[ 03-27-2003, 10:28 PM: Message edited by: Seraph ]

[LordKathen]

This is to intense for me to interupt now.I'll just keep watching from the sidelines (behind the couch) [img]graemlins/hidesbehindsofa.gif[/img]

[WillowIX]

OK I´ve tried to dig up some information about the demonstration that nearly developed into a riot. There is not much to be found. Apparently Women against war made a protest at the Crossgate mall, but they were escorted off the premesis by secutrity. The only interesting piece of information is this:

From: www.chadsux.com (???) The group marched through Crossgates mall at noontime, and at one point, there was a confrontation in the food court between one of the marchers and a man carrying a sign that read "9-11." There were no immediate arrests.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Cloudbringer: Mel, it is pretty much that bad. Unless you have a contract with the employer that lists terms of employment and loss thereof, you are at the mercy of the employer. Now, I DO understand the premise of the law. I believe it was to avoid costly and long fights with unions etc over the legitimate firing of an employee, but as others have noted, it now leaves people at the mercy of the hiring officials or their bosses good mood.

If it was like that in Britain think of the time I could save on attending courses to keep up with the ever changing swathe of Employment Laws.