Reply #163: lets see if i can put this in english (still nnew)

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

That;s exactly the point. Freedom of speech and expression don;t have freakin time limits. One can argue social grace but this is the State issuing a law.

"Of course theres limits! Do you go around naked in summer when its hot in town? is this "freedom?"

I guess not. It's social standard not go around nude unless (FKK-Areas).

"Again I must ask how is wearing clothing a disruption to the education process? We're not talking about children stanidng up an reciting verse from the Talmud, the Koran or the Bible here. We're talking wearing traditional religious clothing."

Obviously it has been an issue of provication between cults so they have drawn the line in very firm. The point is that religion is myth with philosophy and school is science. it's a clear mark what path is boss "in school".

With reasonable people such rules aren't necessary. but for more extreme zealots it's necessary to show that ten commandments, sharia and thora don't mean shit right now.

Where i live its allowed (but frowned on) to "show off" religion. allthough i hardly ever met someone in my classes who got conned or had a problem because of creed. it's usually a very personal introvert matter

"Freedom of expression is fine but just if the audience is free to leave you alone."

That's a bizarre interpretation of free expression. I too agree that your right to do something stops when you are infringing on the rights of others. But explain how wearing religious clothing is doing that. Then explain how the religious person being prevented from observing their religion is NOT an infringement of their rights.

it's not a interpretation of free speech, it's (as you say)a limit to it. Limiting eachs right tries to limit the collisions of rights human vs human.

Usually the rules are introduced/applied, where sane reasoning fails. Religion is such a case - see East, see West and France is somewhere inbetween.

At the end rules are always limits or reins. but as long there are multiple persons no one will be completely free.

in some society not receiving is a regarded more of a right than beeing able to emit at least at times. At least all can complain about the rules and can unite...(slight irony here)


"You must love the concept of the free speech zone then. You only have your rights in certain locations."

not sure what kind of freeper you think i am, but i favor limiting the no-free speech zones to where they are absolutely necessary to what kind of speech necessary.

doesn't involve your "let's-protest-a-half-days-journey-from-a-POLITICAL-event-zones" because it's there where you can suggest changes on rules either by suggestion or getting elected. it's there where freedom should be excercised to be able to prtage in the creation of the limits and standards the society in which one lives shall exists.

my 2 socialist-commi-(green) cents