Kerry defends our 'Right to be Stupid'

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Being stupid or acting stupidly is not an enumerated right.

Some people may feel entitled to either be stupid or act stupidly, but it is not a right.

You really want to discuss further ?

You seem to be confused. No one has claimed that being stupid is an enumerated right. And no one except for you has proclaimed that we are only talking about enumerated rights in this thread. Obviously Kerry wasn't claiming that the right to be stupid is literally written into the Constitution.

What you said was:

"We are talking enumerated rights and corresponding freedoms as given under the Constitution, and what they mean on the real street.",

I bolded the 'and what they mean on the real street' part. One of the things the first amendment 'means on the street' is you have the right to say stupid stuff, to express your stupidity.

[Lawdog88]

I look forward to you defending your right to be stupid, in court, and I would like to see the case law citations defining that right.

[dangolegators]

Right. Because unless it is specifically written into the Constitution, you have no legal right to do it and can't possibly defend it in court. That must be why abortion is legal -- the 28th Amendment, which guarantees our right to an abortion. Oh wait...

[wargunfan]

Kerry will never outlive his America hating past. The fact that Obama made him Secretary of State tells you more about Obama than Kerry. The "Apology Tour" continues.

[secgator]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

I look forward to you defending your right to be stupid, in court, and I would like to see the case law citations defining that right.

BOOM!!

[northgagator]

"One day, using my diplomatic passport, I biked through the checkpoint right into the east sector and noticed very quickly how dark and unpopulated (it was) and sort of unhappy people looked," he added, saying it left an impression "that hit this 12-year-old kid."

"I kind of felt a foreboding about it and I didn't spend much time. I kind of skedaddled and got back out of there and went home and proudly announced to my parents what I had done and was promptly grounded and had my passport pulled," he added.

Pretty dumb on his part or another BS lie like his Vietnam war heroics.

First of all it is very likely that the KGB and the East German Stasi had eyes on The Kerry residence and the comings and goings of all US diplomates and their families, it is very likely that the young Kerry would of been picked up and detained. There would be several motives for picking the young Kerry up.
1, An attempt to extort information or compromise Kerry's father.
2, An attempt to create an embarrassing political incident for the USA.

This type of chit went on all the time in the first half of the Cold War.

Now for the Tin Foil Hat crowd: Kerry was picked up by the KGB and was either brained washed to be a traitor or swapped out for a look alike that fooled the Kerry family.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Right. Because unless it is specifically written into the Constitution, you have no legal right to do it and can't possibly defend it in court. That must be why abortion is legal -- the 28th Amendment, which guarantees our right to an abortion. Oh wait...

The Supremes have found that the right to privacy encompasses the female's alleged right "to control her body." It is a specifically delineated right, found in case law.

So now it's your play on finding some specifically delineated stupidity case law, showing where it has been declared to be "a right."

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Moc's thread on this was deleted pretty quickly. Either he misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented what Kerry said.
Is there anyone here who really disagrees with what Kerry said? Or are you just complaining about it because he's a Democrat?

I'm your huckleberry.

Kerry: "The reason is, that's freedom, freedom of speech. In America you have a right to be stupid - if you want to be," he said, prompting laughter. "And you have a right to be disconnected to somebody else if you want to be."

It's a dumb, trivializing way to explain to foreigners our cherished right to free speech. We have a right to express ourselves, not a right to be "stupid" per se. Who is to say which of the ideas that people express are "stupid," and which are not? The way Kerry worded it sort of implies that there is a consensus view on what's considered stupid.

I wonder how Kerry would've responded if one of those German students had asked, "Could you give us an example of this 'being stupid' you're talking about?" What would he have said? Which Americans would he have singled out as being stupid, while on foreign soil?

Let me try to articulate this another way.

He's the Secretary of State, our country's representative to the world. He's there to give a talk to foreign students about the fundamental right to free expression, a concept that America deserves great credit for having promoted around the world throughout our history. But his explanation doesn't capture the real greatness of it, which is that by speaking freely we can introduce new ideas and advance as a society.

He implies that even though we have the right to say whatever we want, there is a static view of what is "stupid" so presumably those ideas will get dissed & dismissed and will never go anywhere, even if we must begrudgingly tolerate hearing them. Again - who is to decide what is "stupid"?

If I was his speechwriter and he was insistent on the "right to be stupid" line, I would've tried tweaking it to something like, "In America we all have the right to express our ideas - even ideas that people might think are stupid. But by expressing ourselves openly without fear of persecution we get the opportunity to convince people that maybe some ideas aren't so stupid after all."

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

The Supremes have found that the right to privacy encompasses the female's alleged right "to control her body." It is a specifically delineated right, found in case law.

So now it's your play on finding some specifically delineated stupidity case law, showing where it has been declared to be "a right."

Obviously free speech encompasses the right to express one's stupidity. And I believe everyone here understands that except for possibly you, the lawyer.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

The Supremes have found that the right to privacy encompasses the female's alleged right "to control her body." It is a specifically delineated right, found in case law.

So now it's your play on finding some specifically delineated stupidity case law, showing where it has been declared to be "a right."

Oh, and also the right to privacy itself is not specifically enumerated in the constitution.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

Oh, and also the right to privacy itself is not specifically enumerated in the constitution.

You do go on.

No, the right to privacy isn't specifically enumerated in the constitution. But it has been found to exist . . . wait for this one . . . as a fundamental right by the United States Supreme Court.

So since you are such an advocate for stupidity, feel free to diagram out a flow chart and put the fundamental right to stupidity wherever you think that right has been - or should be - recognized, you know, under the constitution.

And if it has already - and I missed it - feel free to forward the legal citation.

[DaveFla]

dangole may well be proving Kerry was right, though quite unintentionally.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by MastaG8r

I'm your huckleberry.

Kerry: "The reason is, that's freedom, freedom of speech. In America you have a right to be stupid - if you want to be," he said, prompting laughter. "And you have a right to be disconnected to somebody else if you want to be."

It's a dumb, trivializing way to explain to foreigners our cherished right to free speech. We have a right to express ourselves, not a right to be "stupid" per se. Who is to say which of the ideas that people express are "stupid," and which are not? The way Kerry worded it sort of implies that there is a consensus view on what's considered stupid.

I wonder how Kerry would've responded if one of those German students had asked, "Could you give us an example of this 'being stupid' you're talking about?" What would he have said? Which Americans would he have singled out as being stupid, while on foreign soil?

Let me try to articulate this another way.

He's the Secretary of State, our country's representative to the world. He's there to give a talk to foreign students about the fundamental right to free expression, a concept that America deserves great credit for having promoted around the world throughout our history. But his explanation doesn't capture the real greatness of it, which is that by speaking freely we can introduce new ideas and advance as a society.

He implies that even though we have the right to say whatever we want, there is a static view of what is "stupid" so presumably those ideas will get dissed & dismissed and will never go anywhere, even if we must begrudgingly tolerate hearing them. Again - who is to decide what is "stupid"?

If I was his speechwriter and he was insistent on the "right to be stupid" line, I would've tried tweaking it to something like, "In America we all have the right to express our ideas - even ideas that people might think are stupid. But by expressing ourselves openly without fear of persecution we get the opportunity to convince people that maybe some ideas aren't so stupid after all."

Repped.

[RayGator]

So Kerry says that people he disagrees with are stupid. Very well, Kerry is stupid. No other way to describe one in his position who finds it acceptable to degrade American citizens he disagrees with on foreign soil.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by RayGator

So Kerry says that people he disagrees with are stupid. Very well, Kerry is stupid. No other way to describe one in his position who finds it acceptable to degrade American citizens he disagrees with on foreign soil.

See, and there it is. The issue isn't whether there is an actual, literal right to be stupid, whether it is a textual or implied, conttsuctive right or otherwise. He was obviously talking about the 1st Amendment, but he was possibly talking about the 2nd as well. Basically, what he was saying... what he was lamenting, apologizing for, and embarrassed by... is that in America we can't just make people do what "we" think they should and make them shut up about it.

[dangolegators]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

You do go on.

No, the right to privacy isn't specifically enumerated in the constitution. But it has been found to exist . . . wait for this one . . . as a fundamental right by the United States Supreme Court.

So since you are such an advocate for stupidity, feel free to diagram out a flow chart and put the fundamental right to stupidity wherever you think that right has been - or should be - recognized, you know, under the constitution.

And if it has already - and I missed it - feel free to forward the legal citation.

So what you are telling me is that we don't have the right to say 2+2=5? Of course we do. Why don't you take me to court for saying 2+2=5 and let's see what happens.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by RayGator

So Kerry says that people he disagrees with are stupid. Very well, Kerry is stupid. No other way to describe one in his position who finds it acceptable to degrade American citizens he disagrees with on foreign soil.

Given the context (speaking to students from a country in which displaying Nazi symbols is illegal), does this mean that you disagree that Neo-Nazis are by and large very stupid? Even if they are Americans?

[g8rjd]

Originally Posted by RayGator

So Kerry says that people he disagrees with are stupid. Very well, Kerry is stupid. No other way to describe one in his position who finds it acceptable to degrade American citizens he disagrees with on foreign soil.

I don't think he's saying that at all, Ray. I think he recognizes that people with whom he may disagree are not necessarily stupid. Indeed, they may be quite intelligent and have a rather held conviction with which I, you, or he, may disagree. However, there are many people who espouse stupid things, some of which I have included above: KKK members parading through Skokie, protesting by burning the American flag, shouting anti-gay slurs during a funeral for a solider (who isn't even gay). And the government does not ban or censor that stupidity, like how other countries censor.

I think that your statement assumes that "stupid" equates to "disagreement." I think that is an unfair assumption. There is an entirely different level of generally understood craziness that meets the "stupid" level, and those people have a right to espouse their viewpoint, and be shouted down in the marketplace of ideas. A perfect example of being shouted down in that marketplace of ideas was how Texas A&M students stood in a wall to protect a solider's funeral from the planned protest of the WBC. The First Amendment protects the WBC from being censored by the government for espousing their vitrol in the most inapproprite of places, but it also encourages Texas A&M students to stand as a human wall in response.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by dangolegators

So what you are telling me is that we don't have the right to say 2+2=5? Of course we do. Why don't you take me to court for saying 2+2=5 and let's see what happens.

I don't have a right to sue you for either being stupid or acting stupidly, or saying stupid things. Negligence and intentional tort, are a different subject.

Being stupid, speaking stupidly, or acting stupidly are not rights, or a subset of any right, protected by any law known to man.

[MichiGator2002]

He envies Germany, is the upshot. He would rather have what they have than what we have.