?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
18 June 2002 @ 10:07 am
Bits 'n pieces  
Waking up from a dream of being shot in the chest is disturbing. It's even more disturbing when the dream had continued for quite some time after the shooting, including a trip to the drugstore for aspirin.

It looks like I timed Friday's stock purchase almost perfectly. Got my shares of Abbott at 5 cents above the day's low, and 40 cents above the 52-week low. Gone up over $3 a share since then. I'll call it beginners luck, and continue hoping it doesn't crash back down again :P

I'm actually in favor of the ordinance mentioned in this CNN article. Now, those who know me know that I'm a huge proponent of individual rights...but what I don't make as clear sometimes is that I believe one person's rights end where someone else's begin. While I'll defend til my dying breath the right of someone to have and espouse opinions I disagree with, I believe there are limits which should be made clear. I do not believe the Constitution gives anyone the right to come uninvited onto my property to exercise their free speech. I do not believe the Constitution gives the right to tie up the phone line I pay for with your speech if I choose not to listen to it. And it sure as hell doesn't guarantee that I'll fund your spamming the bandwidth I pay for to fill my personal email box with your 'speech' (I use the term loosely in the case of email spam, since most are fairly incoherent.) You have freedom of speech, not the right to a captive, guaranteed audience, nor publically subsidized distribution.
In other words, as eloquently described by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."

Something good: Cub Foods

Something bad: Running out of Dr Pepper

Something disturbing: Yikes. (Thanks, chebutykin ;P)
 
 
Current Mood: restlessrestless
 
 
 
mattlazycat on June 18th, 2002 08:41 am (UTC)
Yes. Freedom is the right to be wrong, not the right to do wrong. Sure, spammers have the right to talk, but we also have the right not to listen, as you rightly said. We should extend harassment laws to spammers ;)
B-Rock The Islamic Shock Hussein SuperAllah Obamabrianblackberry on June 18th, 2002 09:26 am (UTC)
I must disagree
I support the Jehovah Witnesses' in this case. The idea of people needing government approval (aka the permit) to profess their faith or a group looking for support and/or signatures for political or activist reasons is scary.
Besides they still came to the door beforehand, just now they don't need big brother's stamp of approval to exercise their individual rights. One can still just simply say 'not interested' and they'll leave because they certainly don't want get people upset and have the police out to question them. I think I can take a few lousy seconds to say I am not interested if it means allowing them the right to exercise the desire to talk about religion or politics. People are too socially introverted anyway =:
Mitchpogo101 on June 18th, 2002 11:20 am (UTC)
You can still keep 'em away
I guess I'm with the Irish one on this 'n.

Remember that the recent Supremes decision doesn't affect the right of homeowners to post "no trespassing" signs and to enforce such postings via civil or criminal prosecution. What was at stake in the case was the constitutionality of a city's (a tiny one, if it matters) ordinance barring all door-to-dooring without a (free) city permit.

(By the way, the decision left open the possibility that a more narrow restriction, against, say, door to door COMMERCIAL solicitation, might be constitutional.)

I think it is a reasonable distinction -- a governmental body prohibiting all un-"permit"ted soliciting in its jurisdiction, vs. individual homeowners choosing or not choosing to do so at their own homes -- and also lets you be let alone. You just couldn't get your city to pass a law (well, not an enforceable one, we've just learned) to save you the trouble of posting a sign yourself. :)
Brendan: Micahroho on June 18th, 2002 01:19 pm (UTC)
I tried to think of a good way to word my feelings in response to the posts by Brian and Pogo, and have come to the conclusion that I'm not gonna succeed while busy at work ;) So I'll kinda' sum up!

On the topic of the permit itself: Point gladly taken, and agreed with on both counts. Having the government decide who can and can't market to a given individual is worse than no regulation at all. One of the cases where I was so eager to get to my (confusing) point that I'd forgotten to fully consider the article that had originally set it off ;)

On the topic of the rest of my mini-rant: I stand by my opinion that free speech doesn't extend as far as guaranteeing marketers the right to get their advertising to you in any way they can, on services you pay for. Free speech means you have the right to hold and voice whatever opinion you like; it doesn't mean you're guaranteed a listener. I think the one who pays for the something should have at least a modicum of control over how it's used; there's no effective 'no trespassing' sign for lines of communication yet.

(Note: Not anti-advertising, I am a big believer in the free market. Just against advertising where the cost of the advertising in terms of time and money is borne disproportionately by the consumer, and they have no means to reject the costs. If you want examples of my opinion of pretty much any advertising type, I can post 'em in another followup, with arguments why it is or isn't a fair balance between costs to the consumer and the marketer ;))
Shevecatdragon on June 18th, 2002 08:27 pm (UTC)
Last night I dreamt I was in prison and got shot in the leg. I woke up immediately after and it sure felt real. @_@