- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Yes, you have been doing it from step one.
Nope. You're falling into the Non Causa Pro Causa fallacy. You're saying that A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D. Your argument is formally correct but logical unsound. You cannot assume B and C to be true or inevitable without proving the inevitability and causation at each step. If you read the court opinions, you will see that there's no evidence of the causality you're assuming. In reality, over the past 100 years, first amendment protections have been expanded by courts in the face of public opposition--the exact opposite result of the slippery slope to which you say any new limitation of distasteful speech leads. I won't even go into the vagueness fallacy, but needless to say, unless you can show a cogent argument for each intermediate step, it can't be called a slippery slope.
Nope.
Read the case. Seriously. Read NY Times v. Sullivan. Read Hustler v. Falwell. Otherwise, you'll keep missing the point.
Maybe I should say "slippery slope may exist" as if the Supreme Court rules the way it should, nothing will slip here.
Meant to say "not Libel".
I'm saying A has led to B and B is now leading to C. I simplify because I know the crowd and I don't think we need to go in depth. And you're wrong, which is what you'll find once you sit back and watch how it plays out. The signs are protected, and will continue to be protected. I hope as long as those signs find their way to burials, there are good, freedom loving, military-appreciating people who counter it.
You haven't said how it's dangerous yet.
Last edited: