71. I didn't think it was high until I noticed how low most of the other numbers are--on a site where I would expect them to be much higher. 

Yes, that's true. But your safeguard should not be the fact you have a theoretical right (which is open to redefining and a new interpretation), but the fact that the decision making process on these issues is local. 

In its unqualified form, a "right" is something that is inherent to an individual, by nature of being human, that may never be impinged upon by outside institutions or individuals. 

At least, I think that's what most people would consider "natural rights." You can see why I find the term dangerous and (sometimes) pernicious, given my political philosophy. 

In answer to your second question, I could see a local government wanting to limit libel, public obscenity, forms of expression that are overtly sexual, false advertising, mental abuse, etc. The list could go on much longer than this short one. 

The problem for every conservative is when a behemoth State starts restricting speech. But not every conservative believes local limits are necessarily evil. 

Yes to the first question

The second question is tricky, so bear with my disjointed explanation. We speak of natural rights (like the right to life and property). A traditionalist or Burkean conservative is willing to accept these as natural rights since they can be deduced from negative injunctions (thou shalt not murder or steal). Still, he would rather not have the emphasis be on rights. Such talk stresses human autonomy and arbitrariness rather than duty, responsibility, and order. It is no light matter that the emphasis in the Bible is on duty, not individual rights.

The real problem is when we start talking about the "right to free speech," or the "right to bear arms."

A Burkean conservative would argue that, in a technical sense, we have a "right" to self defense (that's part of your right to life). But that doesn't always and necessarily translate, in every culture, place, or time, to an absolute right to bear arms. What inevitably happens is that the "rights" of important intermediary institutions is ignored--again, because the emphasis is not on duty and responsibility. 

Hope this helped.

The states, as they exist in their current form, are altogether too bloated and grotesquely large to make decisions like this. So I would recommend states pass their own limitations, prohibiting such a broad impingement on freedom. 

You're absolute correct in one sense. I don't believe freedom of speech is an absolute right. To be even more honest, I think talking about "individual rights," while sometimes helpful when in the context of a behemoth government, has proved dangerous in other contexts, often limiting the "rights" (if I may be so crude) of intermediary institutions. 

I grant such talk would be very strange to someone who is sold--hook, line, and sinker--on the concept of individual rights.

Meet traditional conservatism. Not every conservative is a Straussian or a Libertarian. 

There are objections that could, and should, be raised. But a Constitutional one? No.

I'm trying to avoid the sort of individualism you seek--by emphasizing the rights of those important institutions in between the state and the individual (what Russell Kirk called the "little platoons of society"). 

No, but also yes. I wouldn't "prefer" state restrictions on speech. But I think states, and especially other institutions more local, should have the right to limit certain forms of speech. The details, as with most things, should be made at the local level.

I do. And to avoid either predicament (as in, either abuse of this right), the First Amendment would have been better left as a limit on the federal government. 

Just my opinion though. 

I also refuse to argue that freedom of speech is absolute, even if it makes bashing a liberal professor much easier. Other leftist talking-heads have viewed freedom of speech as absolute, and they have used this idea for their own liberal ends. 

Some of the arguments in relation to this right have been over what constitutes "speech." Is it merely expression? What kind of expression? And if expression is free speech, does a local municipality have no ability to restrict "speech" that it deems inappropriate to its community? 

What if you are writing pamphlets urging the violent overthrow of a local municipality or even a larger government? 

What if you are using a local radio program to speak obscenities? 

These are just a few, of many, examples the Supreme Court has already faced. Without saying where I come down on any particular issue, I would merely argue that leaving this right unfettered will of necessity limit the rights of local governments, communities, organizations, associations, etc. to monitor unwanted material. 

A libertarian would not consider this outcome a problem. But then again, I'm not a libertarian. Neither were our Founders. 

That's probably the case. And I'm sure your representation is accurate. I just don't want to combat one error with another error. 

The absolutizing of this "free speech right" has created its own problems

Well, to be honest, as crazy as she might be on other subjects, she actually has a point here. Freedom of speech is not absolute, unfettered, or however else you want to put it. 

The First Amendment originally applied only to the Federal government, not the states (it wasn't applied to the states until the 14th Amendment). Additionally, this "right" has been fraught with controversy from the start, as the in-fighting over the Sedition Acts quickly demonstrated. Since then, the Supreme Court has found clever ways to restrict speech with their "ingenious" multiple-pronged tests.

Wherever you stand on this particular issue, it is not cut and dry. One thing is very clear--freedom of speech is not, and was never intended to be, absolute. 

Her remarks regarding a "right to equality" are, well, normal liberal silliness. Nothing exceptional or extraordinary there. 

I suppose an objection would be that the value of my property has depreciated (been devalued) by being copied, making me the victim of theft in a round about way. If I write a book or an article, for example, I properly expect a certain return on my intellectual labor. Yet if others publish my material (due to a lack of copyright laws), then they are profiting off my work and lessening my own return. 

A fair objection. But do I really have a right to a certain economic value--to expect a certain return--from my property? Doesn't this argument confuse property with the market value of property?

Aren't there numerous activities that devalue the market price of property and yet are not considered illegal or a form of theft? If my neighbor plants corn, for example, and I decide to plant corn as well, the value of his property will decrease. Have I committed a theft?

I'm wading into unfamiliar territory with this topic. All in saying, I'm not sure about "intellectual property," and would love to hear rebuttals against my own objections.

Ms. Berlinski said that "copyright and patent protection are important to the functioning of a free-market economy." DrewInWisconsin just argued that protecting intellectual property accords with justice.

The first claim focuses on the economy, and the second claim is a moral one. The economic argument is less than obvious to me, so I would be flattered if Ms. Berlinski, or anyone else, would explain how copyrights and patents aid and promote the workings of the free market (historically or theoretically). 

As regards the moral argument, I'm a bit flummoxed. Ayn Rand notwithstanding, are we so certain intellectual property is a legitimate concept (whose idea is it anyway, and is there a copyright on it?).

With all other property, there exists a level of scarcity. If someone takes my jacket, then I no longer possess this jacket, and a theft has occurred. If someone takes my ideas, however, I still possess these ideas. Nothing was stolen from me. My property was merely copied or replicated. (cont...

So let's discontinue the "wipe off the map" comments. Even Israeli leaders are admitting that a nuclear Iran is probably not an existential threat. Good grief. Additionally, Iran hasn't been nearly as aggressive historically as many suppose. Iran, this past century, has not attacked without being attacked and they have not occupied any other nation's land. Compare that with the record of U.S. or Israeli hostilities.

So Iran probably does not have weapons, and if they did, it's not the calamity the media is making it out to be. What would be much more dangerous, and foolhardy, would be to engage Iran in a war that would destabilize the whole area and probably make things more difficult for Israel in the long run.

In the context of these facts (and they are facts), I am shocked that assassinations of Iranian scientists (some of these assassinations having killed innocent bystanders) is condoned and excused. Even evidence that seals the deal on Israeli activity in promoting and participating in terrorist activities--and also shows a willingness on their part to blame it on the U.S.--is met with a shrug and a "so what"? Unbelievable.

This discussion is going nowhere. You keep pointing to the "existential" threat that Iran faces, yet you have scant evidence of this fact. What evidence do we have?

Seymour Hersh explains that the recent IAEA report uncovers no new evidence, relying instead on tired information found in 2003. Additionally, we know that Iran is enriching uranium at 19.75percent, which is far below the 95 percent needed to make atomic weapons. Also, the U.S. intelligence estimate still agrees that Iran is not making them, and that they haven't been for a decade. 

Let's also remember that Iran is not run by Ahmadinajad, whose words have grossly been taken out of context (I've pointed out this fact too many times to count), but by religious clerics, which means a consensus has to be reached on policy and different policy views are highly likely. cont...