For Eddier1

[Suki]

Dear Eddier1,

I miss seeing your threads on philosophy. And I miss reading your thoughts. I do not know if I have alienated you for some unknown reason. All I know is I learn from your philosophy posts and miss them.

I have had time to reflect deeply on the many posts and writings exchanged between you and others in this forum. I see you as a man of great value in all ways. Whether you speak to me ever again or not it does not matter. You have enriched my life in so many ways. I AM GRATEFUL to you in so many ways. GRACIAS Eddie. Gracias por todo. I like the respectful way you have treated my marginalized religion. How you have confronted me with my flaws and defects. You have shown me many things and made me realize I have much to learn about life.

I only grow angry at the injustices you have been through...and I know you are a mixture of good and bad experiences (we all are). In my deepest mind I see many things you mention in philosophy. I can not have your vision of things. And that is fine. For I have not lived your life. But I can not help thinking how much humility and acknowledging other people's lives and their perspective and how it does grow like tiny seeds. You believe in objective truth and reason and logic.

Now, what I am about to tell you I hope it never offends you Eddier1. It would hurt me if it did, but I must say it because it is a part of my essential thought processes. And may be subject to modication but doubtful to permanent change. I trust. Even if it means being annihilated in the process. Why? You trust and die or you lose trust and live with the fear of trusting your whole life....and fear is the hardest thing to conquer in the world. Fear of losing loved ones, or life or health or wealth or even losing your mind or capacities...but if you see the journey is the important thing....and that there are people who are worthy of absolute trust....as long as you know who they are....(and if they turn out not to be yes it hurts....but the interaction is worth it always).

You have faced a lot of things in your long life. And frankly it no longer matters if we interact or not. En mi mente siempre seras algo bueno..... SIEMPRE.

Take care. And I hope you do not mind if I read your philosophy posts? I hope you post your opinion about classical composers too...lol. I would like a peek at your opinions Eddie. Sorry this thread does not deal much with philosophy. I considered the personals...but you never check there do you?

Adios,

Suki

[El_Jibaro]

[b][i]If the guy turns out to be the goon I think he is, he is a murderer, a drug trafficker, a thief, and a terrorist. Only child kidnappers are lower than him, and even then, I have the feeling that they are in the same category...

[Ecuajey]

Why do you always have to try to push people's buttons?

[Suki]

Ecuajey,

This thread is for Eddier1. It is not for Jibaro. Jibaro is a big hipocrite...he says to Poncepr68 that he likes Eddier1 but hates his politics...lol. Sure he likes Eddier1. I don't believe him. I am not co-dependent and I will not expound on why I feel the way I do about Eddier. That is between Eddier1 and I and none of Jibaro's business. Just like your friendship with me Ecuajey is not any of Jibaro's business either. Jibaro is an acquaintance on an internet site and nothing more. He is not my friend. I don't owe him anything especially explanations. You Ecuajey are a friend. An internet friend.

Jibaro has his own friends whom he likes hanging with. And he has made it patently clear I am not one of his friends. So I do not understand why he is even commenting in this thread...unless he is a bochinchero, presentao...which is what I suspect.

Ecuajey thanks for your concern.

Suki.

[Eddier1]

Del Nuevo Grolier vertiente, lo siguiente:


Freedom of speech is the liberty to speak and write
without fear of government restraint. It is closely
linked to FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. In the United States both
freedoms--commonly called freedom of expression--are
protected by the 1ST AMENDMENT to the Constitution, which
provides that "Congress shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press."

Most other Western countries guarantee freedom of speech,
either in their constitutions or by legislative enactment.
All countries, however, limit manifestations of free
speech that are regarded as threatening the civil order or
as obscene or slanderous. The extent to which speech is
regarded as threatening or slanderous and the way in which
limits are imposed are critical factors in determining the
degree of free speech in a society.

HISTORY OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH

The quest for free speech has a long, turbulent history;
it has been one fundamental aspect of the individual's
developing relationship to the state and to society. Until
the 17th century various forms of CENSORSHIP of free
speech were common and contested principally within the
framework of larger issues of political and religious
conflict. In England in the 1600s, however, freedom of
speech began to assume its own importance. John Milton
wrote in his AREOPAGITICA (1644): "Give me the liberty to
know, to utter, and to argue freely according to
conscience, above all liberties." Other philosophers such
as John LOCKE, VOLTAIRE, and, later, John Stuart MILL took
up the cry. Beginning with the British Bill of Rights
(1689) and the adoption of the French Declaration of the
Rights of Man (1789) and the U.S. BILL OF RIGHTS (1791)
freedom of speech became an integral part of
constitutional law even in countries that do not in
reality permit free speech. It gained international
recognition in this century with the United Nations
proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948).

FREE SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES

In the United States freedom of speech and the
constitutional limits to it have been defined, in
practice, by rulings of the Supreme Court. Originally the
free-speech guarantee of the 1st Amendment applied only to
acts of Congress. In the 20th century, however, the
Supreme Court began to interpret the DUE PROCESS clause of
the 14TH AMENDMENT to mean that the states as well as the
federal government are bound by the provisions of the 1st
Amendment (see GITLOW V. NEW YORK).

Restrictions on freedom of speech have occurred most often
in time of war or national emergency. The ALIEN AND
SEDITION ACTS of 1798 were the first incursions by
Congress on this freedom. These laws were never tested in
the courts and were allowed to expire after several years.

Clear and Present Danger

The first clear-cut test came over the Espionage Act
(1917) passed by Congress during World War I; this act
made it illegal to interfere with the recruitment or
drafting of soldiers or to do anything adversely affecting
military morale. In SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES the Court
upheld the conviction of a socialist indicted under the
act on the ground that freedom of speech is not absolute.
Justice Oliver Wendell HOLMES, Jr., delivering the Court's
unanimous opinion, argued: "The most stringent protection
of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting
fire in a theatre and causing a panic. . . . The question
in every case is whether the words used are used in such
circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a
clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

Bad Tendency

The "clear and present danger" doctrine became one of the
tests the Court applied to subsequent cases involving
freedom of speech. Another test, which placed more
restrictions on individual expression, was whether an
expression had a tendency to lead to results that were bad
for the public. In Gitlow v. New York (1925) the Court
held that "a State in the exercise of its police power may
punish those who abuse this freedom by utterances inimical
to the public welfare, tending to corrupt public morals,
incite to crime, or disturb the public peace. . . ."
Gitlow had been indicted under a New York State law
prohibiting the advocacy of the overthrow of the
government by force or violence.

Society's Interests

In 1940, Congress enacted the SMITH ACT, which declared it
unlawful to advocate overthrowing the government by force
or violence. Eleven leaders of the Communist party were
convicted under the act and appealed on the ground that it
was unconstitutional. The Court upheld the act's
constitutionality in DENNIS V. UNITED STATES (1951) but
not on the ground of "clear and present danger." Instead,
the majority adopted a standard put forward by Judge
Learned HAND: ". . . whether the gravity of the 'evil,'
discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion
of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger." This
standard has sometimes been called the "clear and probable
danger" test. This approach, modified by other cases, has
been termed the "balancing" test. When applying the
balancing approach, the Supreme Court strives to strike a
balance between the value of liberty of expression and the
demands of order in a free society. Many critics of the
balancing approach have contended that a balance is rarely
struck--that in most cases in which it is involved,
society prevails over the individual.
---------------------------------------

Ahora...Boricuas, yo pregunto si nuestras libertades de hablar, postular, creer, juntirnos libres para discutir, y sobre todo nuestra libertad de mente, han sido cortado o condensado por los nuevos cambios hecho por el U.S. Attorney General sobre nuestros derechos a esas libertades, y respaldado por el U.S. Congreso, y el Executivo del E.E.U.U. ?

Hacia La Victoria Siempre Boricuas,
EddieR

[Leticia_g]

If the guy turns out to be the goon I think he is, he is a murderer, a drug trafficker, a thief, and a terrorist. Only child kidnappers are lower than him, and even then, I have the feeling that they are in the same category...


Your comments are not right and should be curtailed. One of the things not permitted is defamation of character. If you have a problem with Eddie, I strongly suggest you deal with it on a personal basis and not on the forum. What you are doing is wrong, underminds your character and does not go with your Christian belief, I am shock by this continue approach.

[El_Jibaro]

[i]However, he did start calling me Antichrist and all sorts of other names. So, once in a while I've had my fun at his expense .

To more serious matters, I do think that EddieR is probably Filiberto Ojeda himself, by his very words, rhetoric and M.O.

Eddie is in his 70's, so he said.
Filiberto is around that age too.

Eddie boasted working for Fidel Castro during a time.
Filiberto did work for Castro too!

Eddie has threatened bodily harm to some Forumites, particularly one gay Cuban exile.
Now VIOLENCE to me is a hallmark of Filiberto's character.

Now, slander is to ascribe to a real person FALSE deeds and qualities. Eddie is not a real person (EddieR is his VIRTUAL NAME, hello...), and to equate him with Filiberto Ojeda is not a crime (unless he has something to hide). Eddie even goes by other names here (Camano...)[b], and he has not complained, in fact he seems to take personal pride in being called Filiberto...

So, Letti, if anything, I am not verbally attacking here EddieR, but FILIBERTO OJEDA. Filiberto is a serial murderer, a terrorist, a drug trafficker, a thieve, and his actions and words are worse than slime. I do not feel ashamed to call the devil a devil. I do not hate Eddie, but I do hate Filiberto's shameful deeds and words.