Jump to content

What exactly is Freedom of Speech?


philgreen
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'd like to hear from everyone on how they each define 'Freedom of Speech'. Since I was very young I can recall that it has always seemed you are allowed to express your opinion- but if it is not inline with the mainstream you must do it very carefully so as not to offend anyone. Actually, by the time you reword everything to not offend anyone, you haven't been able to fully convey your thoughts or beliefs, only a watered down version that is expected to be put forward as 'hypothetical' or 'what if'.

Some recent examples:

from CNN this morning-

CNN.COM

"PORTLAND, Maine (AP) -- After complaints that the children of soldiers were upset by anti-war comments at school, Maine's top education official warned teachers to be careful of what they say in class about a possible invasion of Iraq. "

...and, the most shocking to me in the last 5 years...

Detroit Free Press

"It was Maher's uncompromising post-9/11 candor on "Politically Incorrect," however, that sparked a controversy that eventually led to ABC's cancellation of the show. One night, Maher suggested that the terrorists who died flying airliners into the World Trade Center were perhaps more courageous than Americans who kill civilians while dropping bombs from military aircraft miles above Afghanistan.

OK, so Bill Maher said something very out of line with the mainstream- but that is his right under our Constitution isn't it? Shouldn't the Constitution have afforded protection to his comments? Here is exactly what he said-

"We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly."

Our own White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, called Maher's remarks "a terrible thing to say" then goes on to remind us... "to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do..."

Your comments on Freedom of Speech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free speech is protected under the Constitution in the US. A person is free to say exactly what they like but that person must also accept the consequences of doing so. If that means that one's show is cancelled, that's life.

My personal view on free speech is very similar to that of Mark Twain:

quote:

Mr. Twain said

It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and the prudence never to practice either.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Freedom comes responsibility, freedom of speech also comes with responsibility.

If what you say on a national talk show offends enough people, you will get cancelled.

Bill's comment about 911 was WAY over the top, and the stations that ran the show were absolutely flooded with angry callers that not only wanted it taken off the air, but wanted Bill's hide for a wall decoration.

There is plenty of freedom in this country, and you can indeed say what you want, but you had better be ready to deal with the backlash.

Freedom of speech ONLY guarantees that the government cannot come after you for saying something, not that the public can't come after you for saying something offensive or angering.

If you anger the public, they will come after you in any way that they can, but the government HAS to leave you alone.

That is freedom of speech.

I say lots of offensive things, but I am willing to take responsibility for what I say, and of course the backlash from it. If I am not willing or able to take the punishment from the backlash of my peers and fellow citizens, then I keep quiet.

And Mark Twain was a very smart man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Race Bannon IV:

Thats as close to right as we are gonna get. Great interpretation Jag. Mark Twain was a smart man and wicked clever as well. My own favorite quote:

" Man is the only animal that blushes or needs to"

My other favorite Twainism is "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live near Portland Maine, where the teacher was disparaging soldiers, and the effort towards war in Iraq. Much ado about nothing, if you ask me.

The real problem was when other children picked up on the teacher's sentiments, and started harassing the kids who's parental units were military.

Freedom of speech should be a given today. However, when children enter the picture, I do believe you need to be more cautious.

I think the current administration will crack down on free speech, though. I'm sure they will in fact. They're cracking down on all our freedoms, why should free speech be left out?

Idaho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

After complaints that the children of soldiers were upset by anti-war comments at school, Maine's top education official warned teachers to be careful of what they say in class about a possible invasion of Iraq. "

ok you used this in your argument.

are you saying that they should be allowed to make these comments?

IF you are, then here is something to think about.

while free speech exists, should a person in a position of authority; like the school teacher be able to use it to influence the minds of people so young they don't have the ability to fully comprehend something so big?

the teacher is out of line. let him talk to his fellow teachers in his staff room about such things. not students who are compelled to go to school under law, and who happen to be in his class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

while free speech exists, should a person in a position of authority; like the school teacher be able to use it to influence the minds of people so young they don't have the ability to fully comprehend something so big?


Sure....it works for the advertisers and the junk they constantly pushed on young children. You have convicted felons appointed to high office....you have even worse running huge companies...and these people are supposed to own and regulate media outlets....

quote:

the teacher is out of line. let him talk to his fellow teachers in his staff room about such things. not students who are compelled to go to school under law, and who happen to be in his class.


This is interesting also....you have a lot of teachers that still indoctrinate children with the happy happy nonsense version of early American expansion and cultural genocide.

Personal politics should stay out of the class room....just like the Disnefied history....

On free speech....everything...flag burning the whole nine....can't yell fire in a crowded theater etc....

Oh yeah...money should not translate into access....it should not decide elections....and it should not be the final moral authority....

[ 02-28-2003, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

while free speech exists, should a person in a position of authority; like the school teacher be able to use it to influence the minds of people so young they don't have the ability to fully comprehend something so big?

The answer is in your definition of "Authority." Teachers (public school teachers), in today's society, are considered an extension of government when it suits the Left's arguments on the First Amendment freedom of (from?) religion in the schools. However, when First Amendment free speech rights of the teachers are in question, then the teachers aren't considered an arm of government.

Okay, so that was a rant. However, First Amendment free speech rights do not protect me against my private-sector employer firing me for something I said. It only protects me against the government taking action against me for something I said (that's the part about "Congress shall pass no laws abridging the freedom of speech"). Loosely interpreted, "Congress" becomes anyone in government.

There was an old "joke" (proverb?) floating around the internet a while back. It goes like this:

The first man walks up to the second man and asks, "Do you believe in the first amendment right to freedom of speech?"

The second man replies, "Of course I do."

The first man then asks, "Do you believe in the second amendment right to own a gun?"

The second man says, "No, I don't."

The first man then says, "Well then, shut the hell up!"

The moral of the story is that you can have your freedoms and rights, but also have to be able to keep and protect them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The teachers issue is a tricky one. In my opinion, it depends on who takes the initiative. If the teacher raises the issue in front of the children, then it's wrong, but if one of the students asks a question about the issue, then the teacher has the right to express an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to say I'm glad to see the rational and repsectful way that everyone has replied to my comments...This is refreshing!!

Now, on to the discussion:

quote:

Originally posted by Duncan Idaho:

Menchise has a good point.

Adding to it: The teacher's paid to teach facts, not opinions.

If the teacher wants to spread opinion, let them come here with the rest of us.

Idaho

I can agree with you there, but... If teachers are paid to teach facts, then why aren't our children taught that our forefather's came to this land, raped and killed the current inhabitants and took ALL the land from them. And of course we justified it by calling them godless savages...What gave the future 'Americans' then to take what was never theirs in the first place? PROFIT. OK, that may be a bit too condensed, but you get the point...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Tyrn and Jag. It is a basic right but there are consequences.

quote:

If teachers are paid to teach facts, then why aren't our children taught that our forefather's came to this land, raped and killed the current inhabitants and took ALL the land from them.

The winners write the history books. I also have an opinion that I never see. No one admits to it. The Indian sympathizers (not that you are or not just using your statement) make statements like rape and pillage while patriots are proud of the way we escaped from England's rule.

quote:

What gave the future 'Americans' then to take what was never theirs in the first place?

No one ever realizes that that is just the way the world was. It wasn't nice but that's the way it was.

I think free speech ends when you can hurt someone else. Thus yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre; (when there isn't one) can cause panic, harm, and even death, and is illegal. The same with libel and slander. You can't "harm" someone with your speech.

But I think you can disagree with the gov't as much as you like. Short of treason that is. When exactly does a phrase like "we need a new gov't" become treasonous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

If teachers are paid to teach facts, then why aren't our children taught that our forefather's came to this land, raped and killed the current inhabitants and took ALL the land from them.

They do (or did). They also teach that Alexander The Great conquered all from Persia to India, the Romans conquered most of Europe, Napoleon marched all the way to Egypt, Cortes in Mexico...

So, what's your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

while patriots are proud of the way we escaped from England's rule.


We are....and we acknowledge the French, who were the decisive factor in making that happen.

The point is to teach history as it happened.for all the different reasons. We shouldn't bury any part of the past to construct happy little jingoists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

When exactly does a phrase like "we need a new gov't" become treasonous?


That happens when the government starts threatening the middle class....well...here anyway...we have an appointed president and a whole country full of those who don't want to rock the boat or were just happy Bush come out the winner....nobody (media) really understands that everything we claim to stand for has been subverted....the reason...why rock the boat...we got survivor and the miracle whisk....we can ÔÇ£work it outÔÇØ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Remo:

I can agree with you there, but... If teachers are paid to teach facts, then why aren't our children taught that our forefather's came to this land, raped and killed the current inhabitants and took ALL the land from them.

Heh, actually, that was just what I was taught. 30+ years ago, in fact. I guess not all schools are equal.

I do see your point, though. History can be remarkably biased towards the 'winning team', as it were.

For the record, I've also been enjoying this thread. Great opinions being voiced here.

Idaho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of Speech would not be needed if all speech was popular. It was designed to protect the rights of anyone to say what they wish without being persecuted by government because of it.

The trump card is that anyone is free not to listen, or to speak against you.

It is not possible to word something so that it offends no one. I don't worry about whether what I say is offensive or not, so long as I know that I am right. The truth seems to be most offensive to some people.

If someone comes out and says their opinion, I am not violating their freedom of speech by calling them a dumb A. Their freedom of speech only protects them from government censorship, persecution, and critisism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The trump card is that anyone is free not to listen, or to speak against you.

With corporate media we are all free to hear something unpopular to the CEO's.maybe once....at 3:00 in the morning.and than sing songs about freedom and liberty....or answer to DSEA

quote:

I am not violating their freedom of speech by calling them a dumb A.

Personally attacking someone doesn't really move a conversation forward...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Personally attacking someone doesn't really move a conversation forward...

Just illustrating the point that freedom of speech doesn't protect them from such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok here's two things.

The library porn freedom of speech thing. What's wrong with this? We rate movies. Seems simple to me. Put a computer(s) in the kiddie section with net nanny and the rest in the adult section are unrestricted.

What about the guy areested in the mall for wearing the anti war shirt? That was sold at the same mall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

******* socialist....put him against the wall with the rest of those who dare question (G)ods (O)rdained (P)lutocrats.

Just kiddingtake him out back and give him a good beatingwhats wrong with a little brass knuckle political reeducation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tee-shirt story: there is either: 1) more to the story, or 2) an over-zealous private guard. The people should have been left alone.

Library porn: the issue is the use of taxpayer dollars. The Supreme Court has already ruled that pornography is protected speech. However, just because speech is protected does not mean that the government must be forced to provide it to anyone who wants it where ever they want it. There are plenty of private outlets for speech. Maybe it should be compared to the way the government handles gun rights. The right to own a gun is protected by the Supreme Court. However, people are not allowed to carry a gun whenever they want where ever they want. In both cases, is that "abridging" the person's rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a little more to the story but it's dropping off the radar fast. Apparently about twenty anti-war people with the same t-shirts had staged an impromptu rally earlier in the week. One can safely assue that the mall was trying to prevent a repeat incedent. A father and son bought the same or similiar shirts the earlier protesters had been wearing, put them on, and continued shopping. They were then asked by mall security to remove the t-shirts or leave. The son did but the father (a lawyer) refused. From earlier stories the father was polite about it but refused to leave and said if you have to arrest me do it. So they did.

The mall now wishes to drop charges. So the mall or the guard was over zealous as you say. The dad made his point. The mall drops charges. Everyone happy.

The porn thing. I don't have any super strong feelings on this one. My way would work reasonably well especially with parental guidance. What Steve suggests would be ok too. Like I said; we already rate movies. We as a society have decided what levels of decency get what rating. Or rather a ratings board rates them to various degrees and we decide what we are comfortable with.

I think the isuue is that kids are often unsupervised in libraries especially teens who are the ones most likely peek.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...