Freedom of Speech

[Azred]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: Should any Government by allowed to curb what people say and think, (I'm not talking about weither the government should have the right to say someone can't yell fire in a movie theater) just because they don't like or agree with the message?

In one sense, most definitely. A persuasive speaker spouting some sort of hate rhetoric has, history shows, the ability to sway a mob into all sorts of less-than-desirable behavior. Do you want a mob being targeted against you?

However, the government shouldn't curb what people think simply because the government doesn't like the message. Besides, you can't control or limit what people think, only what they may print or say in public.

Most of the time, though governmental control is not needed. If you don't like (or get offended by) what someone is saying, then don't listen to them.

[Sazerac]

Originally posted by caleb: No the ultimate in free speech is HERE http://www.zombo.com "The only limit is your imagination"

Caleb, Azurewolf...if your only contribution to this thread is to spam things up, I'd suggest you leave and let others discuss things seriously here. I'm sure you can find other threads to propagate your spew in.

-Sazerac

[ 05-28-2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Sazerac ]

[Morgan_Corbesant]

i feel that freedom of speach should be allowed, but gets out of control. people use the constitution, and its freedom of speach, to talk bad about the government that GAVE them the freedom of speach. i get crap from people in Oregon all the time, because im in the military. well, if it werent for people like me, the whole world would be german right now. seriously, guys like me ALLOWED the constitution to be created, thus the freedom of speach to be created. to ABUSE that freedom, like so many people do (not to pick on anyone, but here in Oregon, its mostly the liberals.) is exactly that, abuse. people exploit our constitution, and bend it to fit THEIR needs. yes, the government does the same, but it still shouldnt be used to talk bad about the government. the press is another fine example of the abuse of free speach. aside from that, and the internet comments of the killing, etc., i agree with the freedom of speach. just sometimes if feel that it gets out of hand. i dont care WHO you are, if i see someone burning an American flag on the street, i will do whatever i can to beat them, and make a citizens arrest. that is taking it too far to. other than that, talk all you want.

Originally posted by Morgan_Corbesant: i dont care WHO you are, if i see someone burning an American flag on the street, i will do whatever i can to beat them, and make a citizens arrest. that is taking it too far to. other than that, talk all you want.

We got the idea the last zillion times you mentioned it. But freedom of speech has nothing to do with what YOU want from it.

Incidentally, uunless the person doing the burning attacked you first you would be the one behind bars

[Horatio]

Originally posted by LennonCook: I would say that it depends on what type of government they claim to be... A capitalist government would have no right to do anything of this sort, as it is entirely against their policy; and since they can be voted out... On the other side of things; a communist government would have this right, to an extent. They have the right to restrict what you say against, say, your neighbour so long as you have not based your opinion on obvious facts. I think.

I guess I agree with you there. A communist government probably would draw the line pretty far. A republic would probably be around the same.

And a dictatorship? Well, it really doesn't matter then, does it?

[Morgan_Corbesant]

i mentioned it a zillion times? from what ive seen i only have slighty over 800 posts. hhmmm. anyway, i dont care IF i end up behind bars, because i will be defending the ideals of my country, the country that i love.

[ 05-28-2002, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Morgan_Corbesant ]

[khazadman]

people exploit our constitution, and bend it to fit THEIR needs. yes, the government does the same, but it still shouldnt be used to talk bad about the government.

morgan,that is the express purpose of the first amendment,the ability to speak ones mind about the government.except for people like you who are in the military.you are not covered by that protection while you are serving.

Originally posted by khazadman: morgan,that is the express purpose of the first amendment,the ability to speak ones mind about the government.except for people like you who are in the military.you are not covered by that protection while you are serving.

In the same way that working civilians cannot be rude to customers (professionalism)

[johnny]

freedom of speech is a MUST in our society, but sometimes it can be annoying too, like listening to those nutcases from the kkk.

[DeSoya]

"I may disagree with what you say sir, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

Forgot who said that first but it's a good quote and it's how I feel about free speech. Or how free speech ought to be. That said, I state that we don't really have free speech anywhere anymore. Those of you who appear to live in first world countries (I'm in the U.S) seem to be giving everyone a kind of pat on the back. I've seen the statement about capitalist countries being these democratic meccas of freedom. Few restrictions are placed on speech because of the "pluralistic" nature of economy and the government. This is, for the most part true.

Quick side note: I'm talking mostly from my point of view which is the United States so if I say something that isn't true for whatever country just keep in mind that unless stated otherwise I'll be critical of my own country. [img]smile.gif[/img]

So the government doesn't put many controls on free speech, and indeed cannot, for the reasons that other people have already stated. But really, what about other more social controls (I believe that in sociology these would be called casual or informal sanctions). The English language is dieing, the media and corporations tell us what to think; and in the end who decides what's right and what's wrong with what people say?

A couple examples to illustrate my poorly (or not at all) made point.
I like to use big words. I'm overly educated and inasmuch know some weird stuff. I often have to explain what I'm saying to people when I use such words as onus, anathema, denigration or even insinuate or flippant.

Look at the recent diasters here in the U.S. and you'll find a plethora of great examples of violations of free speech, the disasters being 9/11 and the last presidential election (I mean this to be on topic though. If you want to talk about the election start a new topic :ucks for cover and hides:: ). Free speech being more than just the ability to say what we think. It also extends to our ability to access information. The dissemination of this information can effect how we think and is a form of speech. There was a great deal of self censorship and a staggering amoung of self aggrandizment within the press following the 9/11 attacks. As for the election, there were 13 recounts that were done after the supreme court's decision. Only two of them were widely reported on and in both of them Bush won. In the other 11 Gore won. This isn't freedom of speech.
We also see, or don't see, stories about Wal-mart's (or Columbia's) suppresion of labor unions. When was the last time you heard about a strike that wasn't either Baseball or United Airlines. Fact of the matter is, unless you're living near the strike you won't hear about it (and even if you are living near the strike, if in fact people are allowed to unionized, coverage will be exceedingly slim).

In short the government doesn't need to sanction or curtail speech because we already do such a great job of it. To use a previous post as an example:

seriously, guys like me ALLOWED the constitution to be created, thus the freedom of speach to be created. to ABUSE that freedom, like so many people do (not to pick on anyone, but here in Oregon, its mostly the liberals.) is exactly that, abuse. people exploit our constitution, and bend it to fit THEIR needs.

Thing is that our constitution was created so that we _could_ criticize the government. In their wisdom the creators of the constitution saw the need with in a democracy for all speech especially that which is critical of the ruling body. How else to properly address the needs of the people. Now we have media censorship of the few pundits willing to call our current government for its trepasses. That's not free speech either and it's patently rediculous.

Remember that inherent in the right to free speech is the right to ignorance. Not only can you ignore someone but you can ignore everything.

A good resource for reading about media screwups is www.fair.org
They're fairly centrist, willing to take shots at both the right and the precieved left of the media world.

::Climbs off of his soap Box::

DeSoya