T
thistle
Guest
They are examples of what is not allowed under freedom of speech.
Should speech be totally free or should their be some censorship?
- Status
M
mikekle
Guest
Have to take the good with the bad unfortunately, if you are for freedom of speech. Any attempt to silence or control some of it is an infringement on the whole thing.
This is just another attempt to undermine free speech and our constitution really though, They could not care less about racial issues, it is just being used to further their agenda because they know it riles people up and causes tension and conflict.
So when the day comes that a bill is passed limiting free speech, many people will applaud it, believing it is being done for the sake of public safety.
Ive said it before, what they have accomplished is really amazing, they are slowly undermining the US constitution using the media and popular public sentiment on a variety of issues, our founding fathers could have NEVER foreseen such a thing, if England has used this same tactic, there would have never been an American revolution, they would have had everyone believing it was for their safety and benefit to have a monarchy and all that comes with it.
S
spedteacherita
Guest
And they are not allowed because they confiscate the rights of others.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
“So, this is how liberty dies…with thunderous applause”.
–George Lucas
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
I stand for the right of others to loudly shout that which I most detest at my very core. That includes “hate speech” and that which I may find offensive.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
WRT speech that “intimidates”, can we get a bit of clarification?
For me, I draw the line at directly actionable statements. “Let’s hang that guy!”, “kill all of those people”, etc. However, “they shall not replace us” or “those people are subhuman &*$%” is offensive but not something they should be prevented from expressing by government.
For me, I draw the line at directly actionable statements. “Let’s hang that guy!”, “kill all of those people”, etc. However, “they shall not replace us” or “those people are subhuman &*$%” is offensive but not something they should be prevented from expressing by government.
Even those lines, under some circumstances, are often intended to be figurative.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
I think speech should be very censored…
…as long as I’m the one that gets to do the censoring.
Otherwise, no. Every crack-pot and mad-man should have their say. And everyone who disagrees with them should be afforded the same right.
…as long as I’m the one that gets to do the censoring.
Otherwise, no. Every crack-pot and mad-man should have their say. And everyone who disagrees with them should be afforded the same right.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Who decides?
Do the standards change?
Do the standards change?
M
mikekle
Guest
Well, when it comes to network and cable tv, an agency of the Govt decides what is OK and what is not, and surprisingly most people seem to be OK with this (go figure?!)
Standards most definitely change over time, look back to the 50s, 60s, 70s, there is no way they would allow some of the words used back then to be aired today, same thing will happen in the future, its likely some of the words aired today will be eventually banned/ censored.
That said, I’m not sure this is the case with political speech. Not yet, anyway, except on college campuses
V
venite_adoremus
Guest
The courts decide. The Supreme Court of the United States has left quite a paper trail on the subject of what constitutes free speech and what does not. You might want to look it up in a textbook on constitutional law, or in a couple of good articles on Wikipedia if you want lighter reading without the court citations. For example, one cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. That is not protected speech. Private property rights overshadow some free speech rights–try expressing your mind in the cafeteria of a major corporation’s workplace, and you could find yourself out on your ear. No, it’s imbedded in the Constitution, which declares in the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law…” And it was extended to the several states.
Yes they do, and have. “Hate” speech and what constitutes “fighting words” are subject to constant flux. It’s not as cut and dried as simplistic, press-release-oriented media reporting would have you believe. Nor does it mean what some common protesters think it believes. The line between protected speech and unlawful assembly is easily crossed. Study the history of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War for some sterling examples.
V
venite_adoremus
Guest
Are you referring to the Federal Communications Commission here, or what? The FCC does what Congress and the courts tell it to. Specifically regarding speech which the ordinary person would call “obscene.” Under our political system, why wouldn’t most people be OK with that? Not really the kind of “free speech” we’re talking about on this thread.
And I believe the precedent of Turner is important also. See court case: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turner_Broadcasting_System,_Inc._v._FCC
Right, and there is a significant difference between yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, and yelling a racial slur at someone. The first one may very well affect the health and safety of other individuals (my right to swing my fist ends at your nose). The latter is just offensive.
The basic line in the sand, as I understand it, is does the speech incite or call for violence against another. Again, is one’s speech a danger to others. As an example, the Missouri legislator who called for the assassination of President Trump. That’s not protected speech.
Jon
- Status