What do you consider freedom of speech?

In the past week I've (we all have) seen the threads on Chick-fil-A, Westboro Baptist, and OWS.

All three have had one common theme. Freedom of speech.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Linky

In the OWS thread, this as discussed.

Last year’s “occupy movement” scared the government. On March 8, President Obama signed a law that makes protesting more difficult and more criminal. The law is titled the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act, and it passed unanimously in the Senate and with only three “no” votes in the House. It was called the "Trepass Bill" by Congress and the "anti-Occupy law" by everyone else who commented.

The law “improves” public grounds by forcing people - protestors - elsewhere. It amends an older law that made it a federal crime to “willfully and knowingly” enter a restricted space. Now you will be found guilty of this offense if you simply “knowingly” enter a restricted area, even if you did not know it was illegal to do so. The Department of Homeland Security can designate an event as one of “national significance,” making protests or demonstrations near the event illegal.

The law makes it punishable by up to ten years in jail to protest anywhere the Secret Service “is or will be temporarily visiting,” or anywhere they might be guarding someone. Does the name Secret tell you anything about your chances of knowing where they are? The law allows for conviction if you are “disorderly or disruptive,” or if you “impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.” You can no longer heckle or “boo” at a political candidate’s speech, as that would be disruptive.

communities.washingtontimes.com... blicly/

In the Chick-fil-A thread, this was discussed.

ATLANTA -- Gay rights advocates say they're surprised that the president of fast-food chain Chick-fil-A has taken a public position against same-sex marriage.

Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy said this week that his privately owned company is "guilty as charged" in support what he called the biblical definition of the family unit.

marketday.nbcnews.com...

And as for the Westboro Baptist thread, this was said.

Westboro Baptist Church protesters will soon be severely limited in their ability to disrupt military funerals, after Congress passed a sweeping veterans bill this week that includes restrictions on such demonstrations.

According to "The Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012," which is now headed to President Barack Obama's desk, demonstrators will no longer be allowed to picket military funerals two hours before or after a service. The bill also requires protestors to be at least 300 feet away from grieving family members.

www.huffingtonpost.com...


All three topics dealt with the restrictions of free speech. From the aspect of a CEO voicing his personal opinion to a national organisation that can't be allowed to protest anywhere near their focus to a despicable church group who voices their opinions at the burials of brave and honourable men and women.

Many threads have been created as a result of the Aurora Colorado shooting about the attacks on the 2nd Amendment.

The 1st is under attack as well.

Everyone has a different ideology. Everyone has a different slant. There have been some that may have agreed with the laws against Occupy but hated the atacks on the Chick-fil-A CEO. And vice versa.

But it is ALL against freedom of speech. You can't bristle at one law against one group that you support and then cheer the same kind of laws against someone who you don't support.

A member had a signature line that once said, "True freedom of speech is defending someone you DON'T agree with."

You're either for ALL the laws against freedom of speech, or you're against ALL the laws.

Really.

Cherry-picking because you like/dislike someone or something is hypocritical and disingenuous.

Mods, move, delete, change the text colour as you see fit.

beez

Well, I consider it to be freedom of speech for others to say what they want, even if I don't agree with what they are saying. I think that if everyone else got their way, we wouldn't be able to say much.

reply to post by beezzer

A member had a signature line that once said, "True freedom of speech is defending someone you DON'T agree with."

You're either for ALL the laws against freedom of speech, or you're against ALL the laws.

BRAVO!!!! Couldn't have said it any better!!

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
-Voltaire
I think everyone makes mistakes when they defend what they believe to be right (myself included) but everyone should realize that everyone has a right to state their beliefs. ( No matter how wrong they are! )

reply to post by superman2012


reply to post by seeker1963


reply to post by darkbake


Thanks, folks. And here we are. Four of us. I can bet you that we don't agree on all of the same issues. But there is something that transcends political or social ideology. And that is the freedom to say what we want.

Thank you, all.

What a great thread with the best timing!

I'd say all laws that infringe on expression are out of line and dangerous by their very nature. If the expression is objectionable, as I find much to be, then challenging it where it's found and countering in any number of ways is the right way. Passing laws is the tyrants way.

(tosses in the two cents for luck)

The first amendment is far more important that the 2nd. If you do not have the freedom of speech then you have nothing. Guns can't speak.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
What a great thread with the best timing!

I'd say all laws that infringe on expression are out of line and dangerous by their very nature. If the expression is objectionable, as I find much to be, then challenging it where it's found and countering in any number of ways is the right way. Passing laws is the tyrants way.

(tosses in the two cents for luck)

Tyrants don't always storm in with jackboots and cannons. Sometimes they act as though they're doing you a favour.

Freedom of speech is a fantasy.

You're only as free as far are you're willing to fight against oppression.

You refuse to deny oppression, you, by default, agree to be silenced. No piece of paper will save you from that.

No one is willing to stick to their theoretical guns, when real guns are pointed at them. Submit, cower, obey.

Free? Only if you accept your lot in life and do not struggle against it. Struggle is discontent. Discontent is slavery. Slavery is what you are under any government that rules you without you having any say.

Voting? Ha. Preferential voting makes that a joke. You guy may not know it, but it's what we know here. All in all, there are masters, and there are slaves.

Try and break free from this? You are guilty of some crime, be it trespass onto government land, or theft of sorts.

Batteries. Monetary batteries is all we are.

Freedom of speech? might as well pour salt into the ocean. All that will be heard is how salty reality is..

Originally posted by RealSpoke
The first amendment is far more important that the 2nd. If you do not have the freedom of speech then you have nothing. Guns can't speak.

I used to say that the 2nd Amendment protected the 1st Amendment.

But I'm probably not allowed to say that anymore, and it definitely doesn't hold true today.

reply to post by beezzer


Westboro isnt a peaceable assembly when they unload at a funeral. Its provocative. In some states its againts the law to disrupt a lawfull assembly like a church or other meeting so this just extends that assholes that disrupt funerals are unlawfully disrupting. Its a lesser form of say what the Co shooter did in his disruption of a lawfull gathering of people watching a movie. He moved outside the protection of the 2A when he started shooting at noncombatants just as westboro moves outside the freedom of speech when they bring a blowhorn to a funeral.

reply to post by mainidh


A fight against something of that nature is certainly quixotic, but we fight our battles where we can, when we can, however we can.

Tilting at windmills is something I'm rather good at.

Originally posted by Logarock
reply to post by beezzer

 

Westboro isnt a peaceable assembly when they unload at a funeral. Its provocative. In some states its againts the law to disrupt a lawfull assembly like a church or other meeting so this just extends to assholes that disrupt funerals. Its a lesser form of say what the Co shooter did in his disruption of a lawfull gathering of people watching a movie. He moved outside the protection of the 2A when he started shooting just as westboro moves outside the freedom of speech when they bring a blowhorn to a funeral.

Provocative. Like when the NBP calls for the deaths of white people? Or how about the KKK, when they call for the deaths of everyone else.

Yet, it is allowed.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
The first amendment is far more important that the 2nd. If you do not have the freedom of speech then you have nothing. Guns can't speak.

Oh yes they do. Gunfire says volumes.

reply to post by beezzer


I wouldn't toss the Westboro crazies story in this category - Freedom of Speech as their hate speech has not been restricted. Their physical proximity for delivering said expression was restricted.

Example - Person A has been physically assaulted by her hubby and got a restraining order against him. Now, if Hubby (Person B) comes within so many feet of abused person A - he's in trouble.

I see the Westboro group legislation as closer to a blanket restraining order - rather than a restriction of free hate speech.

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
reply to post by beezzer

 

I wouldn't toss the Westboro crazies story in this category - Freedom of Speech as their hate speech has not been restricted. Their physical proximity for delivering said expression was restricted.

Example - Person A has been physically assaulted by her hubby and got a restraining order against him. Now, if Hubby (Person B) comes within so many feet of abused person A - he's in trouble.

I see the Westboro group legislation as closer to a blanket restraining order - rather than a restriction of free hate speech.

The KKK and NBP use hate speech yet they are protected by the 1st Amendment.

What this does is "qualify" the freedoms Westboro has. Sure, they can protest, but it is restricted by time and location.
Westboro disgusts me.

Curtailing their freedoms disgusts me more.

reply to post by beezzer


Agreed. That's exactly what it does. They still have their freedom of hate speech.

Originally posted by Trexter Ziam
reply to post by beezzer

 

Agreed. That's exactly what it does. They still have their freedom of hate speech.

Only at certain times and locations.

doesn't sound like freedom to me.

reply to post by mainidh

Freedom of speech is a fantasy.

The that to the newborn infant that won't stop wailing at three in the morning. Tell that to that infant three years later when he, or she asks a question only so he, or she can ask "but why" after your reply. Tell that to that three year old when he, or she becomes a teenager and no matter how brilliant that kid seemed to be before the age of 14, now every word that comes out of their rebellious, ungrateful, disrespectful mouth makes them appear to be the dumbest person on the planet. Tell them how their free speech is fantasy.

To add something here and in relation to those who say we have no free speech or that it's an illusion.

How would you define free speech to come to that conclusion? I fear my speech is BECOMING limited and it's more than writing on the wall at this point about the future, it's bright pink neon letters, 10 feet high. However, at THIS point in time, I do note my free speech is alive and well.

I've said things in posts here that are, outright, subversive by the laws of many nations around the world. If I'd said these things with an address in their nation and about their government, I'd have been in a rank room painted in that hospital green and wishing I'd kept my mouth shut by the end of the day.

Here, I can say *ALMOST* anything. There are things in the clear threat category and even there, only to specific and well outlined people in the law, which I cannot say. Even as a joke. However, beyond that or the open violation of Classified security stuff (which is every nation in the world..) I feel very free in my speech. At least, for now as we sit here today.