What do you consider freedom of speech?

I do not see how the supreme court is letting any of this fly. "Free speech zones", requiring permits for protests, totally sick. Supreme court my ass.....

reply to post by beezzer


I'm going to play the devil's advocate because I do have issues with certain freedoms.

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

Why do we have to live in an all or nothing environment? We are imperfect people trying to live within perfectly rigid laws.

We all want freedom of speech, but we don't want the nutcases of that Westboro Baptist Church expressing their fanatical views at funerals for soldiers. Right now congress is about to pass a law that forbids them from protesting 2 hours before until 2 hours after a funeral.

This is like saying that for four hours these people don't have freedom of speech.

Is it right for our government to do this? Probably not. But, would any sane person stand up and fight for the rights of these lunatics? You won't find me on any picket line.

No Freedom of Speech for WBC
---------------------------------------------
So, is it right for us to be held hostage by blanket laws that allow and protects such vile opinions? Apparently, congress doesn't think so.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jimmyx

 

simple...the written INTENT was for HUMAN freedoms

The internet is chock full of links to The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers, and countless writings by the Founders in regards to INTENT, yet you, not surprisingly, declined to offer up one scintilla of evidence to support your contention that the Founders INTENT is what you say it is. Gee, I wonder why that is...

ok..i will put it as simply as possible......with absolutely no "wiggle-room"
a corporation does not have a mouth or a vocal speech box....therefore it is unable to have speech, and the free or not-free argument becomes mute.

look jean paul you are a intelligent person...you know exactly what i mean...i do not need "evidence" to state the obvious, you are arguing for the sake of arguement. this is not a logic test, it's not a waltz of the english language. this is about a convoluted twisting of a very simple, easy to read, and understandable meaning of " freedom of speech" done by a court determined (by my cynical thinking) to give the wealthy the freedom to use practically unlimited, and unaccounted for, money to influence elected government officals to their way of thinking, and thus governing. along with the massive amount of profits now generated by corporations, added to the billions of dollars of personal wealth, a very few individuals can control an entire nation.
now if you want a plutocracy, or a facist government, you keep championing the idea.

reply to post by jiggerj


We like to think that we should have 'certain inalienable rights' every minute of every day, and everywhere we decide to hold a peaceful assembly (be it on a country road, city street, or on the steps of the White House). But, when these rights are in direct conflict with the rights and freedoms of others, shouldn't a line be drawn somewhere?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

You clearly have no idea who you're debating if you honestly think you have to lecture me on what a simile is, and worse, thinking you can get away with declaring your bad analogy - (look that up for yourself) A-N-A-L-O-G-Y - is worthy of the literary device of simile.

That made me L-O-L

reply to post by Logarock


So you have a gun, yet you cannot freely communicate ideas and thoughts...that gun is then useless. You're not going to be able to overthrow the modern US gov, judge, and jury with a gun.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


That said, allow me to use your post as a springboard to post some of the Founders INTENT on the First Amendment, and full disclosure, I was being somewhat disingenuous in regards to The Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers as these papers are defending, and arguing against, a Constitution that contained no Bill of Rights The link I just provided is Alexander Hamilton explaining why he thought a Bill of Rights were unnecessary.

In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended.

~Chief Justice John Marshall - Barrone v. Boston~

free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedition acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created

~Thomas Jefferson - The Kentucky Resolution~

Here are some more quotes by others who were not founders:

The dominant purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the widespread practice of government suppression of embarrassing information

~William O. Douglas~

Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.

~Harry Truman~

Above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship.

~Jutice Thurgood Marshall~

reply to post by jimmyx

ok..i will put it as simply as possible......with absolutely no "wiggle-room" a corporation does not have a mouth or a vocal speech box....therefore it is unable to have speech, and the free or not-free argument becomes mute.

Government does not have a mouth or vocal speech box either and look at how mouthy they get. Points are moot, by the way. People who cannot speak are mute.

reply to post by seeker1963


EXACTLY....this once great country is beig brought down to it's very knees! And all for what? Pieces of paper that can tell you how much your worth!? Thank walmart for ruining small stores, thank mcdonalds for driving little restaurants out. Thank your auto makers fpr overproducing vehicles you wont buy. Thank the people who keep you inside your house glued to a screen,running up the electric bill. Thank all these people for keeping you distracted while the ship is sinking....you all depend on ""them"" as much as they depend on you. They are you. Jut like you...

it's a bunch of rubbish, never meant anything and never will

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by jimmyx

 

ok..i will put it as simply as possible......with absolutely no "wiggle-room" a corporation does not have a mouth or a vocal speech box....therefore it is unable to have speech, and the free or not-free argument becomes mute.

Government does not have a mouth or vocal speech box either and look at how mouthy they get. Points are moot, by the way. People who cannot speak are mute.

really?...gee....i was hoping you would pick up on the my silly play on words...you know mute?...speechless?...corporations?...oh well....i should have guessed you would provide me with a rudimentary english lesson. excuse me for sounding forensically challanged.

Originally posted by beezzer

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.

I believe there is a difference though between the free expression of your beliefs (the right to say it) and using the act of expression to oppress another. I also agree that WBC issue is a bit different as it calls into question how "peaceable" their assembly is.

It feels like rights are lately either being used one against the other (for example the right to say you hate gays through funding organizations that actively work to deny them equal access to marriage), or they are used in tandem with one use being protected and the other not because it doesn't meet the criteria (which is probably why the compromise was made with WBC). Things are getting very bizarre...

It does make me suspicious though. Like we are being tested to see how much hatred we are willing to tolerate under the guise of free speech. Are we being prepped for something? A complete moral breakdown, perhaps? Where anyone can hate, freely, and because we all can...we do.

reply to post by jimmyx


I picked up on and is why I made the salient point - as opposed to moot point - since you seem hell bent on insisting that corporations are not people it is a convoluted point to anthropomorphize corporations.

Do you know what else I picked up on? How you chose to ignore my other salient point, that government has no mouth or vocal box and yet here you are defending a governments mouthy privilege of chilling speech.

reply to post by otherpotato

It does make me suspicious though. Like we are being tested to see how much hatred we are willing to tolerate under the guise of free speech. Are we being prepped for something? A complete moral breakdown, perhaps? Where anyone can hate, freely, and because we all can...we do.

Anyone can hate freely, and many - not all - do. There are no laws against hate. The so called "hate crime" legislative acts are privileges stacked upon the back of valid legislation that seeks to find remedy for injury. Indeed, the so called "hate crime" legislative acts discriminate against people who've been injured for other reasons than "hate". If a man murders his wife in a jealous outrage, this is not a "hate crime". The family of the woman murdered is less privileged than the family of a person murdered due to "hate". I keep placing quotation marks around the word hate because it is arguable that a man who murdered his wife in jealous outrage was experiencing hate, but this is not at all what "hate crime" legislation addresses.

You all ready know my views on the whole "denying of equal access to marriage" situation so I'll let that rest, but the whole point of free speech is to ensure that all, haters and lovers alike, have that right. Imagine if speech came with a licensing requirement.

Originally posted by beezzer
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.
beez

Really, so it's as simple as that?

There's a big difference between HR 347 and banning of protests at military funerals.

One dictates what is public property and when, and can block individuals from speaking out against their government when they'd otherwise have no sufficient alternative at getting their message across. The first amendment was founded around preventing this sort of restriction.

The other applies to areas that are not public property in the first place, therefore aren't by law protected by freedom of speech rights. Furthermore it would protect the rights of those who would otherwise be forced to be subjected to the speech (captive audience). If your audience has no choice but to listen to your message, you aren't protected by the amendment.

Neither of these laws target specific groups, per say, but only one of them violates the constitution.

The world isn't black and white. Neither are our laws.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I'm not saying hate shouldn't be a right (god knows I'd be the first one locked up if that was the case). I'm just pointing out that the freedom to hate seems to be awfully celebrated lately, and the reasons behind the hate little examined. Are we supposed to just accept the hatred because of the freedom to speak it? Everyone is so hung up on the act of speaking they aren't paying attention to the dangers behind the messages being spoken.

reply to post by otherpotato


It is not just speech, thoughts are things! However, in order to exercise our right to preach Love, it is necessary those who want to preach hate have the same right. In the end, our speech matters not if we cannot live by the words we speak. It is always better to teach by example than to seek ways to prevent others from doing something we too can all to easily fall prey to.

Living by example is far easier said than done. Lord knows I've plenty of deleted posts in this site because of my own failure to take the high road. I can dwell on my failures, or just keep trying. Besides, Micheal Jordan once pointed out that he is remembered for the shots he made, not the ones he missed. Jordan missed way more than he made.

It is not the speech that fails to meet the high standard that matters as much as that speech that meets that standard and even exceeds it.

In the sense of Government or the State, the natural Right of any human being to speak freely (freedom of speech if want) is the cornerstone of a free society. Notice here, I speak of the society, not the individual. The free exchange of ideas is paramount in moving a society forward. Speech comes in different forms of course. We draw it, speak it, write it, use inanimate and material objects to project it (one I know is of contention is money) and facilitate it.

The OP gave three excellent examples. OWS, Westboro and Chik-fil-a. Each are practicing their ability to speak freely, but in different contexts respectively.

The OWS, or any other protest group for that matter, are finding out that the State doesn't like dissention. I may not agree with their message, but they have not only the Right to speak their message freely, but also to associate and petition their Government. As for the "new" law, as with any other legislation on the books, we can find it to be aimed at abridging a Right. My only advice there would be for the OWS et. al, to challenge it and show that the "law" isn't specific and narrow. Luckily the Supreme Court still has a hard stance on the First Amendment.

The Westboro people, as abhorrent and disgusting as I find their message, haven't broken any law (none that I have seen; if they have, surely correct me) or caused harm (as JPZ pointed out, hurting feelings isn't yet a crime).

The Chik-fil-a issue wasn't that big of a deal until politicians started sticking their nose in it. That is where I find the biggest threat. Citizens using their Right to exercise disdain for the company are doing so correctly. Garner public support, get your message out and make a push. Chik-fil-a's owner also did nothing wrong (lawfully) and made a decision that he can express his beliefs knowing that it won't affect his business.

What troubles me is when mayors and representatives, looking to score political points, start making threats against a business because of the personal stance of a business owner. Threats of not allowing them to obtain a business license or open a new store or even kicking them out of "their" city are abuses of power and possibly illegal.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Logarock

 

So you have a gun, yet you cannot freely communicate ideas and thoughts...that gun is then useless. You're not going to be able to overthrow the modern US gov, judge, and jury with a gun.

Well as history has shown, bullets are worth more than words when push comes to shove. There is a time for words and a time for action.

DP