What do you consider freedom of speech?

reply to post by neo96


Riot gear doesn't stop a real riot. A real riot can stomp a man in seconds, regardless of how thick his flack jacket is. I told you why they have riot gear. One of the primary arguments for allowing riot gear is so the cops do not go through what you described.

It doesn't matter who the person or group is, they have rights. If they break the law, arrest them. Refusal to allow a protest is against the constitution. Which is exactly what they did. They kicked them out and told them no more protest. While you cheered in your heart.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

The church holds the purse while the government handles the muscle. They work together and in concert to control the great unwashed masses. If fear of punishment via incarceration does not work the fear of divine retribution comes into play.
It is no coincidence that the areas with the greatest poverty have the most religious populations and receive visits from Cardinals and Popes. Replacing thoughts of revolution with prayers for divine retribution is good business.

reply to post by AnarchysAngel


Not calling what OWs did protesting there was a world of difference compared to what freedom of speech means.

If they are not throwing things and destroying private property riot gear is not needed.

reply to post by neo96


C'mon, you know that there were LEO's in the crowd inciting them to go over the edge. That isn't saying much for the masses, I know, but, there are always a couple bad apples.

reply to post by beezzer


Freedom of speech is a term that only applies to Government. "Congress shall make no law..." In other words, ATS can restrict speech. Facebook can restrict speech. Your job can restrict speech. Congress can not restrict speech, and that obviously applies at the state and federal level. Having said that, I'm sure the vast majority of us here has heard "with rights come responsibilities." This is very true, so because you have the right to say something, or wear something, or do something.... should you say it, wear it, or do it? That is up for the individual to decide. True freedom means that you will be offended by the words or actions of someone else from time to time.

reply to post by neo96


When people start doing those things is exactly the time it's very important to uphold the American way when dealing with them. That is the time the American way can get lost in the midst of hate. It did. It has been.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


You make the correct distinction but what do you say to the examples provided? Congress made laws regarding two of them and politicians (or State agents) are actively trying to stifle the other via threats of power.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


We give the supreme court some time to overturn it. If that don't happen, it might just be time to water that tree once again.....

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by jiggerj

 

This is how they do it. They go after the people that most people will agree to take away freedom of speech, and then they start taking it away from others and it gets worse and worse over time.

Well, you're right. But I'm not seeing protests and riots over the government restrictions placed on Westboro Baptists freedom of speech and their right to peaceful assembly. So, We The People are letting it happen.

Originally posted by Trublbrwing
reply to post by beezzer

 

I consider freedom of speech the right to tell Hillary Clinton to resign for the good of the country without being given an "Incident Number".
True story.

And quite honestly, that is the embodiment of the First Amendment. Political Speech was the clear intent of the Founders. Call them names, slam them to the ground on their policies, make fun of them, draw ludicrous yet funny cartoons about them.

Once we begin to get singled out -- as been reported -- than it becomes an issue.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by AnarchysAngel

 

Not calling what OWs did protesting there was a world of difference compared to what freedom of speech means.

If they are not throwing things and destroying private property riot gear is not needed.

Until the pigs showed up it was a peaceful protest. And what they did was protesting.

reply to post by buster2010


While their initial act was protesting and is well within their Right to do so, what happened within is another story. Just as protesting regarding the Chick-Fil-A and defacing private property, there are countless stories about OWS (and I am not singling them out here but for the mere fact that is who you are in defense of in your response) going beyond protesting and actually breaking the law.

It is similar to when Anaheim, CA broke out in protest -- protest the actions of the police, but than spilled over to burning vehicles and smashing windows.

I am going to express my opinion in a way that goes a little beyond freedom of speech and includes other areas of the first amendment. And a bit of my own editorial on my observances, how's that. The founders of our country fought and struggled for independence from the tyrannical rule of the King of Great Britain in the firm conviction that as stated in the Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

After drafting the Constitution, concern was raised (by Richard Henry Lee) that the document lacked provisions to protect “those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist.” March 4, 1789 10 amendments to the Constitution were ratified, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution, which comprise the “Bill of Rights”. The First Amendment lays out those essential rights, and protects them by prohibiting them from being amended. In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that '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,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382

In recent years between the growth of the internet and online communication, and the increased mingling of religion and politics, references to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion have notably increased, primarily used more to defend ones actions against others rather than protecting ones own personal rights. Every where one turns these days those two terms “Freedom of Speech” and “Freedom of Religion” are becoming more like a battle cry, than provisions to protect the essential rights of mankind without which freedom cannot exist.

The First Amendment Rights were never intended to be used as a weapon to harm, restrict, or impede the equal rights of another. The Charters of Freedom establish that all “men” are created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights and the First Amendment establishes and protects those “essential rights of mankind

I have studied quite a bit regarding how the men who signed those documents came to agree on what was finally set down in the end. I know that the rights protected by the first amendment were of the highest priority in their beliefs, so much so that they worded the First Amendment so that the only body of government that was allowed to amend the Constitution, Congress, was forbidden to do so within that same Amendment. They firmly believed that all men were created equally and were born with the above mentioned rights, they had been forced to exist in an environment that opposed any inkling of free thought, curiosity or expression and they were intent on finding a way to throw off all of the various forms of repression that they felt prevented them from learning, growing, and experiencing the full gifts of life and ensuring that their children and their children's children would never have to live like that again. They realized that in throwing off those shackles of fear, allowed to be curious, to ponder and investigate the wonders of the world around them and freely express their ideas, intelligent free thinking, free speaking people will not always agree with one another they may argue, sometimes the opposing views will meld together to create something even better than either thought before (compromise and invention) which can be good,on the other hand they may disagree beyond compromise, one could be colorblind and think their shirt is green and the other insists it's blue, and I suppose they could yell about it all they want but equally protected under the first amendment neither has the right to decide "well I'm in some way better than him, so he better agree with me or I'll tie him to the back of my car and drag him around the block and we'll see who's right "

Freedom of speech was constructed to protect the individual's right express their ideas or opinions even if it opposes that of the "majority" without malice and without fear of being burned at the stake (or subject to harm) because of it. It was not constructed to allow people to intentionally and with malice set out to belittle, bully, abuse, and mentally torture someone else just because they are different in some way. it is a protection FROM not TO CAUSE HARM.

No one has a right to obstruct another exercising his faculties innocently for the relief of sensibilities made a part of his nature." -- Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816. ME 14:490

I hope this post hits the salient points that others have brought up while I was asleep.

Free speech is also responsible speech. The post about yelling fire in a crowded theatre is actually, You can't FALSLEY yell fire in a crowded threatre".
A distinction.

The differentiation between the examples was to illustrate the many fronts inwhich free speech is being attacked. The right to assemble either by OWS or WBC is curtailed with these laws.

When you impose a time-limit or geographical limit to someones freedom, then it stops being a freedom.

When you have to require permission to express a freedom, then it isn't a freedom any longer.

As for Chick-fil-A CEO? When you are singled out, punished, for expressing your opinion, then those that seek to punish are the ones that through punishment, are forcing an individual to curtail a freedom. Individuals have a right to boycott or to express their opposition towards an individuals expression.

But governments (mayors et al) do not.

The CEO expressed his opinion about gay marriage.
OWS express their dissatisfaction with government.
WBC are just nuts. I don't really know what their message is.

But with all three, I don't NEED to know their message. I don't NEED to understand them. I don't NEED to like/dislike them.

But as anyone who admires the Constitution, apparently I NEED to defend their rights.

Thanks to all that have taken the time to express their opinions.

Originally posted by beezzer
But as anyone who admires the Constitution, apparently I NEED to defend their rights.

Thanks to all that have taken the time to express their opinions.

Defense of our Natural Rights falls upon us all.

It is the Right of the Chick-Fil-A owner to express his personal opinion.
It is the Right of all to protest the business and use public discourse to express it.
It isn't the Right of the State to punish him for that expression.

It is the Right of OWS to protest and redress their Government.
It is the Right of those not of OWS to protest the protesters.
It is not the Right of the State to limit that redress because they don't like it.

It is the Right of Westboro to condemn and protest military personnel or their funerals.
It is not the Right of the State to limit their speech because the People have demanded it.

All that needs to be said.
George Carlin - You have no rights

Could post the clip but why bother, I'm sure you've all seen it

reply to post by Noncompatible


Great comedian but I certainly have Rights. I have the Right and duty, as a living creature, to defend my Right to live with my last breath.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by beezzer
But as anyone who admires the Constitution, apparently I NEED to defend their rights.

Thanks to all that have taken the time to express their opinions.

Defense of our Natural Rights falls upon us all.

It is the Right of the Chick-Fil-A owner to express his personal opinion.
It is the Right of all to protest the business and use public discourse to express it.
It isn't the Right of the State to punish him for that expression.

It is the Right of OWS to protest and redress their Government.
It is the Right of those not of OWS to protest the protesters.
It is not the Right of the State to limit that redress because they don't like it.

It is the Right of Westboro to condemn and protest military personnel or their funerals.
It is not the Right of the State to limit their speech because the People have demanded it.

Sadly, we have abdicated our responsibilities.

But we can always take them back.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by AnarchysAngel

 

Not calling what OWs did protesting there was a world of difference compared to what freedom of speech means.

If they are not throwing things and destroying private property riot gear is not needed.

I'd just hope you remember people like me in noting one thing on Occupy. At the height I knew a solid number for, it reached 4.3 Million people across nearly a dozen nations and in almost every state in the nation. 90% of the Occupy protest camps never made a news headline and wasn't really seen outside of Occupy and those who stuck to the Livestream feeds.

Only the Combat camps made the headlines in a major way and they are what drove many good people like me, out of it. I just hate to think that what really was a promising movement with a broad cross section of the population (if only for a few months time) is remembered only for Oakland and OWS Main in New York. It was so much more...and it was protest met with force beyond all reason ..BEFORE.. Occupy got totally out of hand, itself.

its being able to speak out against the government / church / establishment
without fear of being arrested , tortured or murdered .... its also being able to speak without restraint because one has to worry about offending some overly sensitive group of idiots ...
freedom of speach is being able to speak bluntly and truthfully ...