freedom of speech? yeah right

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2003 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ilostmyname
Freedom of speech. If you think we have it, tell that to the dixie chicks who dared to speak out against our wonderful president. (sarcastic tone intended).


We still have freedom of speech. The people just didn't like the message the Dixie Chicks were portraying. Honestly, I never liked their message.




posted on Nov, 23 2003 @ 11:47 AM
link   
boycotts were started against the dixie chicks albums..honestly I wouldnt doubt if the government started these boycotts to shut them up...



posted on Nov, 23 2003 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Here's an idea.....
Instead of saying that your "freedom of speech" rights are being evaporated or negated or taken away.........how about someone do a research on this and come up with a definition of what "Freedom of Speech" is and guarentees and then how it is applied to the individual (ie: you, they, us, me, etc.)
I mean, after all, this is the "Education" forum is it not?


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 23-11-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 23 2003 @ 12:06 PM
link   
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 "right" of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.

definition of "abridge" is: 1) to reduce in scope, extent, etc.; shorten
-Syn. shorten.



posted on Nov, 23 2003 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mig12


We still have freedom of speech. The people just didn't like the message the Dixie Chicks were portraying. Honestly, I never liked their message.


I agree with you.

Who lost their speach rights?

Please give examples.



posted on Nov, 23 2003 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curiosity
And How about this:


New Jersey station bans Jethro Tull
Following comments by Jethro Tull leader Ian Anderson concerning the potential dangers of overzealous jingoism, New Jersey radio station WCHR invokes a permanent ban on playing the group's music.
Anderson was quoted in the Asbury Park Press saying, "I hate to see the American flag hanging out of every bloody station wagon, out of every SUV, every little Midwestern house in some residential area. It's easy to confuse patriotism with nationalism. Flag waving ain't gonna do it."
The following day WCHR put the potential ban up for an audience vote.
"The reaction of our audience has been 99 percent in favor of the ban and 99 percent incredulous that he would say such stupid things," stated Phil LoCascio, WCHR's program director. "He is a smart guy. As far as we're concerned, this ban is forever."


From: ericnuzum.com...

Freedom of speech and Freedom to be you are disappearing...slowly...and they will keep evaporating until it is gone...it is the sad truth really....but it will happen....soon...very soon!


Originally posted by kalki
fear=population control


I totaly agree....


the radio station is under NO OBLIGATION to play their music. you cant force people to do things such as that simply under the premise "freedom of speech". they own the station they can say what plays on the station, simple as that.



posted on Nov, 23 2003 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Education and media? This looks like Pit material to me.

Joz, lets get something straight, your foul language has nothing to do with the freedom of speech. If you think that brave patriots fought and died for the right to use vulgarity, you truly are an uneducated little fella. The owner of the board doesn't want profanity used on his board because in mature, adult worlds, it is offensive and in totally bad form. Now, you can certainly trot off to another board and cuss until the cows come home, but we aim a little higher than the lowest common denominator.

Natalie spoke her mind, and what happened? Was she arrested by the Feds? Assasinated by the CIA or FBI? No, she was not bothered. She exercised her right to free speech and it was unhampered. What's your beef, Chief? You are trying to make a case over a nonevent.



posted on Nov, 25 2003 @ 08:34 AM
link   
BTW, you have no free speech here, because this is a PRIVATELY OWNED board. Someone pays so that you can come here and ramble off your little conspiracy theroies(sp).



posted on Nov, 25 2003 @ 11:49 AM
link   
also, keep in mind that boycotts are different than the loss of the freedom of speech. if we have enough money we can say whatever we want to.
as for education though, students are limited as to what they can say in their newspapers and such. why? not because of the government or lack of freedom of speech, but because principals censor everything. so we shouldnt blame the govenment for stuff like that, and its not unconsitutional to boycott things either. (sorry if this is a little off topic)



posted on Nov, 25 2003 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daz3d-n-Confus3d

Originally posted by ilostmyname
Freedom of speech. If you think we have it, tell that to the dixie chicks who dared to speak out against our wonderful president. (sarcastic tone intended).


Actually the Chicks were not censored.The people chose not to listen to them.They have a product to sale and the free market system worked in this case.Thats how it works.If I like what you have to say or sing or whatever you may be selling,I will buy it.If not well then you go away eventually.
When are these actors and performers going to learn that it is better to shut the hell up and keep politics and religion out of their business.If a person owns a large toy company and goes on television or radio and announces that he hates Santa Claus(example) and this pisses people (and children) off,then they have the right not to buy his product,and guess what happens to the company.This is not censorship persay because that guy can yell all day long how much he hates old Santa and never have to shut up,but his wallet will soon begin to feel it.Gotta love the freemarket system.



Actually their sales went through the roof after the publicity...power to the people indeed.

There is no enemy anywhere - Lao Tse



posted on Nov, 26 2003 @ 11:33 AM
link   
You have the right say pretty much anything you want. As long as it not slander or going to endanger someones life. Even slander is acceptable these days. The problem is people may not like what you have too say. Like the Dixie Chicks. They said what they wanted,but most people did not agree with it. It is their right to not agree.



posted on Nov, 26 2003 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Freedom of speech is a concept that has been debated in a lot of studies. Most of these studies lie in the academic fields of organisation or political science. I mention this because I've read some of them, and can conclude that they rarely ever talk about overt strategies as a means of abridging free speech. Under democratic regimes power must be used way more subtle if you are going to succeed with limiting this freedom. People have to buy into it or else they revolt (or at least make sure you're not in power anymore).

One of the most successful ways of accomplishing this is to control the agenda. If you can control what people think needs to be taken care of, you're halfway there.

For example, how many US presidents have not served a second term? The reason is because the president can get his message across just because he is the president. He draws a lot of media attention and is not required to draw attention on his own. This means people listen to him, whereas every other candidate has to prove to the public why they should be taken seriously.

Another very effective way of controlling free speech is to try and set the boundaries of what is accepted for public debate. If you go beyond these borders you are ridiculed, patronised or not taken seriously for whatever reason there may be.

For example, if I were to claim that the electricity business should be taken over by the state in California, a lot of people would say that I'm a socialist. This would effectively diminish my possibilities to take part in public discussion of the matter, because I'm labeled as a person with "unsound" ideas.

Legislation cannot prevent these strategies, which is why these matters are the most important factors when measuring the level of freedom.
Questions like:

How many news sources do you have?
Are they using the same sources?
Are they conform in their stories?
Are you able to form your "own" opinion?

are more important than if you're able to express any opinion of your choice.

Moreover, what is the reaction if you have a different opinion than what is politically correct?

Arguing that cursing and general foul language is just abusing the debate and in fact counter-productive. Look for the covert strategies of all people with any sort of power and you will find your answer...



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 01:43 AM
link   
my definition of freedom of speech is simple......think of the nastiest most disgusting thing i could say......then defend my right to be able to say it:think about that



posted on Jan, 14 2004 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Russian
Who lost their speach rights?
Please give examples.


**A.J. Brown, a freshman at Durham Technical College, almost jumped out of her skin when agents from the
Raleigh, N.C. office of the U.S. Secret Service and an
investigator from the Durham Police Department
knocked on her apartment door on Oct. 27, 2001.
They were responding to an anonymous report about
an “anti-American” wall poster. Terrified, Brown, 19,
phoned her mother before opening the door.
Did she have any information about Afghanistan? they
asked. No. The Taliban? No. At their request, she filled
out a form providing her full name, race, phone number
and other identifying information but, on her
mother’s advice, stopped short of inviting them in.
The poster, opposing the death penalty, showed
George W. Bush holding a rope against a backdrop of
lynch victims, with the text, “We hang on your every word.” Texas executed 152 people while Bush was
governor, it said.

**Eight youthful protesters carrying anti-war signs were arrested and dozens injured in a confrontation with police March 30, 2003 following a large peace rally in the city’s Forest Park. Some 60 youths, who had attempted to march out of the rally together, said police blocked off the street, ordered them onto the sidewalk and pushed one participant off her bicycle. Some were
thrown to the ground or against squad cars, and one
suffered a concussion and had to go to the hospital.
Some said they were handcuffed, and then maced
after the cuffs were on, and that the arresting officers
hurled epithets – “traitor,” “anti-American,” “unpatriotic”
– at them for opposing the war.

**During a Nov. 4, 2002 Bush visit, activists Bill
Ramsey and Angela Gordon were arrested after
refusing to move to a gravel parking lot a quarter-
mile away from the president’s entourage.

**On Jan. 22, 2003, Andrew Wimmer was arrested
for refusing to take his “Instead of war, invest in
people” sign to a designated protest zone more
than three blocks away and down an embankment;
however, a woman with a “Mr. President,
we love you” sign was allowed to remain. Police
also barred reporters from entering the protest
zone to interview dissenters.

** When Bush visited the local Boeing plant on April
16, 2003, authorities attempted to herd protesters
into a designated protest zone a quarter-mile away
and off the main road, in a field. But the 20-
square-foot roped-off area was too small to contain
all the protesters – among them, Christine
Mains and her 5-year-old daughter. When Mains,
standing several hundred feet away with an antiwar
sign, refused to move, she and her tearful
child were hauled away in separate squad cars.
Mains charged that authorities also treated her
roughly and set her bond so high she couldn’t be
released until the ACLU intervened, hours later.

If these examples are not sufficient to illustrate the erosion of our First Amendment rights, just look around the internet for 1st amendment violations. There are more than you can imagine.

Here are a couple of quotes relating to the subject...


"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth; and
I am sure...we both value too much the freedom of opinion
sanctioned by our Constitution, not to cherish its exercise even
where in opposition to ourselves." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H.
Wendover, 1815.

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press.
You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know before hand that it will never appear in print.
I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others
of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to
write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.
If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours
my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn
at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I
know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassels for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." --
John Swinton, Former Chief of Staff of the New York Times, Called by his peers , "The dean of
his profession", was asked in 1953 to give a toast before the New York Press Club.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join