It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freedom of Speech Serious Discussion

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Please don't be insulted by the fact that "Serious Discussion" was in the title but I'm really looking for both sides on this topic. Clearly this site represents a large part of the benefit of freedom of speech but what about the other more negative sides. Will the negative eventually over ride the intent of this part of the constitution. When we look at the music that is played today even on somewhat family stations the music is sexually charged with some forms of violence peppered in there. I'm sure my grandparents said the same thing about my parents music however there appears to be a steeper and steeper decline on what is appropriate and what is not. The internet has tons of advantages but the ability for pedophiles to pray on the children at nauseam is a giangantic issue that is virtually impossible to keep in check. Obvioulsy good parenting helps curb this but even the sharpest parent can miss things. I find it amazing that a person who writes a book on how to lure children in to have their way with them falls under the guise of Freedom of Speech. Our for fathers had no idea what the future or technology would be like today and my gut tells me that the intent of this section of the constituion was more geared towards political oppression. We can advance in every other way as a society and technologically but we cannot advance or atleast redefine to some degree what this means.

It is horrible to think how desensitized children will be as they grow up with more and more violence surrounding them. I understand if we decide to change or limit what freedom of speech means this has significant implications for everyone but do we uphold this constitution at the peril of individuals or any particular race.
Why is it necessary to post a beheading of Daniel Pearl on line and that be acceptible, why is a bus full of children that die in some thirdworld country necessary to post? I don't think many would argue that some of the behaviors kids see on line or adults could be contagious. It's really depressing how groups or individuals have taken advantage of this right and twisted it into their own depravity under the shield of the constitution. Please keep in mind that slavery was acceptable then however the Decleration made no SPECIFIC mention that slavery should be abolished yet we made the change knowing that it was wrong. Why can't we as an individual state tailor provision under the freedom of speech to include the incarceration of pedophiles in the attempt to lure or distribute information which in facts puts children at risk for harm?? Sorry if I was all over the place on this one..




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by chrismarco
I find it amazing that a person who writes a book on how to lure children in to have their way with them falls under the guise of Freedom of Speech. Our for fathers had no idea what the future or technology would be like today and my gut tells me that the intent of this section of the constituion was more geared towards political oppression.


Pedophelia existed when our forefathers wrote the Constitution. Book writing also existed.I'm not sure that is has anything to do with technology.



It is horrible to think how desensitized children will be as they grow up with more and more violence surrounding them.


I agree. Our culture worships violence, and that's a problem. But the solution doesn't lie in putting a Band Aid on speech. That's not going to change the culture of violence in this country. That's treating the symptom instead of the problem.



Why is it necessary to post a beheading of Daniel Pearl on line and that be acceptible, why is a bus full of children that die in some thirdworld country necessary to post?


We don't have rights because they are necessary. We have rights because as human beings, we have rights. Our entire country is based on that premise.


Why can't we as an individual state tailor provision under the freedom of speech to include the incarceration of pedophiles in the attempt to lure or distribute information which in facts puts children at risk for harm??


There is no indication that the material you speak of puts children at risk. Children are already at risk. They always have been. Incarcerating someone because of what they write (whether we agree with it or not) is against the very founding of this country. There are plenty of people who would agree with you. But what panel is going to sit and decide which people should be incarcerated because of something they wrote? Who gets to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Thanks



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I'm more concerned about "hate speech". Sounds like a way for a mob to silence minorities who don't share their view.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Interesting post and question, and it deserves an answer. However, there are a few things you have mentioned, that tend to fall within other issues, that should be mentioned, and some of which you pointed out, falls under the freedom of the press as well as the freedom of speech. The civil war, at the beginning, was not fought to end slavery, rather it was fought under the guise to protect the union. Slavery was not mentioned, until Gettysburg, as a moral point to justify the war to the people of the north, who were tired of the long war and the number of dead, to keep the support going. The freedom of speech, in its base form, was put there in the bill of rights, not to allow people to speak, rather to protect the right for people to express themselves when someone or even a government does not agree with it. If someone were to state, I like the color red, and you agree, you never think about that right or freedom. But if someone were to state: I hate birds, they should be wiped out. And you disagree, the true test is not that you start saying we should ban such speech, rather that you are willing to stand up and protect the persons right to state such. To place limits on what people can say, or even show, opens a door for the government to put curtails on other things that fall into that same category. It is not only wrong, it is also pushing a boundary that should never be crossed, as it would affect everyone in the country, and have ripples around the world.
The best examples of this often fall into the areas of religion, press, and people, many of whom have at one time said things that are either wrong or shocking. And continue to state or do things that are considered shocking. Yes children, often see or hear those things, but you can not shield them forever, to do such would ultimately have a far worse consequence, especially when they are exposed to such in the first place. What could be considered wrong in the long run, and the governments attempt to curtail the freedom of speech is the idea of Political correctness. That ultimately is having a very bad effect on the entire country, leading to more frivolous lawsuits and problems, as people are not able to state what is on their mind, or be truthful with themselves or others. Political correctness, is one of the few things that has come out that has harmed the freedom of speech in more than one way, and often, it insults people, as there are groups out there, that can say one thing, but not others. It separates the country and puts an invisible dividing line in the population, rather than drawing them together. And to make matters worse, some would use it as a weapon, and have. The best example of this is the n word, that many people are afraid to state, but only one group will and do often. We live in a country that often values equal justice across the board, yet when it comes to being PC, the division starts.
Before you ask, are there some expressions or things I disagrees with, yes, as would many people, however, I support the persons right to state and express themselves fully, even if I find the message that they are putting out to be very vile. In that sense and aspect, I am protecting the freedom of speech for everyone including our children and our descendents that will come after I am long gone. It will be a very dark day for everyone, when the door, and the freedom is eroded more, where people are no longer able to speak or justify themselves fully.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join