What is "Freedom of Speech"?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I want your true and unedited opinions on this. Please try and not argue about differing views...I just want to see what everyone believes this right gives.

I think it is exactly what it says.

I don't have to agree with someone's point of view. I might find their statements harsh, brash and offensive...but...I truly believe they have a right to say what they think and what they feel and for it to be TOTALLY uncensored. This is The USA. If I disagree with someone, I can ignore them, rebuttal them or attempt to enter into conversation and/or debate about the topic. I do not ever want someone who disagrees with me to be censored because they are brutish.

The Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher discussions.

I disagree with both of them.

I don't think Bill should have called Sarah Palin a "C" or a "T". But it was his show, his format and his opinion. I don't think you should ever call a woman those things...no matter how much you dislike her. But I do not feel he should have been censored...and...I am glad he wasn't.

I don't think Rush should have said that the college student was a "Slut" and a "Prostitute" and said he wanted her to post videos of her having sex. I think it was callous and brash and in very poor taste...but...it is his right to say what he thinks...we can either listen, ignore, engage or tune his show out from now on....again...I don't have to agree or even like what he has to say...but we have a document that guarantees his right to be able to say it.

I am for protecting our basic rights...even when we disagree with how someone else chooses to use that right. I dislike censorship and I feel it has no place whatsoever in any medium that is born and founded in this country...regardless what rules, regulations or terms and conditions have been set up to infringe on that right...it is a right and any measure to infringe on that right of any of us should be openly challenged...even to a court of law...rights are rights...it is not open for anyone to choose when and where they apply...

But that is just my opinion...

Now let me hear yours.

Thank you.




posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I think freedom of speech is a two-way street. Sure, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher and others can say anything they desire (as long as they do not incite others to panic or commit criminal conspiracy), but other people have a right to protest, boycott and even petition the networks to cancel their programs. Freedom of speech does not guarantee silence from an audience or the support of a media network. If Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher want to continue freely exercising their freedom of speech by saying stupid things, fine, but they can do so without a radio or television program, if that is the will of the people and the networks.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Damrod
 


Like all basic rights, freedom of speech is dependent on property rights. Whoever owns the property the speech is being conveyed on is the ultimate arbitrator on what's allowed to be said. Private property = private property owners' rules. Public property = public property owners', which is us, and is detailed in the many constitutions we have for it, and then tweaked/fixed through the democratic process, whether it be legislation from the senate or judicial review from the courts, etc.,



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by EktoPlazm
I think freedom of speech is a two-way street. Sure, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher and others can say anything they desire (as long as they do not incite others to panic or commit criminal conspiracy), but other people have a right to protest, boycott and even petition the networks to cancel their programs. Freedom of speech does not guarantee silence from an audience or the support of a media network. If Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher want to continue freely exercising their freedom of speech by saying stupid things, fine, but they can do so without a radio or television program, if that is the will of the people and the networks.


I somewhat agree but mostly disagree. People can protest and head into the streets, but I dislike the idea of "the mob rules"...that is not fair representation. The idea of majority rules is actually communism...the many decide the fate of the few...this is not a republic. A republic is the rule of law...where even the few...or the one...has equal representation...that is the difference...and never lose sight of that.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
reply to post by Damrod
 


Like all basic rights, freedom of speech is dependent on property rights. Whoever owns the property the speech is being conveyed on is the ultimate arbitrator on what's allowed to be said. Private property = private property owners' rules. Public property = public property owners', which is us, and is detailed in the many constitutions we have for it, and then tweaked/fixed through the democratic process, whether it be legislation from the senate or judicial review from the courts, etc.,


I somewhat disagree with this as well. Property = wealth and so therefore the wealthy get to decide what people can say anywhere except public property? I do not think this is how the Founding Fathers intended it. Referring to my reply to the only other opinion so far...I disagree with "the mob rules" mentality. Majority rules is a fundamental concept of communism. "The good of the many" idea...and so minorities get swept under the carpet...or into concentration camps/prison camps...a true Republic does not work that way...a true Republic is "the rule of law" and allows the few...even the one...equal rights and representation...THIS is what is fair...and ...believe it or not...The Ancient Greeks were one of the few that actually understood what a "Republic" rule of law carried with it....Gotta love those crazy ancient Greeks...they got problems now but man were they some clever folks or what?
edit on 3/16/2012 by Damrod because: spelling
edit on 3/16/2012 by Damrod because: spelling



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Oh please...does no one else see the value of this....do you know/understand what happens when it is gone?
edit on 3/16/2012 by Damrod because: fixed for morons



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
I guess I'm not going to pull flags because this s important and we al need to be involved....but if we are drugged out and stupid...no difference..

FIX IT DAMN IT!.....I cannot fix everything....please market for fix....



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 12:54 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 the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


How much simpler does the language need to be? The Bill of Rights in its entirety is stated in 463 words. This was done on purpose. Would it be easier to understand it it were excruciatingly more detailed? The federal directive to regulate the price of cabbage is 26,911 words long and growing. Is that the kind of detail people want? I doubt anyone in the world can read that federal directive and understand what the hell it means. The constitution uses plain and to the point wording, it is simple to understand. It is already terribly perverted even though a five year old can understand what it says. Imagine if nobody could understand what it said and it was the size of a phone book. The simplicity of the wording is one of its greatest protections.



The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy. U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette,



The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. – U.S. Supreme Court, South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448



The framers of the Constitution employed words in their natural sense; and where they are plain and clear, resort to collateral aids to interpretation is unnecessary and cannot be indulged in to narrow or enlarge the text.
-U.S. Supreme Court, McPherson v. Blacker



I cannot assent to the view, if it be meant that the legislature may impair or abridge the rights of a free press and of free speech whenever it thinks that the public welfare requires that it be done. The public welfare cannot override constitutional privilege. U.S. Supreme Court, Patterson v. Chicago



If there is any principle of the constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate. United States v. Schwimmer



Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. – U.S. Supreme Court, Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blairsdell,



The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our history abundantly attest. -U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Lovell v. City of Griffin



All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. – U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury vs Madison



The right to defy an unconstitutional statute is basic in our scheme. Even when an ordinance requires a permit to make a speech, to deliver a sermon, to picket, to parade, or to assemble, it need not be honored when it's invalid on its face. – Potter Stewart, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Walker v. Birmingham



Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence –U.S. Supreme Court, Mapp vs. Ohio



The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism – U.S. Supreme Court, Ex Parte Milligan



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   
dude you are so correct....wow...I am seriously impressed with how easily we have been tossed aside....dont forget that damn it.....now here...more ammo why to listen to us....

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Get it folks...get it and go...no...it's not clever...it's serious and we need to move ow...best of luck....
\Can'rt have none...stupid reigns....all to the walls....life ends today!

folks thinks this has to do with end of days,,,they are retards....as nothng t do...but let them feed money to mom....i like it....lets go....

# t fags....give it to ,om or die.....
edit on 3/16/2012 by Damrod because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
1

log in

join