Freedom of Speech and common misconceptions

Speech, hate or otherwise is the expression of thought. It does not matter what another person's opinions are about it, it's a rather simple position.

I know there are many that rationalize that "provoking" someone is bad. I say "responding violently" is bad. If I say the sky is purple and you do not like that, that does not give you the right to get violent...it does give you the right to say "no, you are wrong, it's blue"...

I will refuse to allow any of our First Amendment rights to be imposed upon or reduced. It was freedom to speak out against the gov AND religion is why is was penned down....and because someone says something I disagree with, it does not give me the right to silence them.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by lonegurkha

 

It should be understood that what you are describing are civil remedies. There must be an accuser that can show damages. I think what some people are advocating is the creation of a bureaucracy that will determine and issue charges without the presence of an accuser or the necessity of declaring and proving damages.

This to me is a very scary philosophy.

And of corase you are correct. However these laws do limit what you can say about others. Civil or not they impose a limitation on what can be said.

I agree that is a scary philosophy. I believe that there is another part of the constitution which states that there needs to be an accuser.

reply to post by Jeremiah65


saying the sky is purple is hardly inciting violence so to speak, unless the person that has been provoked has a severe mental condition......making a film that blatantly insults a central character in a belief system that is sacred to 1.5 billion individuals is crossing a few lines as it will undoubtebly incite great violence had you known thesignificance and severity of such action......given the vulgar way in which it was done the entire display is more akin to hate speech rather than FREEDOM of speech.....do you see the difference here? this is common sense........this thread was initiated in light of RECENT events...i am not trying to impose on any first amendment and any instance of free speech ever given in mankinds history......

reply to post by lonegurkha

However these laws do limit what you can say about others. Civil or not they impose a limitation on what can be said.

They do not impose a limitation they provide guidelines for when a person can successfully be awarded remedies in civil court.

You either have free speech or you don't

applying rules of "diligence" is not free speech.

Diligence should be expected not required.

I do not believe you can place laws on hate speech and still claim to freedom.

Originally posted by Agarta
When I see people quoting the Constitution/Bill of Rights and expecting it to be the end all of discussion...

It is the end all of the discussion.

Perhaps you think I'm stupid. Perhaps you think I'm incapable of understand the simple words "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"?

Perhaps you think I need a group of lawyers or men in black robes to tell me what what it actually means?

I know what it means. Don't insult my intelligence.

reply to post by harvib


Perhaps this will be more to your liking, my thanks to Agarta for the link.

Limits on free speech

reply to post by METACOMET


If you took my comment as an insult it was by your own interpretation. IT IS NOT THE END ALL whether you want it to be or not. When laws HAVE been passed and are BEING legally and lawfully upheld, THEY take precedence, LIKE IT OR NOT, until they are removed or the Supreme Courts change them. They may be against the BILL of RIGHTS which is where the 1st AMENDMENT IS, Not the Constitution, but the law is what is upheld and the current law says there are limitations. Do I like it? ABSOLUTELY NOT but that is how it is. You can not ignore current enforceable laws regardless of what the Bill of Rights or the Constitution states. Can you fight it? Yes but it has to be done by way of CURRENT laws and regulations. Arguing on a forum is not going to change the fact our speech is limited. This argument needs to be where it is meant to be directed which is the Government. We have been sold out and our rights have been systematically removed or limited through loopholes and behind the curtains of past and current administrations. You can quote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights until you are blue in the face but you will still be held to the laws that have been set down, accepted, and enforced.

(The capitals are not me yelling at you. They are only for emphasis)

Edit to add a comment on this quote

Perhaps you think I'm stupid. Perhaps you think I'm incapable of understand the simple words "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech"?

No I do not think you stupid. This is the way it is supposed to be I agree with you but it is not and they did.

Originally posted by tvtexan

As an individual exercising their right to an opinion (freedom of speech) one should consider the indirect and direct effects of what they say, how it would affect others on the Grand scheme of things....will someone die as a result? will a building be set on fire as a result of the words or opinions you have displayed?

That is the part that many get wrong!


You just wrote exactly what I have been thinking about this whole cartoon fiasco.
Bravo! Great thread!

Sorry, but i disagree with you, freedom of speech is exactly what it says 'freedom'. Why is it my fault that someone else doesn't understand the concept of the word 'freedom' If someone burns down a building becuase of something i've said they are responsible for that act not me, you or anyone else just them. It just highlights how little faith they have in their own faith system, if they cant even face the fact someone may have a different opinion.

I'm a heretic and i dont care. All religious zealouts of any denomination are living in the past. The giveaway for me is in the middle, FUNDEMENTALISTS

I'm not even sorry if you dont agree, but as i live in the 'West' i have the right to say it

Here's interesting dissection of the common "you cant yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" argument. Legal scholar apparently.

Originally posted by Agarta
When laws HAVE been passed and are BEING legally and lawfully upheld, THEY take precedence, LIKE IT OR NOT, until they are removed or the Supreme Courts change them. They may be against the BILL of RIGHTS which is where the 1st AMENDMENT IS, Not the Constitution, but the law is what is upheld and the current law says there are limitations.

I'm passionate about my birthrights and I tend to be a bit rash about it. I appreciate you being respectful.

I have to take issue with your stance, however. First, the bill of rights are amendments to the constitution and are not separate from it.

Second, no law takes precedence over the constitution. Laws made to the contrary are not laws at all. They are not legal and there is absolutely no way they can be legally upheld.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

I think where our opinions differ is that you currently believe in the legitimacy of color of law, and I don't.

Hate speech legislation is the height of stupidity, the US got it right for once. And their lack of hate speech legislation does not cause any issues, such an useless law it is. I have yet to witness any sensible argument why hate speech should be against the law. Hate is a human right, and like it or not, any laws against free speech are worthless in the age of the internet.

reply to post by ISeekTruth101


the most common misconception is :

people expect / demand that other people publish thier " free speech "