Freedom of Speech 101

[manifold]

No matter how many times I explain it myself or see others explain it even better, there always seems to be a new crop of ignorant donkeys that don't seem to get it.

As a philosphical concept, it simply means the freedom to express oneself as one sees fit. However, it does NOT mean one is absolved of any and all consequences resulting from exercising said freedom. Therefore, discussing the concept in a philosphical vacuum is a very short conversation and of little value.

Clearly, it's the consequences that matter.

I repeat, it's the consequences that matter.

In the United States of America we enjoy some protection from specific consequences of our expression. Namely, no laws can be passed or enforced that restrict what we say. And that's pretty much it folks. There is absolutely no guarantee of access to an audience.

So, when a mall owner decides he doesn't want to rent a kiosk to someone because he believes that person's expressions might be bad for business, he is simply exercising his own free market right to do so and is NOT infringing on that someone's freedom of speech.

When ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh because they believed not doing so might be bad for business, they were simply exercising their own free market right to do so and were NOT infringing on his freedom of speech.

When radio stations blacklisted the Dixie Chicks because they believed that continuing to play their music might be bad for business, they were simply exercising their free market rights and NOT infringing on the Dixie Chicks' freedom of speech.

The Kiosk owner, Rush Limbaugh and the Dixie Chicks were all still able to express themselves freely without fear of legal prosecution or incarceration.

So please please please, stop making yourself look ignorant by screaming free speech infringment every time someone pays a free market price for expressions that draw negative attention to themselves and those they are in business with. It makes you look like an uneducated dolt.

 

[publicprotector]

The examples you provide and inference drawn are incorrect. Peopel cannot exercise free speech in a world of law suits, political correctness and hate crimes. And its not just a matter of its bad for business. Such tactics are now used to shut people up and to intimidate them etc.

There is nothing new in these types of tactics as they have been used in various forms over the years. Using the example of clown prince Bush in stating to question 9/11 was un American and unpatriotic does not just remove the right to free speech and self expression to openly challenge those who rule it opens the door to more odious laws and rules as seen of late.

People may hide behind the right to stop a person(s) from doing or saying something but the end game is the removal of rights and liberties from the people. The rich, powerful, gliterati, politicians, companies etc. use laws and their own rules to stifle those who would speak out against them.

It is simple wrong to state that people can say what they like without fear of any consequences as proven by the many recent examples in the US/Europe etc. And laws are being passed and have been to stifle free speech under the guise of hate crimes.

 

[manifold]

It is simple wrong to state that people can say what they like without fear of any consequences

Apparently your reading comprehension sucks. No offense.

I never said people can speak without fear of any consequences. In fact I was very clear about pointing out that freedom of speech doesn't mean you get to say whatever you like free of consequence.

 

[xotoxi]

No matter how many times I explain it myself or see others explain it even better, there always seems to be a new crop of ignorant donkeys that don't seem to get it.

As a philosphical concept, it simply means the freedom to express oneself as one sees fit. However, it does NOT mean one is absolved of any and all consequences resulting from exercising said freedom. Therefore, discussing the concept in a philosphical vacuum is a very short conversation and of little value.

Clearly, it's the consequences that matter.

I repeat, it's the consequences that matter.

In the United States of America we enjoy some protection from specific consequences of our expression. Namely, no laws can be passed or enforced that restrict what we say. And that's pretty much it folks. There is absolutely no guarantee of access to an audience.

So, when a mall owner decides he doesn't want to rent a kiosk to someone because he believes that person's expressions might be bad for business, he is simply exercising his own free market right to do so and is NOT infringing on that someone's freedom of speech.

When ESPN fired Rush Limbaugh because they believed not doing so might be bad for business, they were simply exercising their own free market right to do so and were NOT infringing on his freedom of speech.

When radio stations blacklisted the Dixie Chicks because they believed that continuing to play their music might be bad for business, they were simply exercising their free market rights and NOT infringing on the Dixie Chicks' freedom of speech.

The Kiosk owner, Rush Limbaugh and the Dixie Chicks were all still able to express themselves freely without fear of legal prosecution or incarceration.

So please please please, stop making yourself look ignorant by screaming free speech infringment every time someone pays a free market price for expressions that draw negative attention to themselves and those they are in business with. It makes you look like an uneducated dolt.

You don't have the right to say that shit!!!

 

[publicprotector]

And yes you are wrong again because people do get put in jail for what they say. It happens all the time. People everywhere are free to say and do what they like as long as their willing to pay the price for it.

 

[manifold]

And yes you are wrong again because people do get put in jail for what they say.

Not here in America they don't. And as a self-centered American, that's all I really give a shit about.

 

[publicprotector]

Maybe you are not aware of it but that does not mean it dose not happen. Perhaps as an example you have forgotton all the black civil rights groups who ended up in jail or worse for speaking out about their rights.

You see the perps are very good at twisting the laws to lock people up and if you are in America you should care because it is happening now and its going to get alot worse.

Peopel are getting tasered and attacked by the police just for speaking out, I suppose you have not heard of that either.

 

[manifold]

Nope haven't heard anything about that. And no offense, but I have to question the veracity of such a claim.

 

[DiveCon]

The examples you provide and inference drawn are incorrect. Peopel cannot exercise free speech in a world of law suits, political correctness and hate crimes. And its not just a matter of its bad for business. Such tactics are now used to shut people up and to intimidate them etc.

There is nothing new in these types of tactics as they have been used in various forms over the years. Using the example of clown prince Bush in stating to question 9/11 was un American and unpatriotic does not just remove the right to free speech and self expression to openly challenge those who rule it opens the door to more odious laws and rules as seen of late.

People may hide behind the right to stop a person(s) from doing or saying something but the end game is the removal of rights and liberties from the people. The rich, powerful, gliterati, politicians, companies etc. use laws and their own rules to stifle those who would speak out against them.

It is simple wrong to state that people can say what they like without fear of any consequences as proven by the many recent examples in the US/Europe etc. And laws are being passed and have been to stifle free speech under the guise of hate crimes.

he isnt talking about anything in the EU
as for what he IS speaking about, he is right
those civil rights protestors were not jailed just for their speech
but for other things they did while expressing their speech, and most of those things were minor and should have been ignored

 

[chanel]

I agree that the right to free speech does not mean that speech is free.

With that said, do you think that Imus would have lost many listeners because of his nappy headed ho comment? I don't It wasn't a free market decision it was a PC decision.

 

[manifold]

It's not a question of losing listeners as much as it is a question of losing sponsors. And many were already threatening to pull their ads from the Imus show.

 

[DiveCon]

It's not a question of losing listeners as much as it is a question of losing sponsors. And many were already threatening to pull their ads from the Imus show.

and that is the marketplace not the government

 

[Amanda]

You see the perps are very good at twisting the laws to lock people up and if you are in America you should care because it is happening now and its going to get alot worse.

You know 'perp' is short of perpetrator, right? Why would someone twist a law to lock themselves up?

 

[DiveCon]

You see the perps are very good at twisting the laws to lock people up and if you are in America you should care because it is happening now and its going to get alot worse.

You know 'perp' is short of perpetrator, right? Why would someone twist a law to lock themselves up?

it should be quite clear that he is a total moron by now

 

[Father Time]

So would you be in favor of demolishing the FCC and maybe getting rid of our obscenity laws?

 

[Diuretic]

Free speech is a conditional right, not an absolute. For what it's worth, I agree with mani's point - understanding where the limits are is useful.

 

[editec]

If speech is free,
then..
Why aren't we?​

Anyone who thinks they really have freedom of speech clearly isn't paying attention.

We have freedom of speech as long as that speech doesn't annoy someone with the power to shut us up.

Like the cop who pulls you over, the judge who doesn't like your attitude, your boss who doesn't like your politics, or you landlord who doesn't like your lifestyle.

In the theory of our laws our speech might be free, but the de facto reality is that our free speech really depends on who is listening.

 

[sparky]

thankfully we have this wonderful prozacian medium here that provides the masses with that sorely needed outlet they couldn't normally buy.........

 

[strollingbones]

nice op...well structured and thought out. there should be consequences to your actions. there was a time when you called a woman a bitch or touched her ....you would be slapped...it was accepted that for your misbehavior you would get consequences..or you called a black man a ****** and he pounded you....now its all about who can get to the magistrate first, wins. every redneck or trash knows that...whoever gets to the magistrate first wins. every read the arrest records and court reports...it is the same people over and over...runs in famlies like a recessive gene. these people know how to work the system and use civil suits..that is what is limiting people...the misuse and abuse of the justice system. (goes off on total rant)

 

[publicprotector]

If you cannot debate without name calling then don't debate at all. Its quite obvious that some here are not fully aware of what is going on in the US and elsewhere. That dose not imply that it is not true or it is not happening its just a case of people being unaware of what is taking place.

The point is that freedom of speech is curtailed by the abuse of any law to bring about same.

And if you don't know who the perps are its about time you did.