Freedom of Speech: Where's the Line?

[buddhallah_the_christ]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Thank you for posting this.

There's a difference between free speech and hate speech.

This board has become safe haven for KKK/white supremacist hate speech. I wish cereal_killer would see that and put an end to the constant racism we're seeing here now.

I would also like to see an end to the use of the N word. We should be better than that.

Yeah, those who use it hide behind cowardly cutesy spellings but that's the word they're using.

I don't spend near as much time here any more. Frankly, if you're interested in debate, there are far better choices.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

The most distasteful and dangerous speech I know of, is that by intolerant hypocrites who'd use a web forum like USMB to call for the demise of free speech...like that moron Luddly up there, and you too, OP.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

The most distasteful and dangerous speech I know of, is that by intolerant hypocrites who'd use a web forum like USMB to call for the demise of free speech...like that moron Luddly up there, and you too, OP.

You're more than welcome to that opinion but, as usual, its not based on anything but a knee-jerk, reactionary fear to what you don't understand.

And, its way off topic.

You wanna try to actually address what he (or I) wrote?

 

[Sunni Man]

I don't spend near as much time here any more.

And we are all grateful for that........

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Freedom of Speech should have very few restrictions, and Freedom of Thought none at all.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Freedom of Speech should have very few restrictions, and Freedom of Thought none at all.

Out in the world, I could not agree more strongly. But this is a privately owned message board. There is no expectation of "free speech" here.

And its true that we are up to our epaulets in the damn KKK.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Freedom of Speech should have very few restrictions, and Freedom of Thought none at all.

Out in the world, I could not agree more strongly. But this is a privately owned message board. There is no expectation of "free speech" here.

And its true that we are up to our epaulets in the damn KKK.

Freedom of Speech is a Public thing, not a Private one. Most people can't stand it no matter what they might say.

 

[konradv]

Remember, free speech is a right, NOT a duty. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." (Unknown, attributed to Lincoln and Twain among others)

 

[nodoginnafight]

I think there are two very common major misconceptions about Freedom of Speech.

1) Freedom of Speech does NOT mean freedom from consequences. If you get fired for telling your boss to kiss your ass, that's NOT a free Speech issue. If he has you arrested for saying it, THAT's a free speech issue. When celebrities get "uninvited" or get appearances canceled due to controversial remarks, THAT is NOT a free speech issue. It's a free marketplace issue.

2) Freedom of Speech does NOT guarantee you your choice of venue or forum. The New York Times does not OWE you space in their paper, no broadcast outlet owes you air time, and you don't have a right to disrupt the movement of others wherever and whenever you choose.

I am fine with these. But I do not believe any legal limitations of free speech should have anything to do with the content of that speech.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

"Hate speech"?
No such thing exists or can exist under our Constitution because everyone would have a different-sometimes directly opposite-definition of what it is. Hate speech is strictly an opinion; not law. Expressing an opinion may not be wise or safe otherwise but making that expression illegal would be tyranny. Given what they had to say about the king and his government, I'm sure the FF were well aware of that.

 

[SwimExpert]

If you get fired for telling your boss to kiss your ass, that's NOT a free Speech issue.

What if your boss is the President?

 

[nodoginnafight]

If you get fired for telling your boss to kiss your ass, that's NOT a free Speech issue.

What if your boss is the President?

It's not a function of who your boss is. It's a matter of getting arrested or facing legal charges.

 

[Mac1958]

.

As long as there is a group of narcissists who take it upon themselves to issue tangible "consequences" for speaking one's mind, people will be afraid to do so.

That goes directly against the spirit of the First Amendment, and weakens us as a country (which may be the goal of some, who knows).

If you have an opinion, express it and we'll discuss if you'd like. I won't try to destroy you for expressing it.

Unlike some.

.

 

[nodoginnafight]

.

As long as there is a group of narcissists who take it upon themselves to issue tangible "consequences" for speaking one's mind, people will be afraid to do so.

That goes directly against the spirit of the First Amendment, and weakens us as a country (which may be the goal of some, who knows).

If you have an opinion, express it and we'll discuss if you'd like. I won't try to destroy you for expressing it.

Unlike some.

.

The way I see it, free speech goes both ways. You can attack me as hard as you want, and I can attack back as hard as I want.

Suppressing the reply is every bit as bad as suppressing the original speech. Yup, it's messy. But IMHO it is worth it.

 

[Mac1958]

.

As long as there is a group of narcissists who take it upon themselves to issue tangible "consequences" for speaking one's mind, people will be afraid to do so.

That goes directly against the spirit of the First Amendment, and weakens us as a country (which may be the goal of some, who knows).

If you have an opinion, express it and we'll discuss if you'd like. I won't try to destroy you for expressing it.

Unlike some.

.

The way I see it, free speech goes both ways. You can attack me as hard as you want, and I can attack back as hard as I want.

Suppressing the reply is every bit as bad as suppressing the original speech. Yup, it's messy. But IMHO it is worth it.

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

As long as there is a group of narcissists who take it upon themselves to issue tangible "consequences" for speaking one's mind, people will be afraid to do so.

That goes directly against the spirit of the First Amendment, and weakens us as a country (which may be the goal of some, who knows).

If you have an opinion, express it and we'll discuss if you'd like. I won't try to destroy you for expressing it.

Unlike some.

.

The way I see it, free speech goes both ways. You can attack me as hard as you want, and I can attack back as hard as I want.

Suppressing the reply is every bit as bad as suppressing the original speech. Yup, it's messy. But IMHO it is worth it.

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

 

[Mac1958]

.

As long as there is a group of narcissists who take it upon themselves to issue tangible "consequences" for speaking one's mind, people will be afraid to do so.

That goes directly against the spirit of the First Amendment, and weakens us as a country (which may be the goal of some, who knows).

If you have an opinion, express it and we'll discuss if you'd like. I won't try to destroy you for expressing it.

Unlike some.

.

The way I see it, free speech goes both ways. You can attack me as hard as you want, and I can attack back as hard as I want.

Suppressing the reply is every bit as bad as suppressing the original speech. Yup, it's messy. But IMHO it is worth it.

There is a clear difference between expressing an opposing opinion and trying to damage or destroy someone for expressing theirs.

.

You mean the way you've been trying to blame peaceful protestors for killing the two cops in NYC.

Another lie of yours, but I've become used to it.

What's the point of your constantly lying?

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

Ignorance of First Amendment jurisprudence is the primary problem – starting with the fact that the liberties protected by the Constitution with regard to speech apply only to the relationship between government and citizens, not between or among private persons or organizations.

One private person or organization cannot 'violate' the free speech rights of another private person or organization; ignorance of this fact has resulted in the myth of 'political correctness,' the ridiculous notion that in the context of private society, a private person or private organization denouncing the speech of another private person or private organization somehow 'infringes' on the free speech right, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

In a free and democratic society – again, only in the context of private society – the people are at liberty to denounce speech they find offensive, allowing private society to determine whether or not that denunciation is warranted, absent interference by politicians or the courts, where whatever the determination of private society, it neither constitutes a 'backlash,' nor the myth of 'political correctness.'

The First Amendment, therefore, with regard to the original intent of the Framers, only addresses the relationship between the government and those governed, to decide what speech is beyond the scope of government regulation and what is not.

For example, pornography is entitled to Constitutional protections, obscenity not; hate speech is entitled to Constitutional protections, hate speech advocating for imminent lawlessness is not. Government may not subject speech to prior restraint absent a compelling governmental interest, evidence in support of the restraint, and a legitimate legislative end; as we saw in the Pentagon Papers case, that government might perceive speech embarrassing to government officials does not justify prior restraint, it does not warrant restricting the protected liberties of the press enshrined in the First Amendment.

Unfortunately there are those who seek to misapply the doctrine of free speech for political reasons, by seeking to propagate the lie that is 'political correctness,' to silence dissent they fear and disagree with; we've seen this in the efforts to vilify those engaged in lawful demonstrations against what they perceive as unjustified police violence, where those demonstrating have been falsely associated with a tiny faction of criminal extremists advocating for violence against the police, and the reprehensible and unwarranted claim that those demonstrating are somehow 'responsible' for violence against law enforcement.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Frankly, I think free speech gets abused and isn't being used in the way that the founders intended.

From what I know of history, back in the day of monarchies, people would be hung for speaking out against the king or higher nobility. It was always my thinking after learning about how the USA was founded and our governing documents drafted etc, that freedom of speech was born out of the fact that people wanted to be able to speak up and say what they wanted about the government if the government was out of line. That's all well and good.

Unfortunately, people extend it to mean that they can say whatever they want whenever they want without consequence. I kind of think that the founding fathers of the US, roll in the graves everytime someone uses what was meant to protect citizens as a means to get away with saying hateful and mean things to each other.

I hardly thing freedom of speech is being treated in the spirit it was created and intended for. There are some opinions and what not that should just not be said, and there should be consequences for the backlash that happens as a result.

What about yourselves? What are your thoughts on this and where do you stand?

"Hate speech"?
No such thing exists or can exist under our Constitution because everyone would have a different-sometimes directly opposite-definition of what it is. Hate speech is strictly an opinion; not law. Expressing an opinion may not be wise or safe otherwise but making that expression illegal would be tyranny. Given what they had to say about the king and his government, I'm sure the FF were well aware of that.

Incorrect.

Although inalienable, the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions by government, including hate speech, when that speech advocates for violence against another person because of his race, religion, or national origin (see Wisconsin v Mitchell (1993)).

And that members of private society might denounce your hate speech in no way 'violates' your First Amendment rights.