Just a question, do you really have free speech if the government decides what speech is protected or not? For instance, the government can decide that videogames aren't protected as free speech, and ban them. What's to say the government can't decide that films aren't protected as free speech. So my question for the day is, is your speech truly protected?
A question for Americans
- Thread starter Random Name 4
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's supposed be but everyone is America is too sensitive and easily offended these days. So slowly it's going away in my opinion.
Yet we still teach children that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Funny, eh?SnootyEnglishman said:
One thing that got me about the "Free speech" is that they aren't allowed to say "I want to kill the president, or something along those lines, unless it is to tell someone else they cannot say it >.>
Seems "Free" is defined by the government...
I think I'm within my rights to say I want to kill anyone, be it my neighbor, my cousin, some important government person, whoever. Lucky me. I just can't actually do so, even to protect myself :3
Seems "Free" is defined by the government...
I think I'm within my rights to say I want to kill anyone, be it my neighbor, my cousin, some important government person, whoever. Lucky me. I just can't actually do so, even to protect myself :3
As compared with many places in the world, where you might be shot for even uttering a complaint about someone, yes we do indeed have free speech. Do we have free speech as per the dictionary definition? Absolutely not.
Well, this question starts to get into some unusual areas in American Constitutional law. To give a basic, blunt answer: yes. Speech is protected by the First Amendment. If the government tried to break up a peaceful rally, there would be popular outrage and likely some impeachments.
However, media like films and games are not purely speech. They are, first and foremost, commercial products. As commercial products, they fall under the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the several states. So for all of the clamoring from the industry about how their products are protected by the right to free speech, they can be regulated as commercial products. In that sense, video games and films are more like cigarettes than speech. There are many regulations to selling cigarettes and hypothetical future legislation may ban them, but for now they are legal.
So really, the government isn't deciding what speech is protected. They are deciding what is speech. Personally, I think any product whose primary purpose is to turn a profit cannot be called "speech". It's like trying to justify insider trading as "speaking out against regulation of the market". As as for their power to decide what is speech, there are many, MANY groups dedicated to keeping the government in line in regards to that. The ACLU, for as much as I detest them, is particularly useful in cases of free speech.
However, media like films and games are not purely speech. They are, first and foremost, commercial products. As commercial products, they fall under the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the several states. So for all of the clamoring from the industry about how their products are protected by the right to free speech, they can be regulated as commercial products. In that sense, video games and films are more like cigarettes than speech. There are many regulations to selling cigarettes and hypothetical future legislation may ban them, but for now they are legal.
So really, the government isn't deciding what speech is protected. They are deciding what is speech. Personally, I think any product whose primary purpose is to turn a profit cannot be called "speech". It's like trying to justify insider trading as "speaking out against regulation of the market". As as for their power to decide what is speech, there are many, MANY groups dedicated to keeping the government in line in regards to that. The ACLU, for as much as I detest them, is particularly useful in cases of free speech.
Precisely.Random Name 4 said:
Giving someone complete and unchecked freedom is a recipe for disaster. We are far from "The greatest country on the earth" as our leaders would like us to believe, but we're also a far cry from Afghanistan where you can be stoned to death simply for thinking that the US isn't all that bad.
Also, wouldn't this be more in place in Off Topic or Religion and Politics?
-sigh-Random Name 4 said:
The government doesn't dicide what is protected or not on a whim, it is decided in the courts and that is pretty much set in stone. The only unprotected speech is obscene or sexually explicit material (which was decided a long time ago) so now people are trying to apply that to violence in video games (which is another arguement entirly).
Soooooooooooooooooo We have freeer speech than most of the world. It's mostly-free speech...
I think the concept of free speech highlights the flaws and conflicts between the constitution and having a government
You can't have freedom when there are laws that restrict you. You can't have a successful country without having laws and government. It's a two edged sword. Basically you are free as long as you are allowed to be, which is why relying on the first amendment in court can be a liability. Which doesn't make you that different to the countries that can shoot you for saying something, you guys are just lucky enough to have a longer leash
You can't have freedom when there are laws that restrict you. You can't have a successful country without having laws and government. It's a two edged sword. Basically you are free as long as you are allowed to be, which is why relying on the first amendment in court can be a liability. Which doesn't make you that different to the countries that can shoot you for saying something, you guys are just lucky enough to have a longer leash
Don't make this about democrats vs republicans please. You sound dangerously close to making this about political parties, just saying.HankMan said:
As for what I think. We do have free speech, it's just that there are limits. Like if a man says he hates black people, that's fine (as long as he doesn't act on it). But if they show too many butt shots in a movie, then everyone's against it!
Also, it's probably a movie that kids shouldn't see but they get to see it anyway because they either sneak in or their parents take them to see it because they think the movie won't be offensive but then they see it and they realize they shouldn't have taken their kids to the movie, but instead of blaming themselves for being bad parents they blame the creators of the film for not censoring it. That's the kind of logic that only makes sense to the self rightous fucktards who make up the majority of this country.
I mean god! Is it too much to ask that parents take some responsibility for their kids? Instead they expect the tv to be the babysitter, and when the kids see something they shouldn't, it's the network's fault. Those kinds of people will blame anyone and everyone before they blame themselves.
It's the same with taxes! Everyone is up in arms over the 6% sales tax here in Massachussets. They don't want to pay to help their community. I mean where do they think the money for repairing the streets comes from? The fucking Toothfairy? How about our schools hmm? Do they think the teachers work pro bono? THAT IS NOT HOW THE WORLD WORKS PEOPLE!! SMARTEN UP!!!
Man, that was a long rant for me.
What were we talking about?......... Oh right! Free Speech.
Anyway, I know it doesn't make much sense to people who don't live in America, but trust me when I say we barely understand it ourselves.