A question for Americans

[Icarion (aka Stockholm)]

-snip with good arguements-

I'll be clearer. That was trying to point out all those things you pointed out. The system of "free speech" isn't free at all and the majority has no say what so ever. And thus the crusaders can crusade all day and night and no one will ever stop them. Sorry if I was unclear. And I do live here. In massachusetts. And Jack Thomson was DISBARRED, as in he can't practice law anymore, because he went after video games. As many others said we have it better than most but its not truly free. And thankyou for taking notice of all the flaws my argument was supposed to point out.

 

[Cryofthewolf]

Too long. Did not read. (Still responding though.)

I agree with what someone posted above. The government is slowly taking away the right to practice free speech because of all the people being offended lately. I mean, there are people who I would like to see off the streets (Westboro Baptist Church, for one,) but they DO have the right to be there.

If we lose some freedoms it makes it easier to lose others down the line. Although there are jerks out there that use free speech to spread hate (Ku Klux Klan, Westboro Baptist Church, Ann Coulter, etc.) their right, as well as the rest of ours, deserve to be protected. It is one of the main things that America is all about.

 

[maturin]

TL;DR

There are written exceptions in the Constitution. The exceptions to the first amendment are Defamation, Causing Panic, Fighting Words, Incitement to Crime, Sedition, and Obscenity.

Would you mind explaining how those conditions are written in the Constitution when none of the words Defamation, Causing Panic, Fighting Words, Incitement to Crime, Sedition or Obscenity appear in the Constitution?

The government is slowly taking away the right to practice free speech because of all the people being offended lately.

Eggggg-zample? I'm not going to be so bold as to ask for evidence.

I don't know why this line keeps getting repeated. It's like a Tea Party consciousness on the forums. It doesn't matter it if makes no sense, it's the effluent of the brain after a few disjointed political opinions get mixed up with emotions. "People nowadays get really pissy if I use the word wetbacks, so my freedom must be under attack by liberal elitists." Yeah, totally.

 

[Romidude]

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.

Wait, wait, wait, BACK UP, IT EXISTED?!

 

[LordWalter]

Yes, we do, now let's see if the judiciary will do its damn job.

 

[carpathic]

This is pretty similar to saying "how can we have free will if there is a God that puts constraints on it..(ie gravity stops us from flying whenever we want, but it also stops us flying off the planet).

Free speech is like that too. I mean you need to have a lot of freedom of speech to have a robust society, but the courts need to mediate this reasonably and effectively.

 

[Shynobee]

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?

Well, in theory, whats supposed to happen when the current govt. makes a law that we don't like, we vote out that govt. and bring in a new one that will implement laws that we do like. So, in essence, we do have free speech.

That sounds more like the parliamentary system used in the UK, Canada, Australia, India, etc... Where if a government is losing support, their term can be ended early and a new election will be called.

In the US, that doesn't exist. The government stays in power until its term is done, and when it's time for a new election there's only one other party to vote for. Most people don't switch, and it usually doesn't make a difference since it takes an entire state to change. Both parties have their sets of bad bills anyway.

Although the supreme court can overrule bad bills... There's probably other judicial bodies that can do this too. (Parliamentary countries, and some other republics also have this; it's not unique to the United States)

My bad, I just realized I implied that the election would be right away, I meant that the new election would be in a year or two.

Also, I said in theory, I know the current two party system doesn't work, and quite honestly I despise the idea of political parties in general. Their original purpose was to inform people, at a glance as to what that candidate's platform would be.

Now, with the internet and mass communication, there are other easy ways to find out where a candidate stands, and political parties are pointless, and only serve to divide the country over stupid issues.

 

[open trap]

Eh sorta i guess. Theres also the right to live with out being harassed and if harassment goes to far then the law will step in and tell you to shut up.

 

[maturin]

Also, I said in theory, I know the current two party system doesn't work, and quite honestly I despise the idea of political parties in general. Their original purpose was to inform people, at a glance as to what that candidate's platform would be.

Now, with the internet and mass communication, there are other easy ways to find out where a candidate stands, and political parties are pointless, and only serve to divide the country over stupid issues.

Political parties are utterly inevitable. Even if the right to form them was guaranteed by pretty much every indispensable personal right, the state would have to struggle against the natural tendency of political actors to organize and pool resources.

I also have a hard time imagining a mature political culture suitable for stable democratic process if there are only ever loner candidates and no long term social constituencies given voice by an institution. Institutions can be the worst disease in the world for changing a society or keeping it just and honest, but you can't have democracy without strong ones. You have plenty of examples of countries with unstable sham democracies because the parties are have no power except as pawns of the charismatic top dog statesman of the moment.

 

[LittleChone]

Well, technically yes, but usually people have the right to speak freely against other's free speech. Tiny bit of a contradictory, however people can say something crazy like "Obama's a terrorist" and they can get away with that without fault. Mostly.

 

[drummond13]

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?

Well, since the Government HASN'T decided this at all in even one case, I'd say "yes". We have free speech.

Just because some idiots are trying to convince our government to do something like this doesn't mean it's going to happen. Free speech has won out pretty much every time.

 

[Arehexes]

everyone is America is too sensitive and easily offended these days.

Yet we still teach children that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Funny, eh?

Am I the only one who thinks that saying is a load of crap? I mean, to an extent, no, words don't hurt people in the same way sticks and stones do. At the same time though it seems to place more blame on the people being offended compared to the people saying mean things.
Maybe I'm looking at it too broadly, it just seemed like an excuse for teachers to not have to deal with bullying.

See now that's a problem with schools, teachers don't deal with bullies. If a kid pulled my braid he is just "playing" (even if we aren't friends and hate each other), but if i trip him or knock him over for pulling my hair or something I'm a trouble child.

 

[brainslurper]

Free speech? what free speech? Nope free speech means that as long as you aren't hurting anyone you can say what you want, but considering we are banning a community center just because we are scared of muslims id say freedom of speech hasn't been here for a while.

 

[brainslurper]

Too long. Did not read. (Still responding though.)

I agree with what someone posted above. The government is slowly taking away the right to practice free speech because of all the people being offended lately. I mean, there are people who I would like to see off the streets (Westboro Baptist Church, for one,) but they DO have the right to be there.

If we lose some freedoms it makes it easier to lose others down the line. Although there are jerks out there that use free speech to spread hate (Ku Klux Klan, Westboro Baptist Church, Ann Coulter, etc.) their right, as well as the rest of ours, deserve to be protected. It is one of the main things that America is all about.

i found your post here very offensive, and i would like you to apoligize. it is in christian tradition to dictate however everyone else lives (see also: gay marriage, ground zero mosque, Adolf hitler.

 

[Lazier Than Thou]

Free speech? what free speech? Nope free speech means that as long as you aren't hurting anyone you can say what you want, but considering we are banning a community center just because we are scared of muslims id say freedom of speech hasn't been here for a while.

No one is banning a community center because of free speech, least of all the most notable community center currently being built(the "Mosque" in NYC).

1. It's not being banned, it's currently scheduled to be built and has the backing of the President of the United States of America as well as the Mayor of New York City.

2. The reasons people don't want it built have nothing to do with free speech, but the fact that the planes flown into buildings on 9/11 were flown by Muslims. Agree with that or not, it's a sensitive issue for a lot of people. Ignoring this fact does not make you right, it makes you culturally deaf.

 

[superbatranger]

Until the day comes where speech is regulated to the point of total censorship, I will firmly believe we are free to speak our mind. Sadly, there are those who do not know how to exercise that right with responsibility. They're speaking their mind, yes, but it is done in a way that does nothing but spread hate and ill will. Doing so brings nothing to the table. At least, nothing good comes of it. For example, we have individuals, groups, multitudes of people who do nothing but spread messages of hate. Now, is that a proper use of free speech? Absolutely not.

 

[Icarion (aka Stockholm)]

-snip with good arguements-

I'll be clearer. That was trying to point out all those things you pointed out. The system of "free speech" isn't free at all and the majority has no say what so ever. And thus the crusaders can crusade all day and night and no one will ever stop them. Sorry if I was unclear. And I do live here. In massachusetts. And Jack Thomson was DISBARRED, as in he can't practice law anymore, because he went after video games. As many others said we have it better than most but its not truly free. And thankyou for taking notice of all the flaws my argument was supposed to point out.

Crusaders can go on all they like, that doesn't mean they'll accomplish anything.

Also Thompson was not disbarred because he went after video games he was disbarred... for multiple reasons.

"(1) respondent made false statements of material fact
to courts and repeatedly violated a court order; ... (4) respondent publicized and sent
hundreds of pages of vitriolic and disparaging missives, letters, faxes, and press
releases, to the affected individuals; (5) respondent targeted an individual who was
not involved with respondent in any way, merely due to "the position [the
individual] holds in state and national politics;"

This taken from his disbarment document which is public record, just search for John Thompson (yeah his real name is john) on the Florida Bar's website, and you'll find it, (the sire's not working for me right now).

Thanks didn't know that. And yes crusades can go and go and go and just waste time. But thats the problem. They take up a horrible amount of time, materials etc.

 

[neoontime]

My speech?
Yes, yes it is. It counts that I'm not an attention whore.

 

[LitleWaffle]

It depends on who's in office and who it's about.

Don't make this about democrats vs republicans please. You sound dangerously close to making this about political parties, just saying.

OR it could sound like race, lack of common sense, the person in office's ideas and goals, what the person said that's in question, who the person is that it was said to, etc etc... Just saying

Ok first of all, I'm getting a hostile vibe from you. I'm not saying he is talking about political parties, I just don't want all the trolls in this forum to turn the discussion into democrats vs republicans. You gotta be careful what say isn't taken out of context otherwise you end up either with a huge, pointless arguement or explaining the meaning of what you said (kinda like I am now).

Second of all, I know this kid in real life, and he tends to say things that are controversial to certain political parties. He's like Brian from Family Guy, only a little more political.

So I hope I cleared that up without sounding like a troll myself.

Understood, I know that kind of person too.
And i targeted you on that mostly just because you said "just saying". It's a pet peeve of mine.

"Oh hey i'm going to insult you but I don't want you to feel insulted"
yeah...