A question for Americans

[Nekros22]

America doesn't have free speech at all. It's only reserved for those who have the privilege to have a lawyer or grand social status.

The United States is fast becoming (rather, already has) a war-mongering paranoid police state. As is the rest of the world. Would be kind of difficult to not say the leaders are in collusion with one another to break down each country's liberty. Whether it's the Patriot Act or the UK and it's corporate police, it's all there, and the world is definitely changing.

Not really. There's nothing stopping some backwoods yahoo going out in the street and burning Bibles, Qurans, other things. It happens all the time. Turn on the radio and listen to one rock or rap song; good Lord, it's like porn you can't see.

People only get mad with the whole "freedom of speech" thing when someone isn't listening to them. People aren't listening to, say, some Nazi extremist preaching his doctrine of hate. Nobody wants to listen to that, but if they tell him "no, you can't preach your stuff here" he'll go to the papers and claim he's being discriminated against and that his 1st Amendment Rights are being violated.

Don't really know what parallels you're drawing with the "paranoid police state" thing. Last time I checked I wasn't whipped in public with a rattan cane for screaming obscenities at a bar, or spray painting something on a wall, nor was I discouraged from becoming inebriated, marrying outside of my race, changing my religion, or what have you. Those things are common in "paranoid police states" like China. Here? Nah.

 

[A big red rooster]

No. See: Libel, Slander.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

More or less this. although there isn't really anthing that can truely take away free speach, I can say whatever I want to, even if I go to jail for it. Also, of course the gov't can decide to take away vid games, they have the prisons and the biggest guns, but constitutionally, they aren't supposed to.

 

[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

OT: Free Speech is very difficult to have when it comes to Law and Order. But i'm going to start off by saying that a critical piece for this discussion is that America's goal is to balance the power between human rights and the protection/safety of others. There has to be a limit to freedom to be able to preserve the freedom of others.

If a man walks up to you and says in a serious tone "I will kill the president in his sleep after sniping the guards from a nearby building." Would you let it slide and say "He has the freedom to say that, so what should I care?" or would you take charge and tell the authorities because you have no idea whether he is serious or not and he might actually kill the president.

America's system of law is mainly based upon the balance between human rights and the protection of others. For example, it is Illegal to kill someone. The authorities have a job to attempt to prevent such occurrences. So if someone does say that they will kill the president, how could they just let that person get away with it? They have no idea what that person actually has planned and how they are going to do it or even if that person are going to do it. But you should take precautions and prevent him/her from killing the president by putting him in prison.

So our speech is truly protected as much as it can. Complete freedom leads to problems and pain. You have to limit it so that people can be protected as much as possible while still keeping the freedom of each individual.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Because they already had a similar thing going about violent movies, only difference is that it blew over. Every form of media goes through this problem when it comes to entertainment in the states.

 

[robotam]

IMO, the only place where real free speech exists, is on the internet.

Hmm, I reckon the mods would be annoyed if I started threatening you*. I don't think me going on about my rights, would prevent them for hittin' me with the old banhammer.
But yeah, I suppose in certain places on the internet one can say whatever they want.

*Not that I would want to threaten you, I'm sure you are a nice guy.

 

[LitleWaffle]

When has the government ever banned a video game or movie?

There was this one game that pretty much taught people how to kill others with stuff lying around, such as a plastic bag. That was banned.

 

[Ashcrexl]

are you kidding me? free speech is nonexistent in ANY large civilized body! any time any group is significantly more powerful than another group, you can bet your ass the more powerful group will attempt to limit the rights and privileges of the lesser group. this of course, includes free speech.

 

[Zaverexus]

Well said, I would agree.

 

[The Austin]

Free speech is pretty good over here.

It's just not totally free, but that's kinda good, yet kinda bad.

 

[viranimus]

Yes, it has been a long time since Amurhika was the land of the free. We dont have freedoms, we have privileges that can be countermanded and modified by management with or without notice.

Ok perhaps thats exaggerating a tad, but you know what they say... after 9/11... everything changed.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

There is no "free speech", you can't yell "fire!" in a movie theater.

 

[Woodsey]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

I feel sorry if you live in a world where people can be prosecuted for spreading what the government declares to be bad ideas (ideas that don't incite violence)

Where do you people live, fucking Narnia? It's not like we've got guns to our heads telling us what to say. There are perfectly reasonable laws in place to stop morons from inciting hatred against any and all groups.

Those aren't reasonable laws those are stupid laws. If you hate a group then why should you not be allowed to express that hatred?

What are you afraid of exactly?

Ever heard of the KKK? They hated a group and they expressed it quite a bit - you're saying that sort of thing is justified? Even taking it away from those that lynched people to the people that spoke out against blacks and incited the hatred of them into others, you think that should in any way be protected?

 

[Callate]

Thus far the only type of speech that is out-and-out banned is that which is considered to be dangerous and/or harmful in and of itself, the common example being yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Child pornography is banned, and there is some danger of being legally vulnerable if you say untrue things about someone that could be damaging to their reputation. Certain other materials are resticted to adults, and probably should be. It's my sincere hope that the Supreme Court will recognize that the California law is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, with a "chilling effect" with the potential to go well beyond the much flogged vaunted intent of protecting children. Though I'll admit that I'd be much happier if the SC had just recognized the ridiculousness of the case in the first place and refused to hear the appeal.

In that regard (while I wait to hear what the Court rules in November,) I don't think the U.S. is doing to badly with regard to "free speech". Better than many, honestly.

What I find more disturbing is the recent relaxing of laws about money going to political advertisements. Free speech is a lot less free when the common citizen has to whisper while those who have no greater worth than having a lot of money get to yell into a bullhorn from a soapbox.