A question for Americans

[OneOfTheMichael's]

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.

I kind of agree with you there my friend. Some on the other hand are quite the opposite but i did say 'some'.

 

[instantbenz]

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?

That concept doesn't stick unless you keep them in line with stones and words. Parents are becoming too lax making the kids more rambunctious making the grandparent generation concerned that all children are growing up incorrectly. That generation is still trying to hold onto being in charge via local politics or other types of leadership roles. Being in such positions they TRY to keep things under control and I suppose this wild goose chase of a paragraph is trying to say that free speech is a fleeting notion.

 

[GonzoGamer]

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.

Yes. Also, are they trying to ban violent games in California or trying to restrict sales to minors? I think it's a stupid idea (minors already have a very restrictive list of things they can and can't do) but I don't think anything is going to get banned... even if this does pass... which it wont.

The thing is, we have freedom of speech so far as nobody is listening. But then if you have a public forum, then the government gets involved. For example, if you're on TV, the FCC tells you what you can and can't say.

 

[CrazyMedic]

I am I the only who is getting annoyed with a lot of Americans pretending that they have complete and absolute freedom and could run around yelling fire and not get in trouble.

 

[DazBurger]

Just happy to be Danish... Thats all Im saying.

 

[maturin]

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.

So people should not be allowed to hold racist views?

There's a difference between legally holding a view and legally expressing it.

 

[The Long Road]

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.

I feel like your comment hasn't gotten any of the attention it deserves so I just wanted to quote you to say that I agree for the most part and I think you answered the OP's question better than I ever could. My only question is where do we begin to draw the line as far as what is considered speech? Magazines and newspapers are protected under freedom of the press even though most newspapers and magazines can be considered commercial products. Books are also considered speech even though these are also commercial products. The Supreme Court even extended the protection of the First Amendment to the internet. Where does the line fall within media? Do we draw it at the written word vs. spoken word? Paper vs. technology? What category do audio books fall into? Most (if not all) forms of media have some sort of commercial goal in mind, so how do we determine the difference between a product and a form of personal expression? And please feel free to point out any statements I made that are blatantly incorrect. I'll be the first to admit that my areas of expertise lie very far away from politics so it's entirely possible that everything I just wrote was bullshit. I'm just very curious about how it's decided what is protected as speech and what isn't.

The other forms of communication you mention fall under one of the other parts of the First Amendment, the Freedom of the Press. Books aren't really in that, but newspapers and magazines do. Films and videogames are not press at all, so they are simply in the Commerce Clause.

 

[Marowit]

Speech is suppose to be protected from Government censorship here in the states. The only time that I can recall that the supreme court that certain types of speech weren't O.K., and could be censored, would be in the case of shouting something like fire in a crowded theater.

It's just the advocacy groups are now trying to approach the video-game issue from the, "it's bad for childhood development, like Alcohol/tobacco," angle as a way of skirting the free speech issue, because every other time it has come up in front of a court it's been tossed out.

 

[maturin]

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.

So people should not be allowed to hold racist views?

There's a difference between legally holding a view and legally expressing it.

Except there isn;t really.

Limiting the discussion of a topic is what you're suggesting. If people can't even talk about something then you're not allowing people to have that view. The word allow is key here.

The government can't prosecute your for the contents of your mind, only your acts. There is no law against racism in Europe, only laws against inciting hatred. I doubt that the police will bust up a dinner party where people badmouth Jews, but if you put up flyers they will.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

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?

well thats a load of crap, injuries can heal in hours, a good insult can last weeks

But as I said in a later post, it's the idea that you can just ignore words, unlike physical pain.

 

[maturin]

Injuries start fights, words start wars.

 

[MrJoyless]

Free speech is the right to say whatever you like, and freedom is the right to sue the shit out of someone for saying whatever they like.....or getting locked up for threatening/menacing an individual.

Seriously that white kid video says its a felony to say "i want to kill the president of the united states" but its also a felony to threaten death on another person, seriously look it up, you cannot go around saying i am gonna kill you, its called criminal menacing.

 

[interspark]

But as I said in a later post, it's the idea that you can just ignore words, unlike physical pain.

well that's debatable in both cases. with the right words you can scar someone for life, and if you're hurt mildly, like getting stung by a bee or a nettle, you can ignore it.

 

[AssassinJoe]

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...

Ok yeah, I totally get that.

I just put in "just saying" to try to show that I didn't want to start a massive debate, but now that you mention it......yeah it does sound like I'm insulting him. I really should have phrased it better. I'll keep that in mind for next time.

 

[PhunkyPhazon]

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.

^

We do, but people are seem to be getting afraid of it. Mainly parents. Seriously, what did the 80's do to these people? (I say 80's since most of the current generation of soccer moms would have had to have lived their important life-deciding years in that decade. Early 90's too, I suppose)

 

[TurtleBay]

Wow, nobody in here knows anything about the first amendment. The California law will be struck down, Every few years a law like this comes up and always gets struck down. The politicians win brownie points with certain groups for getting this bill through even though it is unconstitutional.

Movie and videogame ratings themselves aren't restrictions on free speech, the movie and videogame industry created the ratings systems, not the government. It is not illegal to show a kid an R rated movie or sell a kid an M rated game, many theaters and stores choose to follow the ratings to appease parents.

Freedom of speech is protected. The exceptions are few. The exceptions are fighting words (a man with a gun says "I am going to kill you"), imminent lawless action (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), restrictions on commercial speech (they can restrict certain advertisements), libel (your not protected from writing lies about someone or something) and slander (you can't blatantly knowingly speak lies about someone or something).