Freedom of Speech?

[Dutch-NJ]

Some people believe they have the RIGHT to say (or write) anything they want, to anyone they want, anytime they want, or anyplace they want.

Those people believe that RIGHT is protected by the 1st Amendment of our Constitution.

The 1st Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Over the years our courts have made some bizarre rulings concerning “Freedom of Speech.”

Oddly, one place where “Freedom of Speech” is severely limited is in our courtrooms. A judge can throw a citizen in jail for contempt for quietly whispering to another citizen. Another place is our town halls where time limits are routinely imposed by elected officials abridging a citizen's ability to redress their grievances.

However, radical groups like the WBC are protected by those same courts if they want to disrupt funerals.

Ironically, at the time our Constitution was written, duels were not unusual if someone was insulted or offended by the words of another. Today, duels are illegal.

What are your thoughts?

1. The RIGHT of Freedom of Speech is more important than respect or social responsibility.

2. The RIGHT of Freedom of Speech extends to private property and private websites.

3. Do you see a conflict with the definition of Freedom of Speech for average citizens as opposed to courtrooms and town halls?

4. A person's Freedom of Speech, no matter how offensive, should be protected above all else without consequences.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

With freedom comes responsibility.

Your freedom of speech may walk on my freedom to NOT HAVE slanderous comments directed at me.

The issue will be debated as long as we have the ability to speak.

In a great many cases, comments that push the limits of freedom of speech would be best left unsaid.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

In Canada, they don't have Freedom of Speech (or the Fifth Amendement). Subsequently, you get watered down entertainment choices as shows like Howard Stern and Tom Lykus are considered "hate" and banned or dropped by broadcasters either under the fear of prosecution under Canada's anti-hate speech type laws. While the USA does have laws that prosecute hate crimes and other racist type crimes.

In Canada you can be prosecuted just for speaking or publishing hatred.

Personally, I like having the choice of being able to hear shows that are offensive to some. But that's just it - it's all about choice.

(Yes - I know beds will be adding comment shortly)

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

In a great many cases, comments that push the limits of freedom of speech would be best left unsaid.

Very well said. However, it is important that the "freedom" never be curtailed or controlled by the government.

 

[Gatorboy]

While the USA does have laws that prosecute hate crimes and other racist type crimes.

I don't understand the reasoning for this --- they are still crimes WITHOUT adding the word hate, and already have a penalty associated with it.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

I don't understand the reasoning for this --- they are still crimes WITHOUT adding the word hate, and already have a penalty associated with it.

Yup - don't make sense to me. I think the most un-prejudiced society is one where the same laws and rules apply to everyone.

Stop trying to use common sense.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

While the USA does have laws that prosecute hate crimes and other racist type crimes.

I don't understand the reasoning for this --- they are still crimes WITHOUT adding the word hate, and already have a penalty associated with it.

Hate crime laws punish people for what they think and say, not for what they do.

Hate crimes are SEPARATE and in ADDITION to other crimes.

Hate crimes usually have very high fines and jail time.

In fact, you can be found “not guilty” of the underlying crime and yet be found “guilty” of the hate crime.

For example, someone can falsely accuse you of doing something. You deny doing it but call that person a name. You’re found “not guilty” of doing what the person accused you doing, however, you may be fined $5,000 and jailed for a year for the name calling alone. Far fetched, but it could happen.

 

[dzalphakilo]

Ironically, at the time our Constitution was written, duels were not unusual if someone was insulted or offended by the words of another. Today, duels are illegal.

Social change (accepted behavior within ones society), science and technology are all elastic variables which play a part in the courts interpretation of the Constitution (IMO).

Some time ago in the U.S it was illegal for a woman to have sex without being married.

Some time ago, women could not vote.

Some time ago, white men could hang a black man for whatever reason they saw fit without a trial.

It could also be argured by those who are "anti gun" that at the time the Constitution was written, firearms were only capable of shooting one round at a time, with minutes needed before another round being shoot due to the amount of time to reload, unlike the weapons of today where one person with one gun could litterally kill hundreds before that person could be stopped (not to mention that it was written pertaining to a "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm not trying to get off the thread, only point out that during time and "social change", interpretations by the courts pertaining to the Constitution may vary as well. I'm not saying its right or perfect, however, all things considered, more "good" has happened than "bad" in the course of our history as a country because of this.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

Social change (accepted behavior within ones society), science and technology are all elastic variables which play a part in the courts interpretation of the Constitution (IMO).

Where did you ever get the idea our Constitution was “elastic,” subject to interpretation?

There is a Constitutional method for change. That method is called an AMENDMENT.

Some time ago in the U.S it was illegal for a woman to have sex without being married.

Some time ago, women could not vote.

Some time ago, white men could hang a black man for whatever reason they saw fit without a trial.

I know our Constitution was amended in 1920 (19th Amendment) to give women the right to vote, but I’m unaware of the others you cited.

When was our Constitution amended to permit unmarried women to engage is sex? Was this ever illegal?

When was our Constitution amended to require a trial before hanging a Black Man? Was this ever legal?

It could also be argured by those who are "anti gun" that at the time the Constitution was written, firearms were only capable of shooting one round at a time, with minutes needed before another round being shoot due to the amount of time to reload, unlike the weapons of today where one person with one gun could litterally kill hundreds before that person could be stopped (not to mention that it was written pertaining to a "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm not trying to get off the thread, only point out that during time and "social change", interpretations by the courts pertaining to the Constitution may vary as well. I'm not saying its right or perfect, however, all things considered, more "good" has happened than "bad" in the course of our history as a country because of this.

You are getting off topic. But that’s okay.

Are you suggesting that due to changes in technology, citizens should be armed with modern weapons, like machine guns?

If so, how do you explain that gun laws have become less liberal and more restrictive?

 

[dzalphakilo]

What I'm suggestion that through technology, that there are events and situations in our society that our "forefathers" could never of anticipated when the constitution was written.

Read some works by Ben Franklin or Mark Twain.

What militia group do you belong to for the reason why you have guns?

"Are you suggesting that due to changes in technology, citizens should be armed with modern weapons, like machine guns?"

There is a difference between reading and interpreting

Lets see, I can own my guns in my state of N.C, but I can't own them in your state. Why is that? If the Constitution allows me the right to "bear arms", why can't I move and take my guns to N.J?

Uhmmm, well, we don't know if it's legal or not, but we're going to do it.

 

[Dutch-NJ]

What I'm suggestion that through technology, that there are events and situations in our society that our "forefathers" could never of anticipated when the constitution was written.

I’m not sure I agree with you. Our Constitution, especially our Bill of Rights, seems straight forward to me. It always causes me to believe it was written by geniuses through Divine inspiration.

Read some works by Ben Franklin or Mark Twain.

Which works?

What militia group do you belong to for the reason why you have guns?

You are NOT reading your own Constitutional quote (no intrepretation necessary).

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

See that comma (,)? That comma separates two separate statements. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” has NOTHING to do with a militia. Read some of the works of our founders.

There is a difference between reading and interpreting

That’s my point.

Lets see, I can own my guns in my state of N.C, but I can't own them in your state. Why is that? If the Constitution allows me the right to "bear arms", why can't I move and take my guns to N.J? Uhmmm, well, we don't know if it's legal or not, but we're going to do it.

Why is that? Because New Jersey’s “liberal” law makers aren’t liberal, they’re dictatorial socialist panderers.

 

[dzalphakilo]

See that comma (,)? That comma separates two separate statements. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” has NOTHING to do with a militia.

Interpretation, period. Amazing what a comma makes.

Ben Frankln, look at any of his works, starting with "A Plan for the Colonial Union" and "Reason and Motives for the Albany plan of uinion". Twain is up in the attic, for grins, see if you can find any of the "social" pranks these two men played on the society that they lived in. Ahead of their time by far.

How long ago was it that the goverment came out with charging people with "violation of your civil rights due to not being able to live your life" (or some mumbo jumbo like that? Bottom line, another way to get you for killing someone.

Now wait a minute, you mean to say laws differ in different states!

How can that be! Don't we all live under the same god given rights under the same country?!

I'm not a lawyer, I have no clue about the laws and what they pertain to.

Rowe Vrs Wade Wait a minute, how can you kill a baby? Dosen't that baby have a right to live? Are you not violating that babys rights to life?

I could be very wrong, and I'm no a laywer, but are not some of our laws our interpretation of our "bill of rights"?

What I find somewhat amusing is that some of you would crucify same sex marriages, but are they not guarenteed via the constitution? Why woiuld they not have the same benifits of a man/woman marriage? (sp?)

 

[dzalphakilo]

Are you suggesting that due to changes in technology, citizens should be armed with modern weapons, like machine guns?

You mean to say your selector lever doesn't have at least three settings?

Or are we talking about linked fed?

 

[Junkman]

Rowe Vrs Wade Wait a minute, how can you kill a baby? Dosen't that baby have a right to live? Are you not violating that babys rights to life?

Since when is a fetus a baby???? This is the whole arguement about those that believe in abortion and those that don't.

I could be very wrong, and I'm no a laywer, but are not some of our laws our interpretation of our "bill of rights"?

When was the last time that you were right???? A lot of us here are still trying to figure out what you are??????

 

[dzalphakilo]

When was the last time that you were right????

Um, EVERYTIME!

 

[dzalphakilo]

A lot of us here are still trying to figure out what you are??????

A gay transvestite trapped in a mans body who loved to wear cowboy clothes, particularly with a big white cowboy hat and black leather chaps, with no pants or underwear. Sadly enough, I learned the hard way that while in the mens bathroom, the last thing you want to say is "nice dick!"

 

[Dutch-NJ]

Interpretation, period. Amazing what a comma makes.

A comma is just a comma. No more no less. Commas are NOT subject to interpretation. If that comma was subject to interpretation none of us would own any type of gun.

I’ll bet the anti-gun folks really hate that little old comma.

How long ago was it that the goverment came out with charging people with "violation of your civil rights due to not being able to live your life" (or some mumbo jumbo like that? Bottom line, another way to get you for killing someone.

Just goes to show, you can’t fight city hall (or the Feds), unless you can afford to hire a dream team of sharp lawyers, or find a dumb jury.

Now wait a minute, you mean to say laws differ in different states!

How can that be! Don't we all live under the same god given rights under the same country?!

Of course state laws differ. They just can’t conflict with Federal laws. I think that’s why our Civil War was fought.

Rowe Vrs Wade Wait a minute, how can you kill a baby? Dosen't that baby have a right to live? Are you not violating that babys rights to life?

Are you now turning this into an abortion thread?

What I find somewhat amusing is that some of you would crucify same sex marriages, but are they not guarenteed via the constitution? Why woiuld they not have the same benifits of a man/woman marriage? (sp?)

Or, are you trying to turn this into a same sex marriage thread?

Why not start your own threads and we can debate all this stuff..............

 

[Dutch-NJ]

You mean to say your selector lever doesn't have at least three settings?

Or are we talking about linked fed?

I'm shocked......... SHOCKED you would even ask that question.

 

[BoneheadNW]

You mean to say your selector lever doesn't have at least three settings?

Or are we talking about linked fed?

Can someone explain what this means?
Bonehead

 

[Dutch-NJ]

A lot of us here are still trying to figure out what you are??????

I just assumed DZ was another American. Am I mistaken?

 

[Dutch-NJ]

A gay transvestite trapped in a mans body who loved to wear cowboy clothes, particularly with a big white cowboy hat and black leather chaps, with no pants or underwear. Sadly enough, I learned the hard way that while in the mens bathroom, the last thing you want to say is "nice dick!"

If that bothers you, you shouldn't patronize those places.

Or, you should keep your mouth shut.

Or, you should do your business outside.

 

[ghautz]

Over the years our courts have made some bizarre rulings concerning “Freedom of Speech.”

The one I find most disturbing is the recent decision upholding the law preventing some groups from publishing any political matter for a certain time before elections. How was that justified?

 

[Dutch-NJ]

The one I find most disturbing is the recent decision upholding the law preventing some groups from publishing any political matter for a certain time before elections. How was that justified?

Are you talking about the 2002 ruling by US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly?

Just goes to show that our Bill of Rights isn’t absolute. A single judge can overturn anything with an “interpretation.”

It’s a shame our courts won’t protect us from the disgusting “speech” of hate mongers like the WBC who disrupt funerals of soldiers who died to protect our “freedom.”

Today’s cowardly politicians hide behind the judges’ rulings and moan to us, “What can we do? The court has spoken.”

Well, President Andrew Jackson didn’t have a problem with court rulings that went against the public interest. In 1830, Jackson stated, "The Supreme Court has made it's decision, now let them enforce it."

 

[dzalphakilo]

Since when is a fetus a baby???? This is the whole arguement about those that believe in abortion and those that don't.

"On Nov. 7, when American voters will choose a new Congress, governors in 36 states and decide whether to approve various ballot initiatives, South Dakota voters will vote on a measure that would allow abortions only to save a pregnant woman's life. It makes no exception for other health concerns, or for cases of rape or incest; a doctor performing illegal abortions could face five years in prison.
The state Legislature passed the law overwhelmingly in February, expecting it to be challenged in court and perhaps lead to a U.S. Supreme Court reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. Instead of suing, opponents swiftly collected signatures to force a referendum; the law will be scrapped if voters reject it.
"None of us think abortion is a desirable thing," said Tom Dean, a family physician who hosted a recent discussion among friends. "But it's not a problem for government to solve by passing a rigid law."

Is an abortion a womans right?

I'm not trying to get off the subject of free speech, but attempt to include all aspects of those rights that we take "for granted" as a people.

Abortion at one time was illegal. Then it's not. Now, pehaps in another state, it may become illegal again.

What if the topic were not on abortion, but on gun ownership rights?

Is it up to the people as a whole to vote and decide?

What if the people as a whole decide that gun ownership is archaic (sp?) and does nothing but add to violence? Worse yet, due to public opinion, what if the courts agree with the will of the people?

Don't we have the right to do an internet search on any material we are curious about? What about child porn? Yes, extreme, but where do you draw the line as far as to what you can have access to?

Have the feds come over and see "The Big Book of Mischief" on your bookshelf

Personally, freedom of speech is only one aspect of those rights that we take for granted.

 

[Junkman]

Is an abortion a womans right?

Will you answer this question so I know where you stand? I have already given my answer...

I'm not trying to get off the subject of free speech, but attempt to include all aspects of those rights that we take "for granted" as a people.

You don't have to try, you have already have introduced more variables than were originally intended. If you want to bring up a discussion about abortion, then start a new thread about it, but don't hijack this thread.

Abortion at one time was illegal. Then it's not. Now, pehaps in another state, it may become illegal again.

What if the topic were not on abortion, but on gun ownership rights?

Is it up to the people as a whole to vote and decide?

What if the people as a whole decide that gun ownership is archaic (sp?) and does nothing but add to violence? Worse yet, due to public opinion, what if the courts agree with the will of the people?

Don't we have the right to do an internet search on any material we are curious about? What about child porn? Yes, extreme, but where do you draw the line as far as to what you can have access to?

Have the feds come over and see "The Big Book of Mischief" on your bookshelf

Personally, freedom of speech is only one aspect of those rights that we take for granted.

To bring into the discussion things that at were one time legal and then not legal or things that were illegal and now legal, just muddies the waters. Keep on topic and there will be no problems. Once again, if you want to take this discussion in a differant direction, then start another thread. What part of that don't you understand???? If you are just trying to or stir the pot, take is somewhere else, because your is getting old and I for one am getting tired of it.

 

[dzalphakilo]

Junk, freedom of speech, freedom to choose an abortion if a woman so is inclined to do so. Apologies if you couldn't see how I was trying to compare the two acts of ones "rights".

Jeeze MR. Junk, do you think perhaps the legal system gets a little "gray" particularly when it comes to our "Constitutional rights"?

At your age, what don't you get tired of? Remember, the air is free, take a deep breath and enjoy.

 

[Junkman]

Junk, freedom of speech, freedom to choose an abortion if a woman so is inclined to do so. Apologies if you couldn't see how I was trying to compare the two acts of ones "rights".

Jeeze MR. Junk, do you think perhaps the legal system gets a little "gray" particularly when it comes to our "Constitutional rights"?

At your age, what don't you get tired of? Remember, the air is free, take a deep breath and enjoy.

I was exercising my "freedom of speech".... You are right.... at my advanced age, there is nothing that I don't get tired of, except for complaining, but a liberal transvestite / cross dresser like you should be used to that by now..... .

 

[dzalphakilo]

I was exercising my "freedom of speech"....

Doing the exact same thing, only trying to draw a comparison which you incorrectly took as a "diversion" sp?