falcon9393 Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 do you think its right that activists use the first amendment of the constitution to hide behind when presenting their case? Im all for freedom of speech but i think they are abusing the power a little bit! and taking into consideration that im liberal and call me out if it seems that liberals are the ones who mostly use the first amendment to their advantage! So let me know what you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 The First Ammendment provides a hodge-podge of rights: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. I am assuming you are talking about freedom of speech. Correct me if this is the wrong assumption. First, its not just liberals who rely upon freedom of speech to keep people from beating them up while they are having their say. The Westboro Baptist Church, for example, is as far from liberal as one can get. My acid test of whether you truly believe in freedom of speech is pretty simple. Determine the group of people you find most loathsome. If you truly believe in freedom of speech that means you believe this group has the right to hold a parade down Main Street of your town without you bullying them, trying to start a riot, or performing any other kinds of illegal acts such as disturbing the peace to prevent said loathsome group from having their say. From what I have seen, neither the wacko right nor the wacko left truly believes in freedom of speech, but both rely extensively on that same freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 do you think its right that activists use the first amendment of the constitution to hide behind when presenting their case? Sure. No one's right of free speech should be inhibited except where it violates the rights of someone else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 In what way do you believe it is being abused? Give an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 My acid test of whether you truly believe in freedom of speech is pretty simple. Determine the group of people you find most loathsome. If you truly believe in freedom of speech that means you believe this group has the right to hold a parade down Main Street of your town without you bullying them, trying to start a riot, or performing any other kinds of illegal acts such as disturbing the peace to prevent said loathsome group from having their say. Absolutely. Free speech isn't just about protecting the speech with which you agree. From what I have seen, neither the wacko right nor the wacko left truly believes in freedom of speech, but both rely extensively on that same freedom. Sadly true. Of course the are are the exceptions of lies (i.e. defamation, slander, libel, false advertisement), inciting to riot or commit illegal acts, threats and obscenities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted February 12, 2008 Share Posted February 12, 2008 Sure. No one's right of free speech should be inhibited except where it violates the rights of someone else... Example: When counter-demonstrators gather for the sole purpose of denying some other group their right to freedom of speech, said counter-demonstrators are no longer exercising their freedom of speech rights. They are merely thugs intent on disturbing the peace. The Supreme Court has very strict limitations on what constitutes legal restrictions of free speech rights. Shouting fire in a crowded theater is definitely not protected speech. The line between freedom of speech versus disturbing the peace is a bit fuzzier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Example: When counter-demonstrators gather for the sole purpose of denying some other group their right to freedom of speech, said counter-demonstrators are no longer exercising their freedom of speech rights. They are merely thugs intent on disturbing the peace. And who's to say which side are the counter-demonstrators? Which side is the one disturbing the peace? Isn't the freedom of speech equal for all sides? Freedom of speech is not the right to be heard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 If the law doesn't apply equally to everyone, it becomes meaningless. It also opens a pandora's box of problems when you start thinking about who gets to decide what can and what cannot be said, or who can say it. "Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation." ~ Voltaire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 And who's to say which side are the counter-demonstrators? Which side is the one disturbing the peace? That's an easy one. The side that got the parade permit (you do need one of those to hold a parade) is the side in the right. The counter-protesters are no more than thugs in my eye. The counter-protesters can hold their protest on another day. Chalk up yet another person who fails my acid test. Isn't the freedom of speech equal for all sides? Not at the same time. Hold your f*en parade tomorrow. Freedom of speech is not the right to be heard... I never said the press had to come, did I? These groups love it when the press comes. I formulated my acid test years ago. The Westboro Baptist Church later tested whether I passed my own acid test. I work at the Johnson Space Center. Shortly after the Columbia disaster, the Westboro Baptist Church came to Houston to claim that their god struck down the Columbia. They held their little rally right in front of JSC for all of us to see. F*en bastards! Guess what? They still have the right to display their stupidity to the world. We have the right to ignore them. The line between disturbing the peace and freedom of speech is a fuzzy one. Even though I think the WBC has the right to vent their garbage in a public forum, I think they are disturbing the peace when they do that in the near privacy of a funeral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Rationed out liberty is not liberty. Just because someone else opens their mouth is no obligation for me to shut mine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Why should "freedom of speech" apply to hate speech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Rationed out liberty is not liberty. Just because someone else opens their mouth is no obligation for me to shut mine... If they have a parade permit, yes it is. You are sounding like yet another left-wing thug who believes freedom of speech applies only to people who think like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 DH - I get a different sense from doG's posts. My interpretation is that he is simply saying that everyone can say what they want and when they want, and some parade permit does not trump that. Just because you're having a parade does not mean I'm not allowed to say what I want whle you're on the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 If they have a parade permit, yes it is. You are sounding like yet another left-wing thug who believes freedom of speech applies only to people who think like you. No, I believe freedom of speech applies to everyone, not just the people you think should have it. The point you seem to be missing here is that EVERYONE is guaranteed, by the Constitution, the "Right" of free speech and no one has any right to abridge those rights of the people which are guaranteed by the Constitution, not even someone with a parade permit. BTW, the POV is Libertarianism, not liberalism... Why should "freedom of speech" apply to hate speech? Because the Constitution says so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D H Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Suppose you come to a legally-sanctioned parade with the sole intent of shouting down said marchers who are using their Constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights and have all the necessary permits to let them do so. How are you not abridging the free-speech rights of that group? Now turn the tables. Suppose you are one of the marchers, and some group of thugs comes armed with 120 decibel loudspeakers? Is that not abridging your rights? The line between freedom of speech and disturbing the peace is a very fine one. The Supreme Court has upheld some disturbing the peace convictions on the grounds that freedom of speech does not apply and overturned others on the grounds that freedom of speech does apply. Is hate speech protected? If the speaker directly incites violence along with the spewed hate, probably not. Inciting violence is akin to shouting fire in a crowded theater. Things get grey when the speaker merely implies violence might be the answer. If the speaker just vents hatred, that's fine. If speech that merely vented hatred was illegal, we would have to arrest Obama and Hillary and McCain and Huckabee and ... dang, just about everyone. Unless you are a completely bland and faceless person you almost certainly have said something in public that pissed someone else off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Nobody wants to defend Britain's Incitement to Ethnic or Racial Hatred law? I'm kinda surprised, I thought that was an example of how progressive Europe was over the barbarous United States. (Wups, that didn't make anyone hate me, did it?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Because the Constitution says so! So? Didn't the constitution also permit slavery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Nobody wants to defend Britain's Incitement to Ethnic or Racial Hatred law? I'm kinda surprised, I thought that was an example of how progressive Europe was over the barbarous United States. (Wups, that didn't make anyone hate me, did it?) since we don`t have a "first amendment of the constitution" to do so would be off topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Suppose you come to a legally-sanctioned parade with the sole intent of shouting down said marchers who are using their Constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights and have all the necessary permits to let them do so. How are you not abridging the free-speech rights of that group? The right of free speech is not a right to protected speech. If someone wants to shout over you they can. A permit to speak somewhere does not abridge the right of someone else to speak there as well. The permit is only permission to march, not a permit to suppress anyone else's rights. Even a heckler at a private event on private property can shout out over a speaker. The owner can have them ejected for trespassing but cannot hold them accountable for speaking. So? Didn't the constitution also permit slavery? This may be old news but as of 12/6/1865 the Constitution was amended to abolish slavery. Last I checked the Constitution has not been amended to abridge the right of free speech of anyone on any subject. Feel free to correct me if I've missed something there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I don't get it. The US First Amendment puts limits on the Congress and their ability to make laws to silence dissent. It protects the citizens from (and applies to) the government, not Joe Bloggs down the street. As such, how can it apply to the actions of individuals? Or has it been reinterpreted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 I don't get it. The US First Amendment puts limits on the Congress and their ability to make laws to silence dissent. It protects the citizens from (and applies to) the government, not Joe Bloggs down the street. As such, how can it apply to the actions of individuals? Or has it been reinterpreted? But if Joe Bloggs down the street wants to exercise his freedom of speech and speak over someone else exercising their freedom of speech then he can do that and the government cannot pass any laws to prohibit him from doing so.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParanoiA Posted February 13, 2008 Share Posted February 13, 2008 Why should "freedom of speech" apply to hate speech? Because "hate" speech is subjective. They could have made the case that speech promoting the abolition of slavery is hate speech. The US First Amendment puts limits on the Congress and their ability to make laws to silence dissent. It protects the citizens from (and applies to) the government' date=' not Joe Bloggs down the street. As such, how can it apply to the actions of individuals? Or has it been reinterpreted?[/quote'] You just answered your own question, really. It doesn't apply to individuals, it is a statement to government; a limitation of the kinds of laws the feds can pass. In effect, it's a statement of personal rights because we're not going to allow the government to abridge your personal rights. However, I'm perfectly free to shout louder than you. O'reilly uses this to make himself "right" all the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 since we don`t have a "first amendment of the constitution" to do so would be off topic. Cop-out! But I've amended the subject to help you out. Here's a description of Britain's Incitement to Ethnic or Racial Hatred law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement_to_ethnic_or_racial_hatred Anybody have a comment on that? Are we "backwards" or "forwards" of Europe on this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Cop-out! But I've amended the subject to help you out. I sincerely hope the OP didn`t mind you doing that? as for my Opinion, I don`t think Spreading ANY kind of hatred is a good idea. and that just about sums up all I`d have to say on the matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 It's the same subject, man. I'm amazed nobody wants to tell me how badly my country lags behind the progressive agenda in this area. If Europe is abridging free speech, then isn't that right and appropriate and necessary? Shouldn't the US be abridging free speech too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now