• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

what is the freedom of speech????

victor qiu

New member
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
china
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I just wanna know what is the concept about the freedom of speech????And how to identify the different of freedom of speech and libel,malign ,and something crime of speaking????

I think the Freedom of speech is not like U can say everything what ever u want....

who can tell me what is the freedom of speech????

thanks :mrgreen:
 
Read the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...."

Of course, governments, all governments, detest allowing free speech so this provision is under constant attack.

Please note, this says Congress shall make no law. That's it. Now, if you speak freely to your wife you'll never get laid again. And, if you tell you boss he's a total idiot you might get fired. If you tell the IRS what you think of them you're doomed. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say what you want but it does mean the government will not stop you from saying what you want.
 
I just wanna know what is the concept about the freedom of speech????And how to identify the different of freedom of speech and libel,malign ,and something crime of speaking????

I think the Freedom of speech is not like U can say everything what ever u want....

who can tell me what is the freedom of speech????

thanks :mrgreen:

Actually, you are pretty close. 'Freedom of speech' is the fundamental right of all human beings to express their ideas, nomatter how offensive or unpopular, without fear of persecution. Different countries respect this fundamental right to varying degrees. One of the advantageous to living in the United States (There are also disadvantages; healthcare, for instance, etc.) is that we have the most broadly defined protections for individual expression on earth. You can speak, or write, or publish things that you cannot legally express in any other country. You are right there are still some restrictions. There's stuff about copyright infringement, etc., that really has more to do with corporations, there's defamation, but that only applies to private citizens, you can say anything about celebrities (Movie stars, musicians, or, my personal favorite; politicians.) that you want. Basically the only major barrier to speech (Which, mind, includes written texts, film, etc.) in the US is that which constitutes 'Imminent Lawless Action.' This is speech that communicates an intention to commit a criminal act, in the immediate future. A good example would be yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre, or an explicit death threat. The operative word being explicit. For instance, you can say; 'I want to kill you', or 'I hope someone kills you.', but not 'I'm going to kill you, next Thursday, around five o'clock.'
However, you probably shouldn't say any of those things, anyhow, because it isn't very nice. It should also be noted that while US citizens are guaranteed Freedom of Speech in the Constitution, it wasn't actually established until 1969.

Hope that answers your question.
 
"It should also be noted that while US citizens are guaranteed Freedom of Speech in the Constitution, it wasn't actually established until 1969".

Nonsense.
 
NGN: "It should also be noted that while US citizens are guaranteed Freedom of Speech in the Constitution, it wasn't actually established until 1969."

Nonsense. And while you agree, apparently, with restrictions on free speech, I don't. I believe that "Congress shall make no law..." means, "Condress shall make no law...."
 
You can speak, or write, or publish things that you cannot legally express in any other country.

Such as? What are you allowed to say in the US that I would be prevented from saying in Spain or the UK, where I do most of my speakin?
 
You're not allowed to justify genocide in Spain.

You're quite right, you're not.

The USA has a fine record on free speech, but it is not unique and there are several areas where freedom of expression is limited, I'm thinking of sexually explicit material, for example. It also does not lead the world in terms of having a free press...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
 
Last edited:
Can you insult Islam in Great Britain? I seem to remember undercover officers sitting in pubs to nab people making bigoted comments.
 
Can you insult Islam in Great Britain? I seem to remember undercover officers sitting in pubs to nab people making bigoted comments.

You may insult Islam in the UK, and many, many people do regularly. There is hate speech legislation which prohibits threatening speech, writing or behaviour, but it very specifically states:
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
 
NGN: "It should also be noted that while US citizens are guaranteed Freedom of Speech in the Constitution, it wasn't actually established until 1969."

Nonsense. And while you agree, apparently, with restrictions on free speech, I don't. I believe that "Congress shall make no law..." means, "Condress shall make no law...."

I'm baffled how you could so horribly distort what I was saying. I am an unapologetic, militant proponant of free speech. I sign petitions for the ACLU. I am 100% opposed to censorship, which I thought was fairly clear.

Yes, while free speech is guaranteed in the Constitution, that was overriden by legislation that ripped the guts out of it. The freedom of speech we presently enjoy was solidified in the 1960's, first, with the overtirning of the Alien and Sedition Acts, in '65, (NY Times v. Sullivan) and then Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
 
I sign petitions for the ACLU.

Oh, brother. There is a political organization if I have ever seen one. I thought it protects civil liberties, yet it only seems interested in protecting illegal aliens and outlawing religious speech. More ****ing militant atheists in the cloak of individual rights.
 
Such as? What are you allowed to say in the US that I would be prevented from saying in Spain or the UK, where I do most of my speakin?

In England you can be arrested for 'Incitement to racial/religious hatred', for example. They have extremely backasswards Libel laws. A number of works of literature or video are illegal to posess or produce, etc., etc. You don't have to take my word for it, if you compare them, the United States has the broadest protections for expression of any country in the world.

Freedom of speech by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're quite right, you're not.
The USA has a fine record on free speech, but it is not unique..

It's unique in that American citizens are allowed to publish material that carries criminal penalties in any other country.

...and there are several areas where freedom of expression is limited, I'm thinking of sexually explicit material, for example.

It isn't prohibited, there are just rules regarding how it can be dissminated. The material, itself is not illegal.

...It also does not lead the world in terms of having a free press...
Press Freedom Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's correct.
 
Last edited:
Oh, brother. There is a political organization if I have ever seen one.

Yes.

I thought it protects civil liberties, yet it only seems interested in protecting illegal aliens..

That's an absurd and fundamentally bogus characterization.

...and outlawing religious speech.

This is even more absurd. As I was pointing out, the United States has the broadest protections for individual expression on earth. That includes religious crackpots. I may despise all the crazy nonsense they promulgate, but I would take a bullet to defend their right to spew it. Th idea that white Christians are some kind of persecuted minority in this country isn't merely wrong, it's asinine.

More ****ing militant atheists in the cloak of individual rights.

Those two aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Of course there are things that you may say in Spain and the UK that you may not say in the US.

People will react differently to certain statements in these countries. However, there is no form of expression that is legally prohibited in the United States, that is not prohibited in both of these countries.



That isn't censorship. There is no law preventing this group from expressing their opinion. (Which, incidentally, I agree with.) The company that owns the billboard can decide what they want done with their property. It is in their best interests not to consent to allow people to post material on their billboards which would likely be damaging to their company.
 
Freedom of speech does not exist in the United States. Don't kid yourself.

We have relative free speech and that's it. Free speech means I can say anything, ANYTHING, and not face legal consequences.
 
Here's the ACLU for you: Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union

They are a left wing group with a matching agenda. The claim that they are interested in protecting the free speech of anyone is asinine and absurd. They only care about protecting the free speech of those on the left. Meanwhile, they work for abortion, anti-Patriot Act, eliminating capital punishment, closing Guantanamo Bay, protecting terrorists, illegal aliens, and promoting the rights of women, illegal aliens, LGBT folks and the racially disadvantaged.

The ACLU are a bunch of partisan hacks and your allegiance to them displays your own hypocrisy. In fact, they feed off and promulgate that very same victimology your Noam Chomsky quote talks against.

They are in the same classification as ACORN. They and their supporters are utterly pathetic.
 
Being allowed to say pretty much whatever you want.
But you must realize if you say crazy stuff their might be consequences for such rhetoric.
Being allowed to speak out against your government and criticize it..
 
Freedom of speech does not exist in the United States. Don't kid yourself.

That's a fairly dubious assertion. Even if I accept the premise, the fact remains thatyou have more freedom to express yourself in the United States than anywhere else on earth. If you find the United States to be so oppressive, if this causes you significant psychic harm, the prospectus looks pretty grim.

We have relative free speech and that's it. Free speech means I can say anything, ANYTHING, and not face legal consequences.

Again, essentially the only prohibition on individual expression is direct, immediate, and credible death threats. I don't see that as especially egregious. You can call that censorship, but that's lowering the bar pretty far.
 

Yup. You found it.

They are a left wing group with a matching agenda.

They are generally Left-wing, but not radical, or deeply ideological.

The claim that they are interested in protecting the free speech of anyone is asinine and absurd.

No, it isn't.

They only care about protecting the free speech of those on the left.

No, they don't. For example, the famous National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, Illionois case. You can't get any more right wing than that. They also argued in Rush Limbaugh's defense in '04.

Meanwhile, they work for abortion, anti-Patriot Act, eliminating capital punishment, closing Guantanamo Bay, protecting terrorists, illegal aliens, and promoting the rights of women, illegal aliens, LGBT folks and the racially disadvantaged.

Those are Constitutional issues. The stated purpose of the ACLU is to defend Constitutional rights. Fortunately, or, perhaps, in your case, un fortunately, gays, women, blacks, and latinos do have constitutional rights. (Incidentally, so do you.) It sounds like your problem is with the Constitution, (Or the Supreme Court.) not the ACLU.

Out of curiosity, what exactly does 'racially disadvantaged' mean, pray tell?

The ACLU are a bunch of partisan hacks

Unlike the Christan Coalition, or FOX news?

and your allegiance to them displays your own hypocrisy.

There has been no hypocrisy on my part.

Incidentally, while I support it in spirit, and sign the occasional petition, I am not a member, contributor, or in any other way affiliated with the ACLU. I just happen to take civil rights, especially free speech, very seriously.

In fact, they feed off and promulgate that very same victimology your Noam Chomsky quote talks against.

There's absolutely no connection. Although, I highly recommend his work, and encourage you to read more of it.

They are in the same classification as ACORN.

There's really no connection. It's moot, now, but, incidentally, the charges against ACORN were almost entirely baseless.

They and their supporters are utterly pathetic.

That's your opinion. Thanks to the Constitution, the Supreme Court, etc., you are free to express it, regardless of it's legitimacy. If this right is ever violated, you can ask the ACLU to file a motion on your behalf.
 
Amusingly ironic, that a question is asked about what is freedom of speech, in such garbled speech as to be barely recognizable as language.
 
Amusingly ironic, that a question is asked about what is freedom of speech, in such garbled speech as to be barely recognizable as language.

His English is far better than my Chinese.
 
No, they don't. For example, the famous National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, Illionois case. You can't get any more right wing than that. They also argued in Rush Limbaugh's defense in '04.

Fair enough, I was familiar that they have taken positions on free speech for those on the right as well.

Those are Constitutional issues. The stated purpose of the ACLU is to defend Constitutional rights. Fortunately, or, perhaps, in your case, un fortunately, gays, women, blacks, and latinos do have constitutional rights. (Incidentally, so do you.) It sounds like your problem is with the Constitution, (Or the Supreme Court.) not the ACLU.

Not at all, in fact I am a firm believer in protecting the right of a woman to have an abortion, gay marriage, minority rights and protection from discrimination. I think that illegals should be legalized and am very impressed with the solution developed by the state of Utah. Although the Constitution started out in a limited way for white male landowners, it has shown tremendous resilience to being expanded to all people. It is a wonderful foundation of expressed principles. I don't care what your gender, sexual orientation, skin color or genetic heritage is, all citizens have equal Constitutional rights.

Notice I said "citizens". Legal visitors to our country are protected. Illegal immigrants are a different story. If an illegal immigrant is caught in a crime and has a prior criminal record, that person should be immediately deported, or at least after serving any sentence they may have earned for themselves. Otherwise, see my opinion about legalizing immigrants.

This does not apply to undeclared belligerents found committing terrorist acts. They get their ass shipped to G-Bay and await military tribunal. They do NOT get Constitutional Rights. They do NOT get habeas corpus. They do NOT get the privilege of a civilian court of law. Nor are they considered POWs according to the Geneva Convention.

The ACLU's positions on illegals, G-Bay, terrorists, Patriot Act, and abortion are not clear Constitutional issues. They are political issues of interpretation. The same is true for the granddaddy: US v. Butler.

Out of curiosity, what exactly does 'racially disadvantaged' mean, pray tell?

Well, evidently they need an unearned hand up in the world, don't they? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say 'racial advantaged'.
 
I just wanna know what is the concept about the freedom of speech????And how to identify the different of freedom of speech and libel,malign ,and something crime of speaking????

I think the Freedom of speech is not like U can say everything what ever u want....

who can tell me what is the freedom of speech????

thanks :mrgreen:

When you can chant "Deng is Dung" in the streets of China and not suffer consequences from China's government, you'll finally be in the path to free speech.

When your country no longer punishes those holding disapproved religions, when, in fact, it ceases the practice of officially appoving or disapproving of people's religious beliefs, you'll be closer to free speech.
 
Back
Top Bottom