Thread: what is the freedom of speech????

Originally Posted by pzycho

Here's the ACLU for you: Key Issues | American Civil Liberties Union

Yup. You found it.

Originally Posted by pzycho

They are a left wing group with a matching agenda.

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

Originally Posted by pzycho

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

No, it isn't.

Originally Posted by pzycho

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.

Originally Posted by pzycho

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?

Originally Posted by pzycho

The ACLU are a bunch of partisan hacks

Unlike the Christan Coalition, or FOX news?

Originally Posted by pzycho

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.

Originally Posted by pzycho

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.

Originally Posted by pzycho

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.

Originally Posted by pzycho

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.

Originally Posted by gekaap

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.

Originally Posted by NGNM85

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'.

Originally Posted by victor qiu

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

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.

Originally Posted by Temporal

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.

No. You cannot lie under oath. You can commit neither libel nor slander. You cannot incite others to commit crimes.

The freedom of speech does not grant the freedom to harm others.

Originally Posted by Temporal

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.

Who are you to unilaterally decide what free speech means?

People lie under oath every second of every court action. People, by the millions, everyday, on the Internet commit some form of libel and slander and don't realize they do it...UNTIL...they get a letter from a law office, which hired a person to hack-track down IP addresses. Now, is there any doubt in anybody's mind that criminal case testimony sees its share of perjury and even in those instances, a DA has to think long and hard about incarcerating someone for lying. It is costly to imprison somebody for obvious acts of violence or thief of property, much less lies that occurs during trials, which usually flow like milk in a dairy, when a person is trying to save him or herself from a jail sentence.

In the majority of Civil Courts across the country there is zero penalty for perjury. Why? Because about 85% plus of the court cases today are civil. In every lawsuit for money (insurance claims, etc)...people lie their asses off. In divorce cases, people lie, lie, lie. It is a rare occurrence that a judge will declare contempt against a petitioner, plaintiff, or defendant for lying. If they did, we'd have to build trillions of dollars worth of prisons to incarcerate these liars.

Ask Charles Manson about inciting others to commit violence. But there are untold numbers of people who have incited violence without serving a day in jail or prison.

The meaning of Freedom of Speech is riddled with differing opinions and social consequences.

To me, the most important elements related to Freedom of Speech is keeping government out of homes, schools, art, etc...but most of all OUT OF MEDIA. When our media's lips are sealed, that's the end of our freedoms and liberties. And that includes the Internet. As we've all witnessed, look at how the Internet is redefining countries that have been under severe oppression by dictators and theocracies.

Acturally , In china the speaking control have gone for a while, it is not like the cold war situation, Today , the freedom of speech have already joined in chinese constitution ,the citizen can speek everything without punishment, but we do not have right to publish anything such as strong anti-comunisty book, it is lawlessness,the chinese goverment still keep the zero-tolerance about publishing , it is means if a chinse said "the communisty party should be kicked out from China",in the street ,there are nothing problem about him, but if he publish such these books, might be will get somthing trouble in the furture . Buy the way , the Chinese grovernment still control the majority of internet and mass media , a buch for disapproved news have be debrided.....

Originally Posted by NGNM85

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.

It's not causing me anything and that's not what I am referring to. I am talking about a simple observation. Those who speak out to a large degree against government or try to shake the establishment at this foundation - well, those people end up dead. That's what happens when you rock the boat.

Freedom of speech is allowed as long as it remains within the acceptable framework. And that's not free speech - it's just a cleverly designed prison for the mind.

Originally Posted by NGNM85

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.

Not really. Anything that you can imagine the U.S. government doing to people, they can do or have done. There is still an acceptable framework that citizens are permitted to operate freely within. Once our government became so statist, the results were predictable.