Thread: There is no such thing as the freedom of speech

Originally Posted by StillBallin75

I actually think he's being serious.

That's what I was figuring when I thanked him for that post. It's funny how people are quick to call him a troll... but they ain't coming up with much to say he's wrong.

We don't really have free speech. People who say the wrong thing get taken out by the government, or black bagged.

I suppose though that the illusion of free speech is as good as the genuine article to some people. What America has is a narrow variety of acceptable dialogues, and they mostly never pose a genuine threat to the status quo.

Start forming a militia and make high profile, public campaigns to start gathering the necessary support to take down the U.S. government. Then watch how fast you die.

Originally Posted by Temporal

We don't really have free speech. People who say the wrong thing get taken out by the government, or black bagged.

I suppose though that the illusion of free speech is as good as the genuine article to some people. What America has is a narrow variety of acceptable dialogues, and they mostly never pose a genuine threat to the status quo.

Start forming a militia and make high profile, public campaigns to start gathering the necessary support to take down the U.S. government. Then watch how fast you die.

That explains why Alex Jones was killed by a sniper. Oh, wait...

Originally Posted by Texanmike

OK. So, I guess I'll welcome myself to this forum by posting something very controversial LOL.

I just saw that there is a "Freedom of Speech" forum and I figured I would introduce myself by saying that the "freedom of speech" is not guaranteed in the Constitution. All that was guaranteed by the Constitution, is that congress will not make a law that prevents someone from saying anything. That is in stark contrast with the "freedom of speech" people cite today.

How often have you heard someone say that "corporation X or person X violated my first amendment right to the freedom of speech". This is impossible because a person or corporation cannot violate the first amendment. The first amendment (or any other Amendment to the bill of rights) applies to the federal government (or Union of the States if you will) and potentially (though I'm not always in agreeement) to the States in some cases.

Just figured I'd start off with a bang.

Mike

Our rights take shape over the years and are further defined not by the words of their enacting amendments - but by the interpretations and applications of the Supreme Court, a state's highest level of court, other laws which touch on the subject - and so on.

Our 'freedom of speech' has been decided on, mulled over, judged and ruled on countless times which shape exactly *what* that means and *who* that applies to - and so on.

An amendment or a stated right in the constitution is merely the starting point that gets the ball rolling.

The government should be prohibited from punishing free speech. But, your wife, your boss, your friends do not have to tolerate your speech. Your President can send his minions to "get in your face". But, Congress shall pass no law...

I hope for the day our government recognizes the Constitution as a great document and not a flawed document.

Originally Posted by Иосиф Сталин

Freedom of speech leads to vulgarity and imbecility. And it's a threat for civility. Especially in the media. What we get to see or hear should be carefully censored by the Government. Otherwise we get a nation of idiots and uneducated morons, who think they're entitled to say anything they want, mostly copied or reproduced from something they heard on the radio or saw on TV because they never had a thought of their own; and the more provocative their opinions, the more notoriety they get.

The problem with that solution is that the mindless idiots you speak of would, instead of at least getting their thoughts from an independent source, would be getting their thoughts from the government. In that way, it is too easy for the government to control the minds of even the smart people in the nation, because they affect their decisions by only allowing them to see certain news and opinions. Next thing we know, we could only read certain books. Then, anyone who spoke out against the government would be arrested without charges and indefinitely detained. And by the time that happens you will have lost all of your liberties and will be locked into a tyrannical government. If we the people make the media return to smart, un-biased and neutral reporting, government intervention will not only not be needed, but will be guarded against.

But some Libertarians have done a nice job of portraying people who want to regulate TV and radio content as being sexually repressed individuals. There's a campaign in this nation against anybody who claims back a little bit of respect and grace for public life. These people are the same who make fun of mentally or physically challenged people because they never had to suffer a personal tragedy in their family. Clearly, this freedom of speech right has gone too far. At least in the media.

Just because you disagree with something does not mean it should be censored. If you don't agree with it, don't watch it. I don't want you or anyone else deciding what I can watch and what I can't. Again, the people should mandate that the media fix its reporting, not the government.

We've been raised into this madness, where they've convinced us through this stupid MTV brainwashing that we need to tolerate everything and love everyone. One day, they'll piss on us and they'll tell us it's OK, it's for our own benefit, and we'll do nothing against it, because we have this democratic bad taste that orders us not to question anything and love everything.

Yes, they will piss on us if it keeps up. But the pissing will come from the government. When the people are too stupid to realize when their basic rights are being taken away and they have no say in their government, the country is lost.

Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker

Our rights take shape over the years and are further defined not by the words of their enacting amendments - but by the interpretations and applications of the Supreme Court, a state's highest level of court, other laws which touch on the subject - and so on.

Our 'freedom of speech' has been decided on, mulled over, judged and ruled on countless times which shape exactly *what* that means and *who* that applies to - and so on.

An amendment or a stated right in the constitution is merely the starting point that gets the ball rolling.

Actually, your wrong. The supreme court doesn't "interpret" the constitution or what it means. It decides wether the laws passed by congress or acts of the government are within the constitutional bounds. If the supreme court interprets the constitution, they could just out of the blue "interpret" that they didn't actually mean for us to have the right of free press or of speech, and that congress could do whatever they wanted. The supreme courts job is only to determine if actions by the government fit within the already set constitutional bounds, not of whatever the court thinks is a good way to have a government.