• 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!

Freedom of Speech, Does it need Rethinking?

Wiggen said:
You need to study a little Constitutional law before you make such a silly statement. Freedom of speech is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions - just like most of the other freedoms. What is 'reasonable' has been determined by the Courts for our entire existence as a nation.
Click to expand...

She said that freedom of speech "doesn't need rethinking." She didn't say "freedom of speech isn't subject to any limitations." She didn't say anything which would prompt this response from you.
 
Harshaw said:
She said that freedom of speech "doesn't need rethinking." She didn't say "freedom of speech isn't subject to any limitations." She didn't say anything which would prompt this response from you.
Click to expand...

Wiggen just dislikes me for some reason.
 
What is important to me is open political debate, and the right to political dissent. Democracy works best when the voters have access to different points of view.

From the McCarthy Era to the Tet Offensive, when the War in Vietnam became unpopular and it became safe to analyze political beliefs that caused the war, it was dangerous in the United States to criticize capitalism, advocate socialism, or say anything good about any Communist government.

Since then it has been dangerous to discuss the relationship between genes, intelligence, crime, and race.

I regret the black lists, loyalty oaths, and witch hunts that happened during the Cold War. I also regret the constraints of political correctness.

Other than that I am in favor of restrictions on self expression. Flag burning is politically dysfunctional. It angers the people the flag burners should be trying to persuade. Advocating crimes should certainly be forbidden.
 
I have never thought that flag burners were attempting to persuade anybody of anything. Rather they were letting off steam and demonstrating their objections to some foreign policy or the other.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I have never thought that flag burners were attempting to persuade anybody of anything. Rather they were letting off steam and demonstrating their objections to some foreign policy or the other.
Click to expand...

IMO, if you cut to the chase, flag burners just want to look cool to their friends and fellow activists.
 
ocean515 said:
IMO, if you cut to the chase, flag burners just want to look cool to their friends and fellow activists.
Click to expand...

My age is showing, but the only flag burning I ever witnessed was in protest against the illegal actions of the US government in the Vietnam war.

Lo and behold, as the Pentagon Papers showed years later, the flag-burners were actually correct, and their objections legitimate. Too bad some cloth was burned, but life went on.
 
Thoreau72 said:
My age is showing, but the only flag burning I ever witnessed was in protest against the illegal actions of the US government in the Vietnam war.

Lo and behold, as the Pentagon Papers showed years later, the flag-burners were actually correct, and their objections legitimate. Too bad some cloth was burned, but life went on.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm in in the same time line.

I get the protest part. I embrace the right to do so. But the flag burning, at least IMO, is just a look at me thing. The protest itself is the message.
 
ocean515 said:
Well, I'm in in the same time line.

I get the protest part. I embrace the right to do so. But the flag burning, at least IMO, is just a look at me thing. The protest itself is the message.
Click to expand...

It's interesting the way the various authorities handle protest these days. Many colleges have certain designated locations where protests are allowed, I've read, and the Republicans during the Bush years, allowed protests only in certain locations. Protest all you want, but you will do it under our guidelines.

I was never offended by the burning of cloth symbols.
 
calamity said:
BLM shouts "Death to Cops!" Shortly afterwards, cops get assassinated.

Right Wing Radio and TV blasts 24 hour propaganda pushing one party, the GOP, while vilifying the other.

Trump wants to redo libel laws, perhaps because he is sick of being compared to an orangutan.

You know the drill. Everyone has a bitch about something someone said. But, is there a limit to what people say? Is there a such thing as hate speech, especially the kind that needs to be curbed like they do in places like Germany?

Just asking.
Click to expand...

Chanting death to cops is hate speech. If they were chanting death to gays the Media would be in an uproar about the hate speech......somehow though.....the Media and the Liberals don't care when it's cops.

Yes......some people need jail time......first to go.....BlackLivesMatter.
 
Thoreau72 said:
It's interesting the way the various authorities handle protest these days. Many colleges have certain designated locations where protests are allowed, I've read, and the Republicans during the Bush years, allowed protests only in certain locations. Protest all you want, but you will do it under our guidelines.

I was never offended by the burning of cloth symbols.
Click to expand...

Well, you may know more than me on the subject, but I think certain limitations on when and where have been the SOP for a long time.

I'm fine with protests, and burn what you must if it's safe and legal, but the objective to "shut the other down" is very dangerous. I've seen people storm stages and rip microphones from people legally voicing their opinions. I've seen well coordinated and funded efforts designed to intimidate, or in fact, inflict physical injury, on those the protesters want to silence.

There is a line that shouldn't be crossed, no matter the protest cause, and accommodation of those who no longer recognize that line should be a concern.
 
Let's face it......These sorry jackasses are on video.......their faces are visible.......no further proof is needed.

And they should be in jail.

 
Freedom of speech does not include the right:

What Does Free Speech Mean? | United States Courts

To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., “hout[ing] ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.”).
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).

To make or distribute obscene materials.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).

To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).

To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).

Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).

Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).
 
TheGoverness said:
Wiggen just dislikes me for some reason.
Click to expand...

I have heard, from someone I consider grounded, one third of the people like you, one third don't, and the other third has no concern at all.
 
I think the limitations that are on the first amendment already pretty much cover what the limits should be.
 
I'm old enough to remember these badges. I don't think that anyone was ever prosecuted for wearing one.

a0189999910_16.jpg
 
Should speech be restricted even more than it already is.....is this seriously what I am being asked?

HELL. NO.

Lack of freedom of speech and lack of freedom of mind are together our biggest mistakes. We like to crap all over our ancestors but many did better on the important things than we do.
 
molten_dragon said:
Care to be more specific? What restrictions on free speech do you think there are that should be removed?
Click to expand...

"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."

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech. Why is that so hard to understand. Should it be illegal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater? Of course not. If there is a fire, should you tiptoe out and keep your mouth shut? That's called voting your own self interest.

Congress shall make no law has been made to mean no government entity should but if you lie to a law enforcement officer it's a felony. If you are in a bank that's robbed and tell the police you didn't see the robber when you did, it's a felony.

Dancing naked is considered free speech but mentioning a god in a speech at a high school graduation is prohibited. How about hate crime laws? If, in the heat of a fight, you use a racial slur then you're not only guilty of assault but also of hate law crime. What happened to Congress shall make no law? Bullying? Posting a rude comment about someone you don't like on social media is bullying and is illegal. Shall make no law.

Can you imagine what the government would consider "inflammatory speech" and outlaw?

And what do you have when the government doesn't pass laws but does look the other way when Code Pink or Black Lives Matter commit crimes to stop speakers from speaking and their crimes are ignored? What do you have when people commit crimes and the President of the United States encourages them to continue?

What do you have when unions assault and kill for speech that offends them and are protected by the court decision that says unions can't be charged with crimes committed that further their goals. That would be the Enmons Decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Enmons

What do you have when surrogate government forces, such as BLM or Code Pink or unions, abridge free speech? What you have is a government out of control. That's why the Constitution isn't written to control insignificant forces like you and me but the awesome power of the government. Our founders knew what they were doing but I think they may have underestimated the evil of government.

Lastly, I don't have to be more specific than "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." It's your job to say what freedom of speech the government should be able to criminalize. How about anything that offends Donald Trump? That's what he wants. Hell, that's what they all want once they have power.
 
Last edited:
I must say that is the best explanation I have ever heard regarding the "Fire" in a theater!!!

An excellent post. :cool:
 
molten_dragon said:
If there's no fire, then absolutely.
Click to expand...

I love it when people add qualifiers. But, what if I rent the theater, pack it with people, and stand on the stage juggling and shouting, "Fire." Should that be illegal? Of course not. Should shouting something for the purpose of creating a riot or a disturbance be illegal? How about shouting, "Racist." Should that be illegal? How about shouting, "God damn America"? Should that be illegal? How about when rioting, looting, and burning is going on, having a president say to the people, "Stay the course"? Should that be illegal?

Sorry. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." The people fleeing King George knew what they were doing. Now, under King Obama, some seem to have forgotten. That means President Obama can say, "Stay the course," and Rep. Lewis can shout, "Racist" and Rev. Wright can scream "God damn America," to delight his flock.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom