Freedom of Whose Speech!!!
Good Morning Primates!
I know it has been a while since my last post from the cube, but I've actually been busy with some video production for a work holiday party. Ahh yes, to get paid to do something completely irrelevant to my job description; oh well, at least I get to do something creative and learn some new video editing software!
To begin, "Free Speech" is a fucking cliche. People cry that they embrace free speech, but then later complain about someone who should be censored because they don't have an "acceptable" perspective. The slippery slope with free speech is whether or not all speech is free.
If you say you "want to kill the president", it's against the law. If you make "inappropriate jokes" at the airport, you'll be quickly taken away to the "anus exploration room". If you are trying to organize a group to overthrow the government, you'll soon be arrested. ..
If our nation is to claim the first amendment in the constitution to provide "freedom of speech and expression", everyone must be able to exercise this freedom; whether certain groups agree with them or not. However, there appears to be a loophole in the amount of "freedom" we are given. You are not allowed to say anything that threatens the well-being of the government or the safety of others.
Perhaps, next we'll see a couple of high school kids suspended for writing offensive material in their "private journals" for their own amusement because their english teacher required daily entries that she said she "would not read".
(http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/02/student.threats.ap/?section=cnn_law)
Perhaps a few cops create a little video for comic relief from their stressful job that is for their own entertainment, somehow it gets online and then they are suspended from their jobs; and a private video made in a comedic context is shown nationally to the press...
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/national/09cops.html)
Perhaps our own government will pay Iraqi reporters to publish articles and propaganda in Iraqi papers to try to convince the Iraqi people that their independence is going well, even though the government and international journalistic code prohibits government involvement in the press...
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-infowar30nov30,0,5638790.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
My question to the minds is where should the line of protected speech and expression be drawn?
If everyone in the U.S. is given the freedom of speech and expression, that means people will be exposed to radicals, terrorists, and racists with the same freedoms.
Just a reminder:
Amendment I
"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."
- United States Bill of Rights
I know it has been a while since my last post from the cube, but I've actually been busy with some video production for a work holiday party. Ahh yes, to get paid to do something completely irrelevant to my job description; oh well, at least I get to do something creative and learn some new video editing software!
To begin, "Free Speech" is a fucking cliche. People cry that they embrace free speech, but then later complain about someone who should be censored because they don't have an "acceptable" perspective. The slippery slope with free speech is whether or not all speech is free.
If you say you "want to kill the president", it's against the law. If you make "inappropriate jokes" at the airport, you'll be quickly taken away to the "anus exploration room". If you are trying to organize a group to overthrow the government, you'll soon be arrested. ..
If our nation is to claim the first amendment in the constitution to provide "freedom of speech and expression", everyone must be able to exercise this freedom; whether certain groups agree with them or not. However, there appears to be a loophole in the amount of "freedom" we are given. You are not allowed to say anything that threatens the well-being of the government or the safety of others.
Perhaps, next we'll see a couple of high school kids suspended for writing offensive material in their "private journals" for their own amusement because their english teacher required daily entries that she said she "would not read".
(http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/02/student.threats.ap/?section=cnn_law)
Perhaps a few cops create a little video for comic relief from their stressful job that is for their own entertainment, somehow it gets online and then they are suspended from their jobs; and a private video made in a comedic context is shown nationally to the press...
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/national/09cops.html)
Perhaps our own government will pay Iraqi reporters to publish articles and propaganda in Iraqi papers to try to convince the Iraqi people that their independence is going well, even though the government and international journalistic code prohibits government involvement in the press...
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-infowar30nov30,0,5638790.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
My question to the minds is where should the line of protected speech and expression be drawn?
If everyone in the U.S. is given the freedom of speech and expression, that means people will be exposed to radicals, terrorists, and racists with the same freedoms.
Just a reminder:
Amendment I
"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."
- United States Bill of Rights
posted by Don the "Head Chimp" at
8:21 AM
9 Comments:
Yes well the 1st amendment has already been blown to hell. The first line in particular. I.E If I was a native american would I be allowed to take a bunch of paoti (sp?)? No. If I was a Rasta would I be allowed to get baked to be closer to Ja? No.
By
Anonymous, at 10:31 AM
The issue of freedom is tricky to define. You can be free to do or say something, but that does not mean that you are free from any consequences for your words or actions. The question is not whether people are "free to" do or say something, but whether they are "free from" any consequences. If you define freedom in the 1st amendment in the "free to" sense, I can say whatever I damn well please, but it doesn't mean that I am automatically exempt from facing the consequences of my speech. I think the intent of the admendment is to give people the opportunity to express any opinions or statements they wish, but it is not meant to give them blanket immunity from facing any consequences that may arise from what they say.
By
Anonymous, at 11:27 AM
Are the high school students minors?
Not that what they wrote was right, even if they were just kidding. But they have to take things seriously. Free Speech is in the first Amendment...however this Amendment was written before America became the place it is today.
There is a line drawn. If someone is planning on killing someone, and makes it known through writings, I believe they should be punished. It would be a huge problem if that had happened -- and she knew about it. Or anyone else for that matter.
The police thing is just dumb. Ever see Reno 911?
On the other hand, people get offended by everything nowadays, anyway. "War on Christmas" -- totally g.
The government in Washington D.C. only has a limited role in all thise. Example: Gay marriage was voted on state by state (I think), as well as the Death Penalty, and Roe v. Wade. Congress doesn't seem to have too much of a say in the matter.
Think, though. Most things we do are fo a reason. If you yell that you have abomb in an airport, I would expect that you be finger-banged up the ass. I mean, remember Septmeber 11? That makes sense.
I am no lawyer. I am no politician. I think the line is drawn when "free speech" involves maiming/killing/hurting someone else. In that cop case, I think it totally retarded.
By
Anonymous, at 12:31 PM
When was the 1st Amendment written?
And..how have things changed since then? I bet in those questions you'll find the answer.
By
Anonymous, at 12:33 PM
Yeah, I remember when I was a minor. I was suspended for writing a note with the words sodomize, fellatio, and cunnilingus.
I thought it was quite impressive I knew those words at 14.
By
Anonymous, at 12:35 PM
You are only in favor of freedom of speech if you are willing to listen to the views that you hate. Otherwise, you are not in favor of freedom of speech.
That's as simple as it can be put... i think
By
Anonymous, at 8:54 AM
I have never been to the anus exploration room as Don says. I don't think that most people have. I think it could be a figment of someone's imaginings. If that's where they do things like cavity searches. Because why would someone hide a bomb in their butt if they are going to bomb a plane? Not even suicide bombers do that. They don't want things in their butts. Plus, most bombs or guns wouldn't fit in there.
By
Anonymous, at 12:03 AM
It seems to be a question of positive and negative freedom. Positive freedom being the freedom to do what one wishes free of external constraints. And negative freedom being the freedom to limit what is done to you by others. So, one's positive freedom would have to end where another person's negative freedom begins. Where to draw the line on this is the question. Did the high school students violate the teacher's negative freedom? Did the police officers violate the public or anyone else's negative freedom? It is a rule of thumb that I use in my own behavior in order to limit the amount of coercion or manipulation I try to exert on others while still maintaining my own freedom to choose a course of action. Freedom of speech or action or anything else seems like it would always be contingent on our ability to do it without infringing on the comfort or freedoms of others.
By
Anonymous, at 12:10 AM
sticks and stones...
donkey punch...
By
Anonymous, at 10:55 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home