Freedom of Speech or Freedom to Hate? [Archive]

View Full Version : Freedom of Speech or Freedom to Hate?

ferret

05-21-2004, 04:50 PM

Discuss:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/05/21/university.klan.ap/index.html

(feel free to dig up other articles from other sources. I thought this article a good one to post here, I'll weigh in later after I'm home from work and had time to relax, argh)

ArchAngelKIng

05-21-2004, 04:59 PM

Dissman

05-22-2004, 01:47 AM

Where to start... ah.

Disclaimer: I personally hate hate groups, i hate the KKK, i hate organizations that's sole purpose in life is to hate other people... none of what i will say after this is to be construed as an endorsement of any of these groups, it in fact, is not...

The problem is, when you start to bar unpopular speech such as by the KKK, you start up a slippery slope... i'll demonstrate... you bar the KKK stating that they are a terrorist organization... what about groups such as PETA? Using the Bush Doctrine, you can group any group that funds terror in with the terrorists themselves... PETA Tax Records document that they've given money to the Eco-Terror organization, the ELF... you could also ban a lot of environmental groups, like greenpeace who commit acts of terror abroad... you could also with the same logic bar any of these group's open supporters from speaking... such as Pam Anderson... Bill Maher and others, due to their open support of a group that helps to fund domestic terror... i think that blurring the line is kind of a bad idea.

And second... we live in a country where tolerance by the majority of the minority is required... yet, the minority isnt required to tolerate the majority... A white man making racial slurs to a black man would get him arrested, but the other way, wouldnt get anything... which is patently unfair and just not right..

I believe that freedom of speech, needs to allow for unpopular speech... and if you start encroaching on speech, you have a problem forming.

ArchAngelKIng

05-22-2004, 12:37 PM

Well I agree with Dissman in spirit but I do think we need to draw the line somewhere. I also think that we need to keep in mind the intension of the 1st amendment too.

When one group is advocating Hatred of another civilian group (not including any government or military group) then I think the line has been crossed. We need to foster tollerance and peace. Historically these groups have been found to disturb the peace and charged accordingly but the punishment for disturbing the peace is not enough. Hence Hate Laws to punish the offenders in a way that is more justified for the crime.

It is tricky these Hatred Laws but used responsibly then they can control this type of anti-social behavior. I believe the courts here have to ask special permission to present a case of "Hatred" to a judge that reviews this before proceeding with a case against the accused. That's the responsible part. If granted by a judge then the charges can proceed against the accused via by jury or via judge.

I think this stops the slippery slope Dissman was talking about but I know some people just want "Freedom of Speech" to mean they can say anything to anyone. I'm not for that at all to me that's not "Freedom of Speech" nor is it the intent of the 1st amendment.

AAK

kas

05-22-2004, 05:46 PM

Wow good debate. I agree w/ both Diss and Aak.

People always mistakenly think that the 1st amendment is the freedom to say anything you want no matter who gets hurt. - Aak

That statement above is very true. They think that by having the first amendment there it's going to protect everything that person says, when it doesn't because they don't fully understand or comprehend what it actually means. People read the rules and purposely misinterprit them to be used to fit their sole needs.

The problem is, when you start to bar unpopular speech such as by the KKK, you start up a slippery slope... i'll demonstrate... you bar the KKK stating that they are a terrorist organization... what about groups such as PETA?

Good point but, PETA has completely different goals out there then the KKK, compairing PETA to the KKK is not feasable. (Though some of you may think that they are alike, when they are not in all actuality if you think about it.) PETA is out there to preserve something, the KKK is out there to destroy, to harm people that are not like them. Granted that there is a lot of hooha going on about how PETA funds dometic terrorism and all, but it's for the conservation of the earth and the betterment of the people. The KKK is not for the conservation of the earth and in no way could it do anything to better the interests of the people.

More later! =p

Princess

05-22-2004, 06:59 PM

I agree with Kas, you can't just throw comparisons out there right and left. PETA != KKK, and it's illogical by misuse of analogy.

I think it is incredibly important for the white people in particular of this country to make a supreme effort in their resolve to contribute their share to the solution of racism. They need to abandon once for all their usually inherent and at times subconscious sense of superiority, to correct their tendency towards revealing a patronizing attitude towards the member of the other race, to persuade them through their intimate spontaneous and informal association with them of the genuiness of their friendship and the sincerity of their intentions, and to master their impatience of any lack of responsiveness on the part of a people who have received, for so long a period, such grievous and slow-healing wounds. Yes, it would be nice if there were a world in which we could just make a law to make all the terrible things of history just go away, but I'm sorry...that's not how it works. The wounds of the past cannot be belittled by a simple "can't we all just get along? (after we severely persecuted your people)." Some may not be aware that racism is still institutionalized to this day and to simply blame the victim will not get anyone anywhere. Yes, we should all strive for the betterment of humanity and reduce all forms of racism, but trying to balance one hate with another? No. I'm sorry, the scales have already been tipped and there is nothing that I can see that will make them balance.

Azrael

05-23-2004, 01:29 AM

Good point but, PETA has completely different goals out there then the KKK, compairing PETA to the KKK is not feasable. (Though some of you may think that they are alike, when they are not in all actuality if you think about it.) PETA is out there to preserve something, the KKK is out there to destroy, to harm people that are not like them. Granted that there is a lot of hooha going on about how PETA funds dometic terrorism and all, but it's for the conservation of the earth and the betterment of the people. The KKK is not for the conservation of the earth and in no way could it do anything to better the interests of the people.

I don't think Diss was saying that PETA is anything like the KKK. When I read it, I thought he meant that if you call the KKK a terrorist organization and shut it down, you open the door for even more extreme censorship of any sort of non-mainstream thought. That's what I took from it anyway.

Dissman

05-23-2004, 03:08 AM

I agree with Kas, you can't just throw comparisons out there right and left. PETA != KKK, and it's illogical by misuse of analogy.

Azarel is correct, but that was not the comparision i was trying to make, i'll do that now. I was more saying, that a good comparision to the KKK would be the ELF, ALF, and other such groups such as the PLO, HAMAS and Al-Queida.

The KKK in it's past has been responsible for many brutal violent acts of terror and intimidation... at one time during it's history it was a political movement... if you do your research in the 1920's it was a political movement that was supported by a whole lot of people... it's more of a kin to the PLO, that at one time the PLO was a violent terrorist organization... now it's a political organization... who knows what tomarrow will bring.

As for PETA, i was comparing them to the financiers of terror, such as the "Holy Land Liberation Crusade" and other such organizations... although PETA's balance sheets according to activistcash.com show that "During the past ten years, PETA has spent four times as much on criminals and their legal defense than it has on shelters, spay-neuter programs, and other efforts that actually help animals." It may be more applicable to compare them to the KKK directly... they have resorted to "stalking and harassing fast-food restaurant executives. Not content to write letters and picket the chain restaurant’s offices, PETA’s leaders met with the CEO’s pastor, and visited his country club and the manager of one of his favorite restaurants. PETA activists, one dressed in a chicken suit, even protested at the church of two executives, annoying worshipers by driving a truck with giant screens of slaughterhouse video back and forth along the street." They handled the press for the terrorist group ALF during it's time... and they've given money to terror, but i'll leave that for next.

Granted that there is a lot of hooha going on about how PETA funds dometic terrorism and all, but it's for the conservation of the earth and the betterment of the people.

I just found that statement absolutely rediclious, how can funding blowing stuff up, burning things down, destruction of property, murder and other senseless violent acts of terror ever be a good thing????

What you've said is like declairing that 9/11 was a good thing, because it was done for the "betterment" of the middle eastern people?!?!?!?

I can NOT believe you actually said that?!?

Eco-terror, as any terror is simply unacceptable, as are intimidation tactics and other techniques are trademark of organizations such as the KKK, PETA, the ELF, HAMAS, Islamic Jihad and others. The KKK burn crosses in places to terrorize and intimidate people... how is it OK for PETA to intimidate people becuase it's to do something big, and it's not OK for the KKK to do it for virtually the same kind of reason... they are both using the same tactics to make political statements... neither are right.

It is WRONG in both cases... terror and intimidation are NOT acceptable ways to affect or stop political change. It is unacceptable to condone terror tactics just because you agree with their sentaments. It's wrong is every case, from the person who drives a plane into a building, someone who bombs an abortion clinic, someone who destroys a university research lab, someone who burns a cross in someone's back yard, someone who stalks an executive because they dont like the business they are in... all of them are unacceptable.

I think it is incredibly important for the white people in particular of this country to make a supreme effort in their resolve to contribute their share to the solution of racism. They need to abandon once for all their usually inherent and at times subconscious sense of superiority, to correct their tendency towards revealing a patronizing attitude towards the member of the other race, to persuade them through their intimate spontaneous and informal association with them of the genuiness of their friendship and the sincerity of their intentions and to master their impatience of any lack of responsiveness on the part of a people who have received, for so long a period, such grievous and slow-healing wounds.

Why can't minorities do the same thing, contribute their share to the solution of racism and forgive the mistakes of the past... not forget, but forgive, and allow those wounds to heal over time. I'm all for doing "my share" to end racism by having an open mind, treating others as i want to be treated, not to make judgements about people based on their religion, political values, color of their skin... and try to treat everyone equally irregardless of race, color or creed. But, I simply refuse to do anyone else's share.

Yes, it would be nice if there were a world in which we could just make a law to make all the terrible things of history just go away, but I'm sorry...that's not how it works. The wounds of the past cannot be belittled by a simple "can't we all just get along? (after we severely persecuted your people)."

But we cant fix the terrible things in history, nothing will ever fix that, all we can ever hope to do is forgive the indiscretions of the past, and make sure they are not repeated.

Some may not be aware that racism is still institutionalized to this day and to simply blame the victim will not get anyone anywhere. Yes, we should all strive for the betterment of humanity and reduce all forms of racism, but trying to balance one hate with another? No. I'm sorry, the scales have already been tipped and there is nothing that I can see that will make them balance.

You cant make the scales balance, or eliminate racism by using the law to discriminate against other people to make up for discrimination against other people to "fix the issues of the past." You also cannot make the holocaust any better for the jews by going and gassing a few million Aryans... nothing right, ever comes from doing what's wrong... right comes from doing what's right, and doing the right thing, and forgiving the wrongs done to you... which takes, time and patience.... you are right about that we cant snap our fingers and make it all better... but we cant make it all better by prolonging or repeating the problem.

Edit: I have found a lot of errors so far, where i have meant one thing, but have typed something other than what i meant... Please bear with me, and point out inconsistancies... there shouldnt be very many. It's kind of late right now, and i have had a long day... so please forgive any of that.

4matic

05-23-2004, 06:43 PM

has anyone seen the documentary 'american nazis' or something to that effect on the history channel?

babyseal

05-23-2004, 11:35 PM

People always mistakenly think that the 1st amendment is the freedom to say anything you want no matter who gets hurt. Well I'm sorry to disappoint those who hold that view. The 1st amendment and the spirit thereof was meant to grant immunity to those who speak against the governing powers.

You must think very highly of yourself to interpret the '"true intentions" of a bill which took 2 years to ratify. As far as I understand it, the proposition needs to clear both the House and the Senate by two-thirds majority, and then three-quarters of the states are needed to ratify the Amendment.
Now, im thinking thats alot of people..many of whom have entirely different points of view as to what the spirit of the article truly is, and that arbitrarily deciding that you know better than all those legislators (and their hard-fought wording of the bill) is probably a little bit conceited.

The Amendment specifically provides for the right to petition, prohibits laws respecting the establishment of religions, guarantees the freedom to excercise religion, the freedom of speech and press, and also the right to assemble peaceably.
So...where again do you get off telling everyone they are misinterpreting the letter of thet law? You dont read into the 'spirit' of such far-reaching laws. Those 10 Amendments were instated to name and protect the basic rights which weren't specifically named in the Constitution.
The American Bill of Rights was (afaik) a broad reaffirmation of inferred rights, which could only be repealed by the states. Attempting to alter such an integral part of the American legal system (assuming you could pass such a measure) would be fairly stupid. If social reform is your bag (especially concerning such a controversial subject as this one) I would suggest starting small and working your way up, instead of trying to shake the very foundations of the country and hoping things fall into place.

That being said; im a big fan of strong role-models, and changing the world one child at a time. I figure that's the best way to solve hate problems.

kas

05-24-2004, 12:03 AM

How to be an airhead by Dissman. I did not say that 9/11 was a good thing. So don't go putting words in my mouth, then act like I said it. You sir need to not get so hot and heavy when people tell you their opinions.

Eco Terrorism and Blowing people up just because you are not a well educated person are two different things. The people that took the lives of americans on 9/11 were not doing it for the ecological improvement of the earth they were doing it because some nut head said they'd become martyrs if they flew planes into buildings and killed innocent people.

Also since we are getting into indepth details, NEVER have you heard of eco terrorists going and killing innocent people. They go after the big busineses that do things wrong and aren't running their places of business under certain guidlines. Infact the last big news I heard about so called Eco terrorist were when they set fire to a bunch of buildings that were in developement and no one was hurt. Their goals are completely different.

If you ever say that I supported 9/11 again I will have to hurt you. People from FCS know for the most part that I am a fire fighter and was up there after all of that had happened, and it is a tough thing for me to talk about and all. So for you to say that really burns me, and makes me want to say / do mean and evil things to you. Trust me don't ever say that again or you think Kane can go off you haven't seen nothing =p

Compaire KKK to Islamic Jihad, Hamas etc yes. They are out to kill off / hate people that aren't like them period.

Azrael

05-24-2004, 01:28 AM

Eco Terrorism and Blowing people up just because you are not a well educated person are two different things. The people that took the lives of americans on 9/11 were not doing it for the ecological improvement of the earth they were doing it because some nut head said they'd become martyrs if they flew planes into buildings and killed innocent people.

Bad is bad is bad. Some people in this country are trying to do this right now with the prison-tortures that went on. "Well, the Iraqis did worse". That doesn't matter. We still did it, too.

Eco-Terrorism is the same way. Sure, these people aren't flying planes into buildings and killing thousands of people, but they are hurting every employee of every company they commit criminal, terrorist acts against. They affect the livelyhoods of many honest hardworking people in very negative ways. There are better ways to change the world. An eco-terrorist is a criminal, plain and simple, no matter their goals. Even if no one is physically injured as a direct result of their actions.

BTW, this is coming from an Ecologist/Environmental Biologist (it's official today! I'm all graduated now!), just to put my feelings into perspective.

Dissman

05-24-2004, 01:38 AM

How to be an airhead by Dissman. I did not say that 9/11 was a good thing. So don't go putting words in my mouth, then act like I said it. You sir need to not get so hot and heavy when people tell you their opinions.

What you said was unacceptable... condoning terrorism, no matter the reason, is unacceptable.

Eco Terrorism and Blowing people up just because you are not a well educated person are two different things. The people that took the lives of americans on 9/11 were not doing it for the ecological improvement of the earth they were doing it because some nut head said they'd become martyrs if they flew planes into buildings and killed innocent people.

Also since we are getting into indepth details, NEVER have you heard of eco terrorists going and killing innocent people. They go after the big busineses that do things wrong and aren't running their places of business under certain guidlines. Infact the last big news I heard about so called Eco terrorist were when they set fire to a bunch of buildings that were in developement and no one was hurt. Their goals are completely different.

It doesnt matter what their goals are, their methods are wrong... intolerable and unacceptable... terrorism is never right.

The US Government should crack down on all terrorists, foreign and domestic, by any legal means necissary.

If you ever say that I supported 9/11 again I will have to hurt you. People from FCS know for the most part that I am a fire fighter and was up there after all of that had happened, and it is a tough thing for me to talk about and all. So for you to say that really burns me, and makes me want to say / do mean and evil things to you. Trust me don't ever say that again or you think Kane can go off you haven't seen nothing =p

Compaire KKK to Islamic Jihad, Hamas etc yes. They are out to kill off / hate people that aren't like them period.

I did not say that... i never directly said that you supported 9/11... I also did not mean that... i was drawing a comparision based on your statements... As far as it goes, i'm willing to forgive and forget if you are. ... I regret that you took offense to my statement, it was off the cuff, and inflamatory...

I will however reinterate my point... which is still valid nonetheless.
Terror and intimidation are NOT acceptable ways to affect or stop political change. It is unacceptable to condone [or support] terror tactics just because you agree with their sentaments.[or reasoning]

ArchAngelKIng

05-24-2004, 04:50 PM

BabySeal, I disagree with you.

Free Speech is not about saying anything you want! No, not at all. The 1st ammendment PROHIBITS the government from making LAWS that interfere with peoples civil liberites and they are listed.

It is probably no accident that freedom of speech is the first freedom mentioned in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution’s framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society.

American Civil Liberties Union

I think I do understand the spirit of the 1st amendment as I stated in my previous post. It's about your right to speak out against the governement without worrying about being prosecuted by the government. Your right to petition the government for something you want or to file grievances against the government and they can't ignore you. Just think of the 911 victiims families. They have a right to petition the government (to be heard) so that the government will be motivated to prevent this from happening again. They can petition the government until they feel saticefied that the governing powers have done enough. They have a right to file grievances against the government for not protecting their loved ones, no matter how contraversal or petty, the indiviuals right to keep their government accountable without retaliation from a power government.

While free speech is considered to be a fundamental right, the Supreme Court has never held that the Constitution establishes an "absolute" right to free speech

GSU College of Law

You can't yell fire in a theatre! You can yell for help on false or misleading reasons. You can harass people over the phone lines or email? You can just say anything you want. That's just silly.

Courts have convicted people of making direct threats on the lives of specific individuals or groups of individuals. In 1998, a federal jury in Santa Ana, California convicted Richard Machado of sending hate email to 59 Asian American University of California at Irvine (UCI) students. Machado sent the emails from a computer terminal located on the UCI campus making threats such as "I will personally make it may life's work to find and kill everyone of you personally. OK? That's how determined I am. Do you hear me?"

GSU College of Law

kas

05-24-2004, 05:48 PM

What you've said is like declairing that 9/11 was a good thing, because it was done for the "betterment" of the middle eastern people?!?!?!?

I can NOT believe you actually said that?!?

Actually you did.

Intimidation is neccessary. Not all "terrorist acts" should be weighed in with what happened on 9/11 either. Like someone burning down a construction site that was once a site of a forest / historical landmark etc should not be compaired to 9/11 or other related incidents. Let's use a bit of common sense maybe? What you may view as a terrorist act (ie: Some woman slopping paint on someones fur coat to defend animal rights) is not a terrorist act in some others views.

Sending our troops over to Iraq could be looked at as a terrorist act by some people as well. It is just going to depend on how people view it in their own eyes. Anyways we are talking about something a bit off the track anyways. Back to the subject at hand.

babyseal

05-24-2004, 06:32 PM

No no no, and you are stupid.
5 minutes of research brought up findlaw.com (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#f7);

The most comprehensive effort to assess theory and practice in the period prior to and immediately following adoption of the Amendment is L. Levy, Legacy of Suppression: Freedom of Speech and Press in Early American History (1960), which generally concluded that the Blackstonian view was the prevailing one at the time and probably the understanding of those who drafted, voted for, and ratified the Amendment.

Which references -> Blackstone, William Commentaries on the Laws of England: A Facsimile of the First Edition of 1765--1769 Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

While the main document referenced can be found in part here (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs4.html)
(The Founders' Constitution Volume 5, Amendment I [Speech and Press], Document 4), this is what it has to say:

'The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.'

So, as you can see, the man agrees with me and he wrote this 215 years before I was born. The Amendment gives you a broad 'you can get away with doing this' provision, and it is the lesser laws, bylaws, and societal repercussions which protect the safety of the common man when such views are expressed.

You didn't understand.

You can't yell fire in a theatre! You can yell for help on false or misleading reasons. You can harass people over the phone lines or email? You can just say anything you want. That's just silly.
The First Amendment says you can get away with it. It is the lesser laws which punish you for such indiscretions.

Anyway. you can read to your hearts content (including references) at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

Dissman

05-24-2004, 07:06 PM

What you've said is like declairing that 9/11 was a good thing, because it was done for the "betterment" of the middle eastern people?!?!?!?

I can NOT believe you actually said that?!?

Actually you did.

If you'll read every word that i said... "What you've said is like..." That's not directly saying that you supported 9/11. .. but there's no need to tread back here.

Intimidation is neccessary. Not all "terrorist acts" should be weighed in with what happened on 9/11 either. Like someone burning down a construction site that was once a site of a forest / historical landmark etc should not be compaired to 9/11 or other related incidents.

Terrorism:

CHAPTER 113B - TERRORISM
Section 2331. Definitions

(5) the term ''domestic terrorism'' means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

That's Terrorism as defined by US Code... burning down a building or destroying vechicles, or putting a bomb in an abortion clinic is not acceptable behavio and should not be tolerated. Illegal Misbehavior should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and should be taken seriously. The use of intimidation is the hallmark of organizations such as the KKK, and now we can add environmental organizations to the list.

Let's use a bit of common sense maybe? What you may view as a terrorist act (ie: Some woman slopping paint on someones fur coat to defend animal rights) is not a terrorist act in some others views.

That's vandalism, and isn't terrorism as it's defined in the US Code... although... although, anyone doing this should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I believe that if someone doesnt like something, that they should work through the avenues available to change the law... they shouldnt violate the law in order to get attention or to right some percieved wrong... they shouldnt go out and just throw the book out the window and expect nothing to happen.

Sending our troops over to Iraq could be looked at as a terrorist act by some people as well. It is just going to depend on how people view it in their own eyes. Anyways we are talking about something a bit off the track anyways. Back to the subject at hand.

Unfortunately, that logic doesnt work... Terrorism is to coerce an action out of someone through fear... the fear instilled by a burning cross, an arson at a research lab, a bombing at an abortion clinic, a plane streaking into the trade towers. That is terrorism, the use of "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that... intimidate or coerce a civilian population." a full scale invasion is not to "indimidate or coerce a civilian population" it is a military act, and not an act of terror.

ArchAngelKIng

05-25-2004, 02:02 AM

BabySeal,

I like having a discussion with you but please do not personally attack me by call me stupid. It's unbecoming of you and it's against the forum rules. Ok, now that's out of the way.

From the link you gave me! You should reread it becuase it deals with a person who yells fire in a theatre. The example I gave you previously. It is not protected speech, and here is the proof.

...snip snip snip
But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.' Justice Holmes along with Justice Brandeis
..snip snip snip

Schenck v. United States

Reread the full text is at :
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#1

Reading this was interesting and another issue poped up too. What about espionage? Is that protected speech? I think not! This is very damaging to our nations when people utter, distribute, or print state secretes. You just try and print a state secrete or pass it to an unfriendly country and you'll end up in jail. So where's the free speech there? What about the 1st amendment? I say it doesn't apply and it was never meant to apply either.

Therefore I assert again. Free speech is not about the absolute right to say anything you want when ever you want. It's not about protecting your speech. It about your ability to speek against the government, to criticize it, patition it, and prosecute it without the government interfering, also it's about keeping the government out of a religious environment. Keeping Church and State separate. That's what the 1st amendment is all about and that's from your own research too.

I suggest you reread it again. It may have taken you 5 mintues to get but it will take you more than 5 minutes to read.

Cheers,

AAK

Azrael

05-25-2004, 02:15 AM

No no no, and you are stupid.

Completely unnecessary.

You can't yell fire in a theatre! You can yell for help on false or misleading reasons. You can harass people over the phone lines or email? You can just say anything you want. That's just silly.
The First Amendment says you can get away with it. It is the lesser laws which punish you for such indiscretions.

The spirit with which the Constitution was written was the spirit on which this country was based. Freedom to do what ye will as long as you do not infringe on the basic rights of others. The First Amendment applies to anything you might want to say, but the moment you start infringing on someone elses rights, you are no longer under the protection of the first amendment. You are technically right that laws of the land do inforce the "fire" example, but those laws are based on the spirit of the Bill of Rights. If they were found to be in opposition to what the Bill of Rights says, the Supreme Court would have to strike them down. They haven't. Meaning, the First Amendment, and laws limiting what the amendment covers go hand in hand.

ArchAngelKIng

05-25-2004, 02:26 AM

Areal,

I agree with you in spirit! :-) lol and in principal. I however don't agree that the 1st amendment allows you to say "Fire!" in a a threater. Not at all. I assert that in the most strongest of language and meaning. It's not the meaning of the 1st amendment, nor the spirit of the amendment.

I do however agree that once your speech infringes on other individual or group rights, a wrong doing has occurred. Any speech that knowingly puts another person or group in imminent danger is a crime.

Also, If free speech was protected by the 1st amendment why isn't Howard Stern on the Air? Why is there a licensing system for broadcasting? Isn't the government interfering in someones free speech by this license? Why can't I have a radio station broadcasting my speech?

It's simple because that's not what the 1st amendment is all about!

Cheers,

AAK