The Enemies of Free Speech

sorry fellas, but this country has been alive for over 200 years now, and every empire/democracy/civilization that has been around that long has an is going to eventually change the way they work. if anyone bothered to pay attention to my original post, you would see everything i propose would still be done within the democratic process. it is not just "i say this, and it is". laws will be proposed, there will be amendmants, and people will vote on it.

our constitution was not meant to last forever not because it is written that way, but because the nature of mankind always pushes fro change. the constitution of the united states is NOWHERE near the holy grail BIBLE perfect constitution everyone continues to make it out to be. The only way to make positive changes in society is to make changes to the rules that govern our society. humanity has not gotten to this point by clinging to the same imperfect standards since the beginning.

regulating hate and violont speech and media has nothing to do with changing the democracy. The democracy will still exist, and dojng this will in fact be utilizing the democracy we have. had these laws been around in 1930's germany, hitler would have been thrown in jail and possibly altering the very way our world would have evolved. imagine that. having these laws in place can prevent some very bad people from coming to power, or of they get there, remove them with haste if they violate such ethical standards.

the laws are going to change, a new generation of citizens are entering political leadership, and new laws will become the standard. It is only a matter of time. when things are bad in the world, people change them. that is just the way it is.

D'Yepes.

Your heart is in the right place, but to ban any speech starts a trend that is very dangerous. A certain speech is deemed hateful, and indeed maybe it is, however next week a speech is deemed hateful, and maybe not so much, and the week after that all speech that doesn't agree with the party line, or what's acceptable to the "public".

Inciting violence and hatred are already covered in many places by laws already on the books, we needn't add any more to the confusion.

I once thought this way about Holocaust deniers, both Jsobecky and Benevolent Heretic were amongst the many that took me to task over my advocation of jailing these human excrements. I took a long hard look at where this might go, and I didn't like where it took me. I would respectfully suggest you do the same.

Unfortunately, when I defend Freedom of Speech for something like hatred or disrespect (Holocaust Denial or Fred Phelps, etc.) people get the idea that I agree with that position (as I have been accused of in this thread). Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I defend the right of Fred Phelps to picket funerals and say things like "God Hates Fags", I defend MY right to picket the government, the workplace or anything else that I disagree with... And to say things like "Our president is a criminal." It's simply wrong to claim MY right to free speech, while denying it to others.

As I defend their right, I defend my own. And yours.

Why do people keep trying to change the Constitution to regulate the individual, private citizen.

Let's state it again: The Constitution is designed to protect the Private Citizen from Government, not the other way around.
Unless, as Benevolent Heretic stated previously, in cases where the individual is commiting a crime.

People who want to change the Constitution to regulate "hate speech" or other such nebulous concepts are completely missing the whole point of the Framers.

It is NOT meant to hold US back. It's meant to hold the GOVERNMENT back. It seeks to limit what the Government can do - it does not seek to expand it.

When I wrote that I should have said that you both were right to do so. As I admitted at the time, I grudgingly agreed with you. My agreement is a bit more wholehearted now.

As was just pointed out, the Constitution was created to limit gov't interference in our lives, not to limit our lives.

Ok, I understand your frustration but who is to decide what is the "dark side"? Who is to decide who the weak-minded are? You, me or some vague group of people?

Freedom of speech is our most basic and precious right. It is the corner stone of this great nation. To limit it is to start the downward spiral of our society.

I don't believe in the hate-filled rantings of racial bigots or religious fanatics but I believe with every fibre of my being in their right to speak and believe as they wish.

As far as children being exposed to some of the vile dare I say crap that is being passed off as music; well that is up to the parents to regulate not the government and certainly not you or me.

Freedom of speech protects us from the government in so far as well are free to share ideas and thoughts with others whenever and where ever we wish. To start limiting freedom of speech based on what some may find offensive is to give government way too much power.

No, limiting of freedom of speech through laws and regulations other then those limits that have already been set forth is wrong.

does everyone forget how laws are created and then passed? It gets voted on, just like everything else.


Did we just skim over my original post? Noone is magically just adding things to a list, these are things that are to be voted on. Thats right, we the people decide, just like we the people have been deciding our rules for the past two centuries.

Holocaust deniers has nothing to do with spreading hate or violence, it is simply not accepting an existing fact. Definetly cooky, but it does not fall under any part of this discussion as far as I can see.

i dont mean to be rude, but a big part of the reason the world has become so corrupted and misguided is for the simple fact that many of our population has now grown up assuming it is the right of bad men to allow further corruption and to spread it at any and all cost.

Let me drop a quote to close this post:

No "we" didn't just skim over your opening post. I am as aware of how laws are passed as you are, sir. I just plain don't agree with you. Any legislation that alters the Constitution is to my mind, kneejerk and misguided.

You don't like certain speech? Fine, you and those who agree with you don't need to listen, or get up on an opposing soapbox and teach people. Legislating a problem away doesn't work, it never has and never will. It just drives that problem into the shadows where it can fester and cause more problems in the future.

Your comments regarding Holocaust Deniers were interesting...You are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt seemingly, but others not? A lot of the Deniers have as hate filled an agenda as any you're ever likely to find. Seems a bit of a double standard there.

if their publications and media involves the holocaust denial because they talk about how they hate Jews or whatever, or hate germans whatever, then that would be into consideration. simpyl denying the fact is not hateful in itself.

I can deny there is an iraq war, and that would have nothing to do with preaching violence and hate by simply stating i deny the iraq war is taking place. it just makes me look like a fool, but it has nothing to do with spreading hate and glamourizing violence, which is the subject here.
as has already been explained, speech is already regulated to a certain extent, chastizing some forms and allowing others.

The only thing i can gather by defending peoples rights to glamourize violence in media that reaches and targets children and spread hate media that may also reach and target certain youth, is that we are supporting bad peopels rights to corrupt, incite fear, acts which easily lead to negative action in itself.

to me all i see is people saying "This world sucks and my children have to grow up in it, but if NAZI propogandists convince him/her to hate jews and any others race, that is ok. My child listens to music that glamourizes drug use, trafficking, and abuse, degradation of women, and crime. now i can see my child is beginning to follow that same lifestyle, but that is ok."

Why cannot everyone just say what they really want to say.
that it is ok to corrupt our children with backward ideologies, deviant behavior, and violent tendencies that is what these crazy people are doing, these are the rights we are defending here? That sounds more backward then the fools who spew the filth themselves.

No one else is saying that. No one wants to say that because none of us feels that way (if I may speak for my fellow ATS members for a second). You are confusing the protection of the first amendment with AGREEMENT of those who are protected by it.

I support people's right to practice religion, but I don't agree with them.

You really need to make that clarification to understand my position. And accusing me (or us) of agreeing with child corruption and deviant behavior is nothing but a desperate low blow and a sign that your argument is meaningless.

It's NOT "OK"to corrupt children. But just because I have a judgment that something isn't "OK" doesn't mean there should be a law against it.

Backward ideologies, huh? Like religion? That's a backward ideology that brainwashes children. Be careful what you wish for...



It does? Not to me. Defending the freedom of speech for all people sounds very right to me. Once again, you have confused defending people's rights to do something with AGREEMENT with their views. If you think only people who agree with the government should have the right of freedom of speech, then you don't understand the first amendment at all.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

That was the exact feeling I got when I read the OP. It almost seemed like the author was making a case for a theocracy, complete with a Sharia-like legal system.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, DYepes, so I apologize in advance if that is not what you meant.

No one here is saying anything of the sort...to protect our kids from backward ideologies (whatever those are), deviant behaviour, and violent tendencies is the job of parents, guardians, and other people of significance in their lives. The gov't. can't even keep the infrastructure of our country up and running properly, and we're supposed to trust them with the protection of our children? Not the kids in my life thank you, I'll do that.

What we are saying is that people have the right to say and believe as they choose, just as we have the right to shield our kids from it. We can do that without curtailing freedom of speech any more than it is already.

i dont believe it is my right or duty to protect the right to publicly distribute media that glorifies violence and encourages hate and prejudice. It is quite a whacky idea to many.

Fact is, TOO MANY parents are deadbeats, who either could care less about what their children are exposed to, or in many cases encourage such. Who is there to protect those kids? i suppose we just leave them to other family members? What are we to do when a child has already become corrupted (and too many already are) and they grow up to affect others' lives in such negative manners, continueing the cycle to bring other youth into their circle?

Do we just continue to sit by and say "bad parents, move on", or do we finally take a stand in society and decide "this really is not right, and it makes no sense to protect or claim to be rightoues for protecting the rights of such pervasion to be allowed to be publicly distributed and capitalized on?

Fortunately, there are many who are willing to protect the first amendment with their lives, so your help isn't really needed.



Well, if parents are failing (which I agree many are) that problem needs to be addressed. But we don't just use the government to pick up where the parents are dropping the ball and let them come in and raise our children for us.



These are legitimate concerns. And answers need to be found. Parents need to be held accountable, people need to act more responsibly, but treading on the First Amendment is not the answer.



[edit on 19-8-2007 by Benevolent Heretic]

am i to udnerstand then bh, that the constitution of the united states was created perfectly? that this constitution which was written centuries ago, will be enough to maintain American society for as long as it exists?

Does this statement ring true?
"The Constitution of the United States is, has, and always will be perfect and will never ever require any change to it."

Would this, in your opinion, be an adequate assertion? I ask this question to everyone here as well.

i am not trying to be mocking or accusational, i would just curiously like to study the opinions on the above statment.

[edit on 8/20/2007 by DYepes]

Quite frankly, yes...

It's as perfect a document outlining, in broad terms, what our gov't. can and better yet, can't do; as imperfect humans are seemingly capable of...other constitutions around the world are usually at least loosely based on our Constitution. That would seem to speak well of it, IMHO.

Requiring change? Only very limited, and carefully considered ones...that's why it's so hard to do, deliberately so. To prevent knee jerk reactions from causing endless problems later. Would that legislation in Congress so difficult to get passed occasionally.

To change something so fundamentally important to what America is as the right to Freedom of Expression should be done very carefully, or better yet, not at all. "Either all speech is free, or none is." I don't remember who said this, if any one ever did, but with few exceptions it rings true.

how can it ring true with a few exceptions? I don't believe in such an absolute statement like that, particaly because it already is not true. I don't feel what i have been trying to get across is a knee jerk reaction at all. it is not something that can just broadly reach over to any other form of speech.

It would specifically be written for the subject matter we are discussing, which most everyone already agree sincerely or not is not their cup of tea, nor would they appreciate their children being corrupted by it. we also believe it is not right for others children to be corrupted by it. so what holds anyone back from simply taking the final step, and removing a large youth corrupting factor from our society through carefully researched, carefully written, unanimously voted, and very specifically outlined legislation that would only help bring up the quality of life to the victims who have to suffer the emotional and psychological stress and damage on a daily basis, as well as that of the general population.

If the Constitution was perfect, it would not have originally be written stateing a certain type of people only equaled 3/5 of a another kind of person. thankfully certain people understood it was not written perfectly and undertook the process of editing it for the better of our society.

No. It wasn't created 100% perfectly. If it were there would be no changes, no amendments. Blacks and women wouldn't be voting. But the purpose of the Constitution is to ENUMERATE our rights, not to limit them. Period.

It's not just because Free Speech is in the Constitution that I stand behind it. It's because Free Speech is an integral part of a FREE society. We must be free to speak our minds. To express ourselves. To be who we are as long as we don't step on others' rights.

You seem to have the idea that if we change the piece of paper, it's going to make some kind of difference in the youth and corruption today. It's not. Make it illegal to do something and it goes behind doors. Look at prostitution and drug use. People aren't corrupt because the Constitution doesn't tell them not to be! The KKK and NAMBLA and all these other people you hope to take out of society aren't going to go away. They are society's ills. I appreciate the result you want, but it's like you're trying to clean up the drug problem by saying "Just Say No".

If the Constitution were to be changed to limit our rights, we wouldn't all wake up and start sending hugs to each other. There's SO much more going on to CAUSE the way society is now and you're trying to drive change by limiting our rights. That's ridiculous!

If you want to change the Constitution in hopes of changing society, go ahead, but it's fruitless.

reply to post by DYepes

---

Sorry that I didn't specify my words. I thought it was understood we were discussing Freedom of Speech and expression...my bad.

That members of our population would be concidered only 3/5 of a white male is reprehensible should go without saying.

And speaking of the entire Constitution, it WAS created perfectly, come to think of it, because it has built-in means to change it if enough people think it's necessary.