• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Has freedom of speech gone too far?

#41
MatticusMania said:
There is. Their ugly abuse of our freedom to speech has made them look like monster's in the publics eye. Imagne what their other neighbors now thing of them, what the people of their city think of them. Most likely these people won't be able to go out in public without someone declaring them the monsters that they are. Theyve condemned themselves.
Click to expand...

This ^

Free speech should be allowed without censorship in 99.9% of circumstances. Those where it shouldn't are usually obvious (yelling bomb! for instance) and in situations like this, the people involved usually make fools of themselves.
 
#42
MatticusMania said:
There is. Their ugly abuse of our freedom to speech has made them look like monster's in the publics eye. Imagine what their other neighbors now think of them, what the people of their city think of them. Most likely these people won't be able to go out in public without someone declaring them the monsters that they are. Theyve condemned themselves.
Click to expand...

Also in the age of google, when it is so easy to search for information this can come back to haunt them.
 
#43
To play devils advocate, can freedom of speech at some point interfere with a persons unalienable right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness?" If so then what is that point and which is more important? I believe that it can but in what way is subjective.
 
#44
metron said:
To play devils advocate, can freedom of speech at some point interfere with a persons unalienable right to "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness?" If so then what is that point and which is more important? I believe that it can but in what way is subjective.
Click to expand...

Yes it can. We call those situations harassment, slander, and libel.
 
#45
It's ironic that these people use the very freedom that the soldier died for (theoretically it was for freedom and not oil or whatever but that's another thread) to protest and disgrace their death.

(Un)fortunately, that's America. I don't like it,but where do you draw the line. Slippery slope, all that stuff. God Bless America.
 
#47
SteveC said:
It's ironic that these people use the very freedom that the soldier died for (theoretically it was for freedom and not oil or whatever but that's another thread) to protest and disgrace their death.

(Un)fortunately, that's America. I don't like it,but where do you draw the line. Slippery slope, all that stuff. God Bless America.
Click to expand...

Theoretically nothing--it was for foreign policy, it always is for foreign policy, and it will always be for foreign policy.

But that's another thread.

sloasdaylight said:
"I disagree completely and to the bottom of my soul what she said, but I will fight to my dying breath to protect her right to say it."

I heard that from a Vietnam vet on TV talking about Jane Fonda taking pictures with NVA troops in and around anti-air guns. It made an impact on me.
Click to expand...

That's got its roots in the famous Evelyn Beatrice Hall quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
 
#48
For the original post, freedom of speech is one thing, driving around with a coffin on your truck and death-wishing children is quite another. I don't think that woman's speech is really free at all, worryingly so imo.
 
#51
metron said:
But they still have freedom of speech even after it crosses that line right? Can someone harass and slander all they want or is there a limit on that?
Click to expand...

If one is willing to file suit that harassment can be brought to an end by means of restitution. They would be free to say those things again, but unless its the truth they are speaking there are laws in place to protect a person from that.
 
#53
No, but people think "freedom of speech" means "freedom to have diarrhea of the mouth", which it doesn't.

"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." nothing about saying what you want, just Congress shall make no law abridging. And they don't imply as to what those freedoms are.


[del]The Constitution needs a 21st-century-age-of-litigation Update...[/del] HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT STAY IN SCHOOL!
 
#54
Thunderscreech said:
The Constitution needs a 21st-century-age-of-litigation Update...
Click to expand...

I disagree. The guys that wrote the original document were a group of very intelligent, well educated individuals with strong convictions and a very real sense of purpose.

I really don't want a 21st century POS mouthpiece for a special interest, with no honor, strong sense of purpose, or conviction (other than legal perhaps) that thinks he's on par with the original authors messing around with it.
 
#55
Phalex said:
I disagree. The guys that wrote the original document were a group of very intelligent, well educated individuals with strong convictions and a very real sense of purpose.

I really don't want a 21st century POS mouthpiece for a special interest, with no honor, strong sense of purpose, or conviction (other than legal perhaps) that thinks he's on par with the original authors messing around with it.
Click to expand...

Good point, actually...now that I think about it. :hmm:
 
#56
Phalex said:
I disagree. The guys that wrote the original document were a group of [DEL]very intelligent, well educated individuals with strong convictions and a very real sense of purpose.[/DEL] plagiarists who lifted all their ideas from earlier philosophers; who, when pressed, couldn't even sack up enough to deal with slavery in the original writing of the constitution, leading to the bloodiest conflict in our nation's history.
Click to expand...
:ninja:

Life does not exist in a vacuum, and neither should the governing tenants of any sensible nation.

Of course, if Screech-y baby would pay attention in class, that's why we have amendments.:D
 
#58
Deluge Of Sound said:
:ninja:

Life does not exist in a vacuum, and neither should the governing tenants of any sensible nation.

Of course, if Screech-y baby would pay attention in class, that's why we have amendments.:D
Click to expand...

Jefferson re-worded Locke's original statement to read Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to not give legitimacy to slave holders that it was a founding part of America to have slaves. There was also no way that the founding fathers could have gotten the constitution ratified without allowing slavery at the time.
 
#59
Jonyak said:
What irks me is the fact that our system protects people from the consequences of there freedom to say anything.
Click to expand...

No one is protected to say whatever they wish without consequence, have you not heard of slander or libel suits? These are lawsuits brought by the victims of erroneous 'free speech' against the party who made the false statements.
 
#60
sloasdaylight said:
Jefferson re-worded Locke's original statement to read Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to not give legitimacy to slave holders that it was a founding part of America to have slaves. There was also no way that the founding fathers could have gotten the constitution ratified without allowing slavery at the time.
Click to expand...

We could argue 'til we were blue in the face about whether he changed it for that reason, or because it sounded better.

I'm just pointing out that the deification of the founding fathers gets a little ridiculous, sometimes.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back