Is Freedom Of Speech Overused

[Dark]

You senseless moron, go die in a fire you piece of effing cow fornication, you goddamn loser who doesn't have even the slightest bit of intelligence.
---

Are you implying that I should not be allowed to say that? How sad.

[Dr. Cakey]

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1291488502' post='4828874']
You senseless moron, go die in a fire you piece of effing cow fornication, you goddamn loser who doesn't have even the slightest bit of intelligence.
---

Are you implying that I should not be allowed to say that? How sad.
[/quote]
Much better said than I could have done.

[Tentacruel]

So in other words, I'm allowed to go around using the word fa**** however I want, no matter who it offends? (Not that I would)

[GenzoTheHarpist]

The government shouldn't be able to ban you from doing that. Though, i'd be careful trying that in public, you could be in for a beating.

[Dark]

The government cannot restrict you from saying that, but as Genzo well put, society will take care of your punishment if you offend anyone.

[Tentacruel]

I suppose that's a rather good system. Anyway, what are your opinions on how freedom of speech is extremely restricted in the school system?

[GenzoTheHarpist]

It is an iffy issue in the US (and not just, imo, because the supreme court rulings on it contradict themselves all over the place). It is necessary to the function of the school to have some repression, but, I think policies go far beyond what is required.

[.Starrk]

In many cases, it cannot be used. Like in GenzoTheHarpist's post, you cannot yell fire in a theater.

However, if you are mugged, you are supposed to yell Fire because it attracts attention towards you.

[Bahamut - Envoy of the End]

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1291488502' post='4828874']
You senseless moron, go die in a fire you piece of effing cow fornication, you goddamn loser who doesn't have even the slightest bit of intelligence.
---

Are you implying that I should not be allowed to say that? How sad.
[/quote]

You can say that about me if you want (although why would you want to when I'm so awesome ) because that's just between us. And you had good reason (i.e. to prove your point, even if in the least eloquent way possible). If you said that to someone completely at random, you would quite rightly be punched in the face.

I'm talking about more about censorship on a large scale, i.e. going back to the fire in a theatre again. A good speech is a powerful weapon that can influence a mass of people. Look at Hitler, he was a pretty effective public speaker. What I'm saying is the widespread broadcast of such speechs can be damaging on a wide scale and can be easily prevented by gagging such people. I know what I'm suggesting and it's not ideal and I don't like it myself, but I feel it is necessary to impose a limit on comments that are designed to ignite hatred and violence.

For those of you who are not British, there was a massive debate back in May here about whether Nick Griffin, the leader of the British National Party (BNP - who's entire policy on everything is 'blame it on blacks and immigrants') should be allowed to appear on the BBC's 'Question Time'. Eventually the freedom of speech brigade won and he appeared on the show, which dissappointingly just turned out to be 45 minutes of the audience beating the proverbial out of him and making him look a victim, rather than exposing his lack of policies on current issues. I'm quite happy for him to appear on such a show, but I don't want the BNP to be given dedicated air time for party political broadcasts because they can brainwash people with lies. Ok that's not the best example but still.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is why put up with people with extreme views when they are so easy to censure?

[quote name='Coyote Starrk' timestamp='1291601911' post='4833333']
In many cases, it cannot be used. Like in GenzoTheHarpist's post, you cannot yell fire in a theater.

However, if you are mugged, you are supposed to yell Fire because it attracts attention towards you.
[/quote]

It is well documented (but worth repeating) that girls ar taught to shout 'Fire' instead of 'Rape', as no-one answers the latter. Sad isn't it?

[Dark]

You are not punished for simply saying fire in a theater: I'm almost entirely sure that if I said fire in a non-crowded theater, an officer would just call me a senseless moron and ask me to leave the movie theater. However, if I said fire in a theater and caused a shitton of commotion and some people got trampled and everyone through their popcorn around, I'm sure I'd get in a lot more trouble. No one is restricting me from saying fire in a theater; hell, no one is restricting me from yelling fire in a theater. However, people [i]are[/i] restricting me from causing a commotion, which can be caused with or without the need for speech.

Furthermore, the government cannot punish one for simply saying something or expressing an idea unless it violates another law, ie, the Wikileaks guy. Society has its own punishments (that are sometimes illegal <3) for people who want to call someone a retard right to their face.

In terms of school, the government realizes that schools need to be regulated in terms of speech to create an enviornment where people can learn. Which is why smoking, while legal elsewhere, is illegal on school property, cussing is against the rules, and they can search your lockers without any form of consent. Because the school is responsible for the welfare and the education and the safety of upwards of thousands of students, they must regulate and bend the laws, and sometimes even bypass the laws and your rights. However, I agree with Genzo in the sense that schools carry and abuse this power a bit too much, especially when they go radical and ban the "I <3 Boobies" bracelets.

[♥ ЅϯᵲåώӀӞ℮ᴙʀɣ−ɴɨɨ−ƈħåɴ ♥]

[center][color="#9932CC"][b]Freedom of speech allows me to randomly pop into this thread and say hi. So...

Hi. :3[/b][/color][/center]

[Dr. Cakey]

[quote name='Matt Bahamut' timestamp='1291667391' post='4834327']
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is why put up with people with extreme views when they are so easy to censure?
[/quote]
To list some minority and extreme views from the history of the United States:

Catholics should be allowed to hold public office
Jews should be allowed to hold public office
Black people have rights
Slavery is immoral
America should fight for independence
The sale of intoxicating liquor should be illegal
Women should be allowed to be educated
Non-aristocratic people are capable of holding political office
...and more.

Minority opinion + extreme view =/= kill it with fire

EDIT:
[quote name='♥ ЅϯᵲåώӀӞ℮ᴙʀɣ−ɴɨɨ−ƈħåɴ ♥' timestamp='1291689794' post='4835246']
[center][color="#9932CC"][b]Freedom of speech allows me to randomly pop into this thread and say hi. So...

Hi. :3[/b][/color][/center]
[/quote]
Unfortunately, this is a private institution, so the mods have the right to delete your comment and warn you for it. They won't, but your right to free speech may legally be infringed upon.

[Tentacruel]

I hate to bring up this topic but.... How do you guys feel about the censoring of speech involving religion... >.> (In schools for instance.)

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

I feel it should never be censored but tht willl pobably never happen.
(sorry too lazy for good grammar)

[Anti-Apocryphal]

Freedom of Speech is one way of saying you have the right to speak your own opinion, such as what you think about the government, public issues, etc.
However, some people mistaken this.
You can't go into a movie theater and shout "Fire", or go to the mall and scream "I have a bomb". These kind of things can get you into trouble because they're not opinions, they're lies and cause public safety hazardous.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

[quote name='Dr. Cakey' timestamp='1291766745' post='4836809']
The sale of intoxicating liquor should be illegal
[/quote]
This idea [i]should[/i] have been "killed with fire". What benefits came out of it?

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I yell "theater" in crowded fires because it's badass.

[quote name='Dr. Cakey' timestamp='1291333214' post='4824610']
You're inability
[/quote]

lol

[quote name='Dr. Cakey' timestamp='1291150969' post='4820898']
The exacting wording of the First Amendment is as follows:

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.

Freedom of speech means that you are free to speak, not that you are free from consequences. There's a difference between the Sedition Law (making it illegal to criticize government policy, passed under President John Adams) and people running you out of town for suggesting that maybe gay people aren't possessed by the Devil.

On the other hand, people do overuse the First Amendment because they think that it says that their right to speech cannot be infringed upon at all by anyone. That's not true - only the government is barred from infringing upon free speech. Really, a strict reading of the Constitution (and I should beforehand say the Constitution ceased being read strictly shortly after it was established) only ensures that the federal government will not restrict freedom of speech, while states may choose to do so.
[/quote]

You're "free [i]to[/i] speak" as long as you physically can. As long as you can use your voice to communicate coherent words. Obviously the consequences are where we get the line between whether you're free to say something or not. My point is that "freedom of speech" is a misnomer. The First Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to speak completely freely, it just prevents the application of specific consequences. Hardly all that could be perceived as negative.

When one says that people in such-and-such a country have "freedom of speech", do they really? Just clarifyin'.

[Dr. Cakey]

[quote name='Petrosian' timestamp='1291786658' post='4837456']
I yell "theater" in crowded fires because it's badass.
[b]I want to be in that theater.[/b]


lol
[b]Oops. Um...go make fun of tonymann's grammerz instead.[/b]


You're "free [i]to[/i] speak" as long as you physically can. As long as you can use your voice to communicate coherent words. Obviously the consequences are where we get the line between whether you're free to say something or not. My point is that "freedom of speech" is a misnomer. The First Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to speak completely freely, it just prevents the application of specific consequences. Hardly all that could be perceived as negative.

When one says that people in such-and-such a country have "freedom of speech", do they really? Just clarifyin'.
[b]I guess it's kind of how you interpret it. What the First Amendment does is say that the government can't pass laws to prevent people from saying certain things. No need to complain that it was written all flowery-like. Everything was like that in the 18th century.[/b]
[/quote]

About the school question: private schools can of course do whatever they want, being private institutions. Public schools...probably they can get away with it either
a) because people under 18 aren't adult and so aren't protected by the Constitution.
nobody noticed.

[Bahamut - Envoy of the End]

Fair play Cakey, I can't mount an argument against that.

Anyway, can I drag freedom of speech in the press into this argument? I have a problem with 'sensantionalism' stories, or to put it another way, stuff made up about the flavour of the day that 9 times out of 10 are later found as untrue.

Some argue that 'The public have a right to know'. Erm, don't the people reported on have the right to some privacy? What wins out there?

Personally, I don't want to know how many times some footballer has cheated on his missus this week. Unfortunately this is all some people have to gossip about with their friends.

I bring this up because of the recent WC2018 bid that in the build up to the English press/TV kept accussing FIFA of being corrput. Unsuprisingly, that didn't go down too well and we didn't get it. Cue more reports of corruption in FIFA and with the Russian bid. I don't think this made much difference, but seriously why did the papers have to run headlines like 'EVERYONE IN FIFA IS BENT!!! (But can we host your flagship tournament?)'

Not that I care about us getting the World Cup, we have the Olympics coming anyway.

[quote name='GenzoTheHarpist' timestamp='1291785673' post='4837441']
The sale of intoxicating liquor should be illegal.

This idea [i]should[/i] have been "killed with fire". What benefits came out of it?
[/quote]

No it shouldn't. You might find mixing liquor and fire would see us all killed. Jeez.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

[quote name='Matt Bahamut' timestamp='1291924265' post='4840068']
No it shouldn't. You might find mixing liquor and fire would see us all killed. Jeez.
[/quote]
Don't stand too close to it.

[Dr. Cakey]

[quote name='Matt Bahamut' timestamp='1291924265' post='4840068']
Fair play Cakey, I can't mount an argument against that.
[b]What do you want me to do? I gave you a list of radical fringe opinions. Do you think they should have been silenced? Some of them were. [i]Uncle Tom's Cabin[/i] and one pamphlet whose name escapes me at the moment (written by a Southern farmer) were both banned in the South.[/b]

Anyway, can I drag freedom of speech in the press into this argument? I have a problem with 'sensantionalism' stories, or to put it another way, stuff made up about the flavour of the day that 9 times out of 10 are later found as untrue.
[b]Well, libel is illegal. The only problem is that you must prove that the person(s) who released the information knew they were lying.[/b]

Some argue that 'The public have a right to know'. Erm, don't the people reported on have the right to some privacy? What wins out there?
[b]Simple. The press has exactly the same right to exact their information as I do. Lurking in the adjacent apartment window? Okay, but creepy. Breaking and entering? Not so much.[/b]

Personally, I don't want to know how many times some footballer has cheated on his missus this week. Unfortunately this is all some people have to gossip about with their friends.
[b]Yes, those people are stupid. My cousin will soon be one of them. Anyway, the fact that nobody is intelligent could possibly be interested doesn't mean it's illegal.[/b]

I bring this up because of the recent WC2018 bid that in the build up to the English press/TV kept accussing FIFA of being corrput. Unsuprisingly, that didn't go down too well and we didn't get it. Cue more reports of corruption in FIFA and with the Russian bid. I don't think this made much difference, but seriously why did the papers have to run headlines like 'EVERYONE IN FIFA IS BENT!!! (But can we host your flagship tournament?)'

Not that I care about us getting the World Cup, we have the Olympics coming anyway.



No it shouldn't. You might find mixing liquor and fire would see us all killed. Jeez.
[/quote]

[Dark]

[quote name='ADHD-Guitar' timestamp='1291768195' post='4836868']
I hate to bring up this topic but.... How do you guys feel about the censoring of speech involving religion... >.> (In schools for instance.)
[/quote]

If it's a public school, religion should be shot in the back of the neck.

If it's a private school, I could care less.

If it's a government institution in America, since we are a declared secular country, it should be shot, but definitely won't be.

[-Griffin]

This recently came up in my debating society. We agreed that it should be limited, mostly in the ways in currently is.

That means that the limits should be that you can't abuse your Freedom of Speech to deceive, such as convincing someone that your opinion is fact, to slander without reason, to infringe on other people's rights, or to cause distress (such as "[b]Falsely[/b] shouting fire in a crowded theatre." But should never be censored to deny an honest opinion from being heard, as long as it's clear that it's an opinion, or arguments for a point of view.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

In my view freedom of speech should always be upheld and should never be limited to schools or society itself. People would disagree mostly because of the fire in a crowded theatre thing and religious extremism (if i spelled that right) from what I hear from Toxyn at least. Then again in Org. 13 your opinions are limited soooooo who am I to talk.






Me (Axel) and Xaldin both believe this to be the right thing.

[Squidward Tentacles]

Freedom of Speech is not overused; people have a right to speak their minds, and that is one of our God-given rights. That is one thing that will never die. I mean, look at all those wonderful novels and stories and speeches delivered by people over the years. Without freedom of speech, those could have never happened.