Freedom of speech

1. 61

   weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years ago

   is a right mentioned in the 1st amendment.  Quoted here: 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.
   
   Do you believe this amendment means what it says, or should the FCC and the courts limit political speech, banning hate speech and political speech that's not good?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Doug Hughesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      There is no move by the courts or the FCC to ban or limit political speech or free speech.
      
      Example - the USSC recently upheld the right of a wingnut church to protest against gays at military funerals. In the recent situation of an Islamaphobic minister burning a Koran, there have been no charges filed.
      
      The premise of the post is without any foundation.
      
      "The wicked flee when no man pursueth" Proverbs

      replyreport
      1. 61

         weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         What's my "premise" of the post?    I quote the Constitution and ask if you believe that it doesn't apply anymore, or if you think it doesn't mean what it says.    Obviously several people believe in ignoring the 1st amendment completely.

         replyreport
   2. 61

      John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I should think the key there is "peaceably".
      There is nothing peaceable about any group or any person of either side spouting hate.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         So... If I stand in the middle of a park with no one around yelling hate speech to no one in particular, I should be taken to jail?
         
         No. Of Course not.
         
         You have the right to say what you wish to say -- at least, on/with your own property

         replyreport
         1. 61

            John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Well in those circumstances you would not be assembling, now would you!
            
            Nowhere does the constitution suggest that you shouldn't speak your mind in private, and neither do I but to extend this to allowing hate speech in public is distorting the whole shebang.
            
            Let me remind you,  "the right of the people peaceably to assemble,"

            replyreport
            1. 61

               weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               The notion of "context" (location) controlling the content of your speech is ludicrous.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  So you are saying that even in private your words should be restrained! 
                  
                  So much for freedom!

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Nonsense.   "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech..."   
                     
                     Where's room in there to shut people up because they make you feel bad?

                     replyreport
      2. 81

         Wesman Todd Shawposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         How you define hate is something that is very debatable.  "Hate" can be expanded to obscene lengths in an order to violate the first amendment.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Notice:   The Constitution does not say "...abridging the freedom of speech, unless it makes liberals feel uncomfortable,..."

            replyreport
            1. 61

               John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               But it does say "peaceably".
               What do you find so difficult to understand about that?

               replyreport
               1. 71

                  Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Hey John, it either has too many letters in it or too many syllables.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     

                     replyreport
               2. 61

                  weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  There is nothing about "peaceable" attached to freedom of speech.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     " 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"
                     
                     I suppose then they were expecting a lot of Trappist monks to congregate and not speak!

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        The right of the people to be peaceably assemble.   
                        
                        Has nothing to do with "abridging the freedom of speech".    Sorry.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           No, never said it did, what I said was that it wouldn't be a peaceable assembly if everybody was screaming for blood would it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              It's always been and always will be illegal to incite riot.   "speech" isn't about trying to get someone to do something, or be protected from prosecution when you're plotting to break the law.    It's about being able to promote ANY idea, regardless of public opinion of it, without fear of retribution or silencing by authority.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 but peaceably, or are you so angry that you have no concept of peace?

                                 replyreport
         2. 77

            lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            No kidding. If I say I think Netenyahu's policies are evil, I'm automatically a Jew-hating anti-semite.
            
            Yet,they spout that Obama hates America, and they are just "passionate" about their feelings.
            
            You know hate when you see it, just like they said about porn.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Wesman Todd Shawposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I think that that is a perfect comment!
               
               I'm often a "Jew hating anti Semite" for my hatred of international banking - at least I am online.  I doubt anyone who reads what I write about such things without an extreme bias would call it "hateful."  My Jewish friends. . . .find it hard to think of me as an "anti Semite," for obvious reasons.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, it's a vicious way of telling you to STFU.
                  It's Political Correctness and suppression.....all of which they complain they get from their opposition!!
                  
                  It is mirror-programming.
                  Down is up, up is down.

                  replyreport
   3. 59

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Weholdthesetruths makes a fantastic point.
      
      The "Right to free speech", etc. are not mentioned in the Constitution at all.
      
      The Bill of Rights merely makes it illegal for the federal government to do many things pertaining to these natural rights.
      
      Unfortunately, our state governments DO still have the power and authority to take these rights away from us (luckily, many of the states prohibit themselves from doing so).

      replyreport
2. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Yes, gvt can protect people from hate speech.
   Hate is not allowed.
   
   HOWEVER, it is dominating the airwaves these days!
   
   So, in my opinion, the gvt is not doing its job.
   
   The FCC should copy what Bush's FCC did....use the office to fine the crap out of stations, until they are forced to get rid of the "trouble-makers".
   
   In this case, that would be all of Fox and righty-talk!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      So, you don't believe in free speech?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         There is no such thing, except in the privacy of my own home.
         
         I cannot say what I want HERE, for example, or I might get banned.
         That is not gvt limiting my speech, it is Hub Pages.
         Speech in America is bought and paid for.
         
         7 words you can't say...remember? Carlin.
         
         I just find it funny that the true hatred spewing from Fox and righty-talk has been so free......
         
         It's funny to me. Because Bush's FCC would have been on a lefty counter-part like white on rice. Like they did to Stern. As a favor to Focus on the Family..who hated him. And Bush owed his election to them--the Christian Coalition. That's why all the anti-abortion stuff was flourishing as well. Funny--you righty's are much more "free' under Obama than the lefty's were under Bush....and yet you complain about what "might be".

         replyreport
         1. 61

            weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Ahh, so the Constitution doesn't mean what it says?   Where does the Constitution authorize government to "abridge the freedom of speech, if it makes someone feel bad"?

            replyreport
   2. 59

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Lovemychris - you hate Republicans.
      
      off to jail with you!

      replyreport
      1. 77

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I am not getting rich off the public airwaves doing it.
         If the owners of HubPages have a problem with me, I'm gone.
         
         SOMEONE needs to monitor OUR airwaves.
         Bush's FCC fined Howard Stern out of his job....I'm just suggesting the Obama FCC do the same to Russshhhh, Beckles, Klannity, ET AL.
         
         That way--their fans can pay to hear them, just as Stern fans must pay to hear him.
         And we, the public, who own these airwaves,are spared from providing them their hate-space.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Nonsense.   Pure, idiotic trash.    Again, no Constitutional authorization which says "Congress can abridge your freedom of speech, if you use the radio."   Nope.  Not there.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Ahhh, more civility from you truth-out....
               So warming and so very Christ-like of you.

               replyreport
         2. 59

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Notice how lovemychris FIRST makes the argument that "hate speech should be banned", but THEN changes it to "hate speech should be banned... but only if people are getting money for saying it".
            
            Lovemychris - this is why I can't take you serious! You're too wish-washy.
            
            And for your other argument: "Someone needs to monitor our airwaves"
            
            This is true! I agree with you. .... well, i disagree with the "ONE" part - everyone acting together as consumers can easily monitor their own airwaves. If you dislike Howard Stern, is it really so hard to change to a different station?

            replyreport
            1. 77

               lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               That is my point Evan. Focus on the Family pressured Bush and Powell to get Stern off the air....pressured the sponsors, wrote letters, called, etc.
               
               Why couldn't they just turn the channell?
               They didn't want to hear it, and didn't want anyone else hearing it either.
               And they got their way.
               
               Stern's speech was taken off the commercial market due to pressure from a religio-political group.
               
               We can do the same for Russshhhhh, et al, can we not?
               
               That's why there is no free speech. If someone powerful enough doesn't like it, you're gone.

               replyreport
         3. 60

            BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            You own the airwaves?  Can I see your proof of purchase?  More baloney frmo the left...

            replyreport
            1. 77

               lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Really? The airwaves aren't public?
               
               Are you telling me money can now buy AIR?

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  No, no, money can't buy airwaves, their natural god appointed owners won't sell, they'll rent them out to approved causes though.

                  replyreport
               2. 60

                  BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay, so where is your receipt for your share of the "public" airwaves?  I certainly can't find mine.
                  
                  The airwaves belong to any station or network that can cough up the cash to pay for a broadcasting license.....

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Thank You!
                     Speech is not "free", it is bought and paid for!
                     
                     We hear what the wealthiest among us want us to hear.
                     
                     Which in my area, is rabid right-wing hate and derision fest.

                     replyreport
3. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Well, looks like the TP'ers are russsshhhhing to have their FCC police in again! Yep, the same old crowd....the FCC police against all things liberal, "dirty" and un-Christian (what THEY call Christian, not my idea of it):
   
   "David Koch's key operative, Tim Phillips, is moving to merge the religious right with the Tea Party movement -- just in time for the presidential race."
   
   
   http://bit.ly/hydDS4

   replyreport
   1. 61

      weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Why do you post so much fiction?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Keep yer eyes open truths....we will se if this is true.
         Sounds VERY plausible to me...Right always merges with Christian Coalition. And MY freedoms disappear.
         
         I must pay to hear Stern now....which would be frivolous, given my situation. So--I have lost the freedom to hear Stern...I have to pay for the priviledge.
         
         NO SUCH THING AS FREEDOM OF SPEECH! except in our privacies.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Nonsense....  YOU ARE THE ONE TO BLAME.   YOU are the one who wants to violate the Constitution.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               HUH?

               replyreport
4. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   
   
   The Right has more rights than anybody else...they just want to make sure it stays that way.
   
   No on ever DARED bring a gun to a Bush rally---Sheehan was arrested for a t-shirt, for crying out loud!
   
   But, you know.....we MUST allow semi-automatic rifles at a parade.

   replyreport
5. 60

   knolyourselfposted 13 years ago

   They don't allow socialists on the capitalist media. The airwaves are by law socialist as publicly owned. But was given to private interests some seventy years ago.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah--they have a bad habit of doing that, don't they?
      Can anyone say Bite the hand that feeds you?

      replyreport
   2. 59

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      are you nuts? Socialists are all I ever see on TV.
      
      I finally saw a true capitalist on the media a few years ago and it woke me up out of my idiotic slumber. They don't like bringing him back for interviews, though!
      
      Ron Paul 2012.
      
      On your other argument: Airwaves aren't socially owned. The rights to a frequency can be purchase, and thus are privately owned. The government just claimed that airwaves couldn't be owned so that they could auction off the rights to their buddies.

      replyreport
6. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   "Sarah Palin was paid twice as much as what a teacher makes in a year to say teachers make too much money"

   replyreport
7. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   I listened to this for 2 seconds and was laughing my butt off...FOR LIBS ONLY. And,apparently, the listeners pay for this show!
   
   Mike Malloy: Every Single Republican Is A Liar http://dlvr.it/NpDRf

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Wow, that guy ... really... puts on a quality broadcast...
      
      ... you spend time listening to that guy, and then make fun of people who listen to O'Reilly and Beck?
      
      wow.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         No--I heard that clip because someone shared it. We don't get liberal radio here..well we do have one station started last year.
         But yeah--that guy has powerful opinions, just like Beckles and Rush.
         
         But there needs to be about 8 more like him to even the score...and you'll notice he never advocated strangling, pouring gasoline down any throats, or shooting someone--all which Beckles has done.
         
         Nor did he accuse the Repubs of hating America.--Which azzhat Bumrush does to the Dems on a regular basis.

         replyreport
8. 71

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Hey Weholdthesetruths,
   
   Are you trying or attempting to insinuate that there isn't anything such as "hate" speech?
   
   Just curious.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Define "hate speech", please.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Just read any of your own posts.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            John, this is the problem, and you made the point for Weholdthesetruths: Hate speech is undefinable.
            
            You proved him right with your response.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Eh! What?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  you couldn't (can't) define hate speech.
                  
                  That's the point of the entire argument!
                  
                  Words like "terrorist", "Communist", "hate speech", "witch" and every other phrase: they can't be defined. That's why they do their job so well.
                  
                  BUT! Not having a definition makes them even MORE powerful! Because you can claim that the other "side" uses hate speech.
                  
                  In fact, you DID do that. You do that repeatedly.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     Really!
                     So you are defining hate speech as any form of disagreement then!
                     
                     I don't claim to be unable to define hate speech, and neither do I constantly belittle other posters.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        John, you really are incapable of seeing my argument?
                        
                        Here are the exact quotes from just 3 posts above our current argument:
                        
                        WHTT: "Define "hate speech", please."
                        
                        You: "Just read any of your own posts."
                        
                        ---
                        
                        If you can't see the connection and accuracy of what I wrote just an hour ago, then debating with you is a bit of a waste of time.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           Well, I have to concede, I can't see the connection and accuracy of what you wrote!
                           It seems to me that you are saying WHTT can insult and offend at will but nobody can criticise him for it!

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              that's not at all what I"m saying. Good day.

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 John Holdenposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 Well don't, whatever you do, try to make yourself clear!
                                 It's much better to talk in riddles and then claim to win your argument because the other person hasn't a clue what you are on about.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                    John. I'm not talking in riddles.
                                    
                                    I literally posted the conversation I was talking about.
                                    
                                    I can NOT do anything else to help you out. It's truly amazing that you see me as the one who is obfuscating my argument.
                                    
                                    I'm done talking with you.

                                    replyreport
      2. 71

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         If I have to define "hate speech" for YOU, then I would suggest you go read about it.

         replyreport
         1. 61

            weholdthesetruthsposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Are you incapable, or are you just too afraid to try?

            replyreport
         2. 59

            Evan G Rogersposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Cagsil - you made Weholdthesetruths' point for him. Good job on shooting yourself in the foot.

            replyreport
9. 77

   lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

   Update:
   The ONE liberal talk has been pre-empted, or taken over by a Spanish language speaking show.
   
   They can't even let us have one. Not even one.
   
   USA USA USA
   FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM
   
   Psy-op  Psy-op  Psy-op!!!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      My guess is the Spanish show actually draws listeners.....if liberal shows did that, the stations would be more likely to carry them.....

      replyreport
      1. 77

         lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That's bull.
         It's like saying you could put Dennis Kucinich on in Palm Springs California, and he'd be more popular than Rush!
         
         I live in the Blue State of Massachusetts. No WAY is there a bigger market for Conservs. It is forced upon us...take it or leave it. Listen to it, or don't listen at all.
         
         USA USA USA

         replyreport
         1. 60

            BillyDRitchieposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Um, no it isn't.  Radio stations are driven by profit, and as a result they put on shows that will draw an audience and generate revenue.  No radio station could keep putting on shows with no audience and continue doing business for very long.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               That's not how Russsshhhhhh came to prominance.
               There was something very different about him, and now I'm going to have to go find the article on it...which is many many years old.

               replyreport
10. 75

    cheaptrickposted 13 years ago

    The notion of free speech is fiction and always has been.Control is never exerted overtly.The noose tightens slowly...but surly.It's presented to the public dressed up so as to appear attractive,good,and necessary.Enjoy the freedom of the net while you can...cause brothers and sisters...The noose is tighter every day.

    replyreport
    1. 77

       lovemychrisposted 13 years agoin reply to this

       David Icke says the best way to control people is to make them think they are free!

       replyreport
11. 77

    lovemychrisposted 13 years ago

    That must have been how Buscho rigged the system in 2000...through the licensing....

    replyreport