How would you respond to the freedom of speech debate

1. 62

   Kenneth Dantzlerposted 8 years ago

   People are saying that their amendment right are taken away, especially the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in America is definitely safeguarded by the First Amendment to the United states of America Constitution and also various state constitutions and federal and state legislation. The freedom of speech is definitely not absolute; the Supreme Court of America provides information about several kinds of speech which can be ruled out as being a part of freedom of expression clause, and it has acknowledged the fact that government authorities may possibly sanction acceptable time, destination, as well as manner constraints regarding speech.
   Judgments of the federal government and advocacy concerning unpopular concepts that individuals might find abominable or traverse public policy happen to be granted. You will find exclusions to those basic defenses, such as the Miller test pertaining to obscenity, child sexually graphic laws and regulations, speech which unfortunately incites impending lawless actions, and regulation of commercial talk such as advertising. Inside these limited areas, additional limitations on free conversation balance rights to free of charge speech and other rights, including rights for authors more than their works (copyright), defense against imminent or potential assault against particular persons, and also the use of untruths to damage others. Distinctions tend to be made between speech and also other acts which may have emblematic significance. How do you feel about the first amendment when people misuse this constitutional right to incite hate speech and mask it as freedom of expression?

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I have to be careful about this, for if I propose prior restraint on someone based on  speech which I may consider as personally heinous such an attitude may be justification to restrain my right to speak out freely as well.
      
      For the protection of us all, this aspect of the First Amendment must remain sacrosanct. However, inciting to violence is a little different.
      
      I have lived with the Confederate Battle Flag for years and I, unlike many of my African American brothers, did not care what the Southern whites chose to fly as long as it was on private property. So, you are free to express what you want as speech, just don't let it go over the line.

      replyreport
      1. 62

         Kenneth Dantzlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks for your response, I lived in the Southern part of the United States and also lived in the Northern as well. I think we need to redefine, what freedom of speech is because as a society, we have gotten out of control. Language use to be tasteful, but we had the options to agree or disagree with one's political, religious and viewpoint in general. We have left, the art of academic language and linguistically adapted a sub-language that is totally repulsive.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks, Kenneth.
            
            The trend toward the lack of civility in our relations with one another is endemic and can be found active in realms outside of 'speech'. So, what is tasteful anymore? Decorum as well as chivalry are things of the past. It is all degenerative, are we not surprised? My late auntie used to talk to me about social class and the existence of a natural aristocracy that defined itself by more than just having money, but by having manners. This has gone away.
            
            In my opinion this is the most contentious political period in America since the Civil War.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               Kenneth Dantzlerposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               I appreciate your response, you stated, "The trend toward the lack of civility in our relations with one another is endemic and can be found active in realms outside of 'speech'." I would agree with you that this is an endemic. One that is very inflammatory towards all human beings. People need to get other the past, the word has been ought for decades, "The WAR IS OVER." As a multi-ethnic person, there are times I have to defend my Native heritage, Liberian culture, and my Jewish Identity. I am grateful to have studied multiple view points, but also debating my stand on social and injustice issues in such a way that brings the conversation back to "What it is meant to live in the path of liberation, but also having an inclusive lens on life?" My question to you, is how would you as a professional challenge individuals who are not civil in speech, and bring the conversation back to the first amendment is misinterpreted?

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Credence2posted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks, your diverse experiences will stimulate the discussion.
                  
                  The Constitution makes the presumption that the people determine the value of any one idea within the the market of ideas. Within a democracy, I believe that the coarse makes him or herself known through the manner of speech which is on display just as much as the content. While it is great for rabble rousing for a time, there is not staying power. I trust the people and their voices to reject the charleton and those that would incite through words (demagogic types) rather than carefully considered dialogue.
                  
                  It is rude to interrupt a speaker even if the ideas express by the speaker is contrary to those that would receive a better reception by the group. Decorum is the respect to allow opposing views the ability to express themselves freely. There were many incidents of unpopular speakers that came to campus, when I was in school. I walked away rather than participate in catcalls and booing. 
                  
                  Did I answer you question?

                  replyreport
            2. 72

               LauraD093posted 8 years agoin reply to this

               I agree.

               replyreport
   2. 71

      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      If speech is offensive to someone in a free society then they have the freedom to walk away, turn it off or listen at their own peril. Politically correct or non offensive speech is beginning to have an affect on truthful communication. Without a truthful discourse how is it to be understood if filtered through various acceptable avenues. I understand if you yell fire in a crowded auditorium or other gathering where doing so would incite panic. But if someone says there is, in their opinion, something wrong with a persons faith or politics and does so in a derogatory or provocative manner it is then up to the one offended to make a choice. To listen or walk away or counter the argument with their own belief. The line has to be drawn at the threat of violence or its' being carried out in the same manner.

      replyreport