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?
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.
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.
" 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!
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.
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.
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".
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
Today we are seeing a movement toward tolerance or at least what we think as tolerance. Bulling has become a hot button issue in the public (as if it didn’t happen anytime before) with many different groups against...
Is freedom of speech compromised in America today?It appears difficult to publish articles pertaining to racism, unless the racist in question is white skinned. It also appears difficult to publish articles...
Which is more important, freedom of faith or freedom of speech?Many religious folks are decent, good people. Some of my best friends subscribe to institutionalised superstition - and are good humored enough to let me...
Doesn't freedom of speech mean that there are no consequences?Lately we hear about people losing their jobs for stuff they tweet and post. People say, "Well, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from...