Free speech -- how much?

[Brooke]

The concept of Free Speech in America is defended by the courts. The First Amendment to the Constitution reads:

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.

Is this possible in our society? How strict and "to the letter" should courts be in interpreting this?

Should this Amendment still be around today? If so, should it have limitations? Is there a "line" that gets crossed in the name of free speech?

[Marzipan]

My stance is the same as the quote attributed to Voltaire. That is, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Free speech is the cornerstone of a democratic republic.

[Lori]

My stance is the same as the quote attributed to Voltaire. That is, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Free speech is the cornerstone of a democratic republic.

:yup ITA

I do think that sometimes people misunderstand what free speech means. I absolutely support people's right to express whatever beliefs they want to express. But, that doesn't mean that I think I (or anyone else) should have to keep quiet if I disagree. Free speech is a give and take. It means that you get to express your beliefs, and I get to express mine, and just because I might believe you're wrong, it doesn't mean that I'm trying to take away your right to express those beliefs.

I feel like people sometimes think that when someone criticizes them, or says they're wrong, that they're trying to deny them their free speech. But disagreement and criticism are part of free speech, not it's enemy. Being disagreed with, even vehemently, isn't the same as being silenced.

[Kate]

Basically, for me free speech is the sign of a healthy democracy, and dissent is the sign of an even healthier one.

I could discuss it further, but it pretty much boils down to that.

[Maleah]

I think people go overboard with free speech and don't really understand what their rights are. Free speech does not mean you can say anything you want, any where you want, anytime you want. For example yelling fire in a crowded room or making a bomb threat in an airport. Free speech means you can express your views/opinion without having to worry about being put in jail or worse.

Free speech does not null other people's rights (ie terroristic threatening).

Its a hard line to define really. What is one person's expression is sometimes obscene to another (think shock jock Howard Stern). With freedoms comes responsiblities. That's why we having a living law.

[Marzipan]

I think many people mistakenly define "freedom of speech" as "the right to say anything you want, anywhere." The concept of free specch, as put forth in the Constitution of the United States, really relates to political speech and the fact that the government should not be able to make laws restricting the rights of individuals and media outlets to express their thoughts and opinions. (Copyright laws, however, come into play here.) And really, you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. The trick is whether or not you'll be charged with inciting a riot or disturbing the peace. It's the same thing with a bomb. You have the right to yell "I've got a bomb!" in the middle of an airport. You're not going to be arrested because it is illegal to say you have a bomb. You'll be arrested for making statements that are perceived as a real threat to the safety of others. If you yell "I've got a banana!" no one is going to arrest you, although you may be beset by monkeys.

[Desirae]

I agree, Marzipan.

[Erika]

If you yell "I've got a banana!" no one is going to arrest you, although you may be beset by monkeys.

OT but this just nearly made me spray my monitor :rofl

[Danielle]

My stance is the same as the quote attributed to Voltaire. That is, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Free speech is the cornerstone of a democratic republic.

ITA

[Polly]

Wow, soooo many liberals on this question. Hmmmmm.......what a surprise. I didn't expect to see Ann Coulter here, either. Why is it that free speech is touted as the cornerstone of the U.S. democracy yet the Bush Administration came out this weekend to advise the Senate that the non-binding resolution on the Iraq would be construed by terrorists as lack of faith in our troops and government?

Polly

[Danielle]

I feel like people sometimes think that when someone criticizes them, or says they're wrong, that they're trying to deny them their free speech. But disagreement and criticism are part of free speech, not it's enemy. Being disagreed with, even vehemently, isn't the same as being silenced.

I completely agree with you as well Lori.

[Marzipan]

Wow, soooo many liberals on this question. Hmmmmm.......what a surprise. I didn't expect to see Ann Coulter here, either. Why is it that free speech is touted as the cornerstone of the U.S. democracy yet the Bush Administration came out this weekend to advise the Senate that the non-binding resolution on the Iraq would be construed by terrorists as lack of faith in our troops and government?

Polly


I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you clarify, please? Thank you.

[Jejune]

OK, so I'm sleepy, but I can't remember why the Supreme Court justice who said what he did about yelling fire in a crowded theater was saying it. Which case was that? Because I seem to remember disagreeing with some of it, but I can't remember anything apart from a vague feeling of unease when I saw the quote in context.

Polly, I'm a little confused as well. The Bush Administration has a vested interest in their own policies. I certainly agree with few of them, but I don't find what they said surprising. It seems to be the policy of almost any power when in office to claim that the other side is Bad.

Edited to add: Not to say that I feel easy about where the Bush administration has or might go with free speech, but I'm more worried about actions than words. They do occasionally create an environment in which hostility to certain speech is the norm, but it's not hostility we're protected against. I'm more freaked out by the idea of a "Free Speech Zone", such as we've seen designated for protesters at places like the RNC. I can go so far as to understand the reasons why such a thing might be desirable, but not so far as to get behind the idea of putting disagreeable people into a cage a safe distance from the site.

[Jo]

I am confused too Polly though I think I get what you are aiming at. While I usually am very suspicious of the administration, I do think that would make perfect sense. If we say xyz about this, then it will abc as an outcome. I don' know that I would consider that discouraging free speech as much as they believe that terrorists would be encouraged so could Congress just not do that.

Congress can still do what it feels is the correct thing to do and their freedom of speech isn't limited in any way. Sometimes I feel that just because we can do something doesn't mean we should. I could run outside and yell that I don't like me neighbors, but that certainly wouldn't be the polite thing to do nor would I have many friends after that.