General discussion

Locked

chilling of free speech

By patatty ·
This leads inevitably to the chilling of free speech in that pretty soon people will be unwilling to run the risk of allowing speech (here, images) which might be illegal because if they err, then they will be criminally liable. Not good. Who, after all, decides what is to be criminal and what is to be legal? currently, the congress/legislatures define that and the courts & juries interpret those laws. this would result in a bureaucracy, a highly political animal, defining it. This, frankly, leads to the thought police. People such as mullahs, Pat Robertson, etc., would be put into place as the b'crats because they would love to seek the post so as to enforce their views upon the citizenry.
You get the same result when you pass laws which forbid advocacy of certain views. To wit, the prosecution and conviction with prison sentence of a journalist who advocated that the holocaust was a hoax. While it is clear that he is completely full of it, (I know this to be true not only from well established history, but also directly from my dad who fought over there....), the next thing will be to forbid the advocacy of gay marriage. These people wish to protect marriage (although it is not clear just how it is under attack)by creating a second class of citizen who is not entitled to the same protections the rest of us enjoy. Lest you doubt this, ask yourself, if interracial marriages would have been permitted by these holier than thou types?
In any event, review the case of the journalist, and ask yourself if that is the type of control over freedom of speech you want here. Because, in the end run, this is a thinly disguised assault not on child pornography, but in reality upon all pornography, and it will eventually play out that way.If this is permitted as a proper method of enforcement/definition of crime, then freedom of speech will go down the tubes in short order.

well, wasn't that a nice ramble? didn't address the technical aspect, but sometimes the technical aspect isn;'t the *really* big issue...

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

4 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

1st amendment

by Oz_Media In reply to chilling of free speech

I have found that the majority of Americans I speak with, often have a misconstrued understanding of the right to free speech.

The first amendment does NOT state that you can say what you want in the press, it does not state that you can make assertions in a public arena without repercussion. It does not protect people who want to say whetever they want, whenever they want, as too many Americans feel it does. Perhaps these misunderstood laws is why Americans feel they have some special government rights afforded to them that most other countries don't, not so though. We ALL have freedom of speech, in most free, domocratic countries, not just the states. All the first ammendment does is state that CONGRESS shall not pass a law to inhibit such speech. It does not mean that all speech is acceptable and goes without penalty. You can still break laws while speaking freely, even without congress passing a law.

YOu will find that in MOST cases where reporters are jailed etc. It is VERY rarely due to their speaqking freely, but instead by breaking a related law. This is how they find a way to restrain you while not breaking constitutional law. I would like to see EXACTLY what the charges were in your cited examples. Not what the incarcerated person feels they were charged with but what actual charge brought on the arrest. I promise you it will not be due to excercising freedom of speech in reporting.

You need to get a grip on reality anyway, The White House adminttedly censors war reports and has done since WWII. Do you REALLY thin you get the whole story ferom Iraq? Of course you don't I've seen the full reports, compared to the edited 'Reader's Digest condensed version' shown on US networks.


So what DOES the freedom of speech protect?

"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."

Simply the passing of a restrictive and repressive law by congress, that's all.

Don't expect it to be what it isn't, most other people in free countries enjoy this freedom without needing to cite a violation of rights when they go too far.

Collapse -

What are you talking about?

by stress junkie In reply to chilling of free speech

"This leads inevitably to the chilling of free speech ..."

What leads inevitably to the chilling of free speech? Are you commenting on an article or on another discussion or what?

Collapse -

Self imposed, with little understanding of the topic of complaint

by Oz_Media In reply to What are you talking abou ...

I think it was a self imposed 'what if' scenario based on the few weak scenarios listed.

But all in all, the comments have absolutely NOTHING to do with free speech, so it simply makes no logical sense or argument at all.

As the poster said: "currently, the congress/legislatures define that and the courts & juries interpret those laws"

...exactly, so CONGRESS plays no part in such laws, and therefore this has NOTHING to do with the first ammendment, because the first ammendment stops CONGRESS FROM PASSING A LAW..

If anything, Congress has actually protected free speech here, because they have refraqined from pasing a law stating as much. It's up to those wild and whacky redkneck state laws now, y'hear?

Collapse -

Journlist

by Oz_Media In reply to chilling of free speech

What journalist?

If you are speaking of David Irving, he was not protected by the US Bill of Rights before going to Vienna for a 3-year sentence, he's wasn't American and he was tried under Austrian law.

"Austria has Europe's toughest law criminalising denial of the Holocaust."

There are still some countries that allow freedom of most speech but have limits, such as denying the holocaust where other legislation comes into play, such as plagiarism or racial hate speech. Not everything you read in the news is even 50% accurate, most of it is manufactured or taken out of context for the reader's enjoyment.

Back to Desktop Forum
4 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Forums