Right to Free Speech

from JoeUser Forums
I think one of the most misunderstood parts of the constitution is the right to free speech.

I believe that, when the constitution was written, the framers did not envision a world where people would actually utter seditious thoughts against the government. Indeed, their every entreaty with the Mother Country prior to the revolution were well written, well thought out diatribes which took great care to consider the station and position of King George and his men; and they took great efforts not to offend in such missives. One could call the revolution a case of misunderstanding, as King George clearly did not see the amicable attempts at resolution clearly present in the writings of the founding fathers.

As such, the implications of the first amendment are obvious: any disagreement with the government or another individual must be respectful, and must not contain a hint of revolutionary thought or zeal. The founding fathers clearly felt we were to be servile to the state and that immediate and swift reaction to any speech that uttered a position opposing such a condition was essential to the preservation of a democracy. Free speech was meant primarily for the government, under controlled, supervised conditions; it was not intended for the citizenry.

signing off,

Gideon MacLeish
politics
6,918 views 22 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
you seem to have forgotten patrick henry and thomas paine?
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Not true. The founding fathers were at one time citizens. the only difference between their wording and current wording is the society and times that they lived in.
CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the first ammendment was written to protect all political discourse, but not smear campaigns or stuff like pornography.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's why there are libel/slander/obscenity laws Madine....

M
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
Pornography is not covered by the right to free speach, however it is covered by the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Now I ask you, if it is the right, nay, the duty, of the people to abolish an unjust institution, how are they to do it if they are not allowed to discuss it, be their words civil or "slanderous."

Mind you, I firmly believe that discourse should be both civil and respectful, but as someone else said, I think the tone of discussion we see now a days is more an outgrowth of current times and the way people speak in general than anything else.

I guess I'm just not sure where you're going with this one Gideon.

Pornography is not covered by the right to free speach, however it is covered by the right to the pursuit of happiness.


Damn straight! >8)
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok, I'm going to pull the mask off of this one now. I have no long term endurance abilities.

This was written as a piece of satire, and it elicited some of the comments I was hoping to receive. I will get to my point at the end of this response.

you seem to have forgotten patrick henry and thomas paine?


Correct, kingbee. Exactly the reason I addressed this the way I did. What I wrote was not the facts, and could not even be construed as a reasonable revisionist version of such.

Not true. The founding fathers were at one time citizens. the only difference between their wording and current wording is the society and times that they lived in.


Again, correct.

I think the first ammendment was written to protect all political discourse, but not smear campaigns or stuff like pornography.


I believe the first amendment was written for very clear purposes, and that pornography should have equal protection, providing it does not target nor exploit anyone who does not consent to such.

That's why there are libel/slander/obscenity laws Madine....


That's why I didn't touch the smear campaigns part. History did it for me . Thanks for the assist.

Pornography is not covered by the right to free speach, however it is covered by the right to the pursuit of happiness.


The right to the pursuit of happiness is, incidentally, not in the Constitution. The fact, however, that many of the writers are the same as those who wrote the Declaration of Independence does go a long way to proving intent.

Now I ask you, if it is the right, nay, the duty, of the people to abolish an unjust institution, how are they to do it if they are not allowed to discuss it, be their words civil or "slanderous."Mind you, I firmly believe that discourse should be both civil and respectful, but as someone else said, I think the tone of discussion we see now a days is more an outgrowth of current times and the way people speak in general than anything else.I guess I'm just not sure where you're going with this one Gideon.



Finally, ok, shitzu...here's where I am going with this.

The Bill of Rights were written for an express and specific reason. While there may be resultant actions of many of our rights that make us uncomfortable, we really need to ask ourselves: is our comfort worth destroying the constitution that provides us with the rights and privileges we enjoy as Americans?

I have seen many individuals who are going to great lengths to destroy one section or another of the Bill of Rights, without trying to discern the reason they are there. This is one reason I am a Libertarian: they are the ONLY fairly prominent party that treats the Bill of Rights IN ITS ENTIRETY as untouchable.

Of specific concern to me are some of the thoughts expressed on someone sandy2 recent "Right to Bear Arms" post. I had hoped my title would clue in some of my more frequent readers, but I don't think it accomplished its purpose. The thing is, the right to bear arms is not about deer hunting; never has been. In the replies to the aforementioned post, I mention the historical context on which this amendment is based; I won't repeat it here.

Suffice it to say, if you touch one of our freedoms, you compromise them all. Please consider this seriously before pushing too hard for legislation that would compromise rights that are essential to the proper functioning of the Republic.

Excellent replies all, by the way.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
This was written as a piece of satire, and it elicited some of the comments I was hoping to receive.


You rogue! I thought this article was at odds with the political views you express, but I guess I wanted to quote that one part of the Declaration of Independence so badly that I let my good sense abandon me, and I fell for it >8).

And I wholeheartedly agree that our rights should not be compromised for the sake of comfort. I think the positives of free speech far outweight any percieved negatives.

As to the right to bear arms, I have very mixed feelings about the issue itself, but it's definitely true that the meaning, as it is expressed in the Bill of Rights, in no way applies to shooting deer, it is meant as a safeguard against the choke of tyranny and oppresion, going along with the text I bolded in my original post.

I don't know if I agree that widespread gun ownership is the best means of ensuring our liberty is maintained, but I certainly do agree that it is something worth fighting for.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know if I agree that widespread gun ownership is the best means of ensuring our liberty is maintained, but I certainly do agree that it is something worth fighting for.


I would agree with this. Frankly, I do not own a gun, and believe that we, as a culture are far more prone to violence over diplomacy, but that's a moral judgement, not one that belongs so heavily in the political sphere.

I have always found it ironic that Republicans often want to trample on one portion of the Bill of Rights, while Democrats often want to trample on another portion. Both sides do so while hiding behind yet OTHER portions of the Bill of Rights, and not realizing the double standard that they are applying.

As to freedom of speech/the press, that has an interesting history of application in the United States, as Howard Zinn pointed out in his "People's History of the United States". Basically (I can't cite the court cases), the ink was barely dry on the constitution before the SCOTUS made a de facto decision that freedom of the press meant freedom TO PRODUCE the writings of the press, not necessarily freedom from prosecution after the fact.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon:

Nice job. It's interesting that one of Jefferson's most quoted phrases is "better a free press than a free government." Jefferson, the ultimate free thinker amongst the framers of the declaration (in more ways than one) always saw change as a positive in society and the press as the ultimate vehicle of change.

Then, of course, Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner came along and made it the ultimate vehicle of commercialism. Wonder whether Mr. Jefferson would rollover in his grave?
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have always found it ironic that Republicans often want to trample on one portion of the Bill of Rights, while Democrats often want to trample on another portion. Both sides do so while hiding behind yet OTHER portions of the Bill of Rights, and not realizing the double standard that they are applying.


I've said this so many times in real life... more towards left and right... but the idea is the same... good observation.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ha, I knew you couldn't be serious about your "interpretation".
Reply #13 from PolMach Forums Top

Pornography is not covered by the right to free speach, however it is covered by the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Nowhere in any of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights are we guranteed the right to the pursuit of happiness.
This is a common public misnomer. That statement actually comes from the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

The pilgrims that came to America and helped establish the colonies were puritans who came to practice their religion freely. They never intended religion to be seperate from government, only that the government itself could not establish a set religion. The fact that some have wrapped porn in the flag is a testament to their misunderstanding the principles and concepts our framers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson had this to say,

"[I consider] ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Augustus B. Woodward, 1824. ME 16:19

Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Pornography is not covered by the right to free speach, however it is covered by the right to the pursuit of happiness.

Nowhere in any of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights are we guranteed the right to the pursuit of happiness.
This is a common public misnomer. That statement actually comes from the Declaration of Independence.


deference;

lol...I already said that, but thanks for reiterating...lol

as I said in my response, though...as the framers of the Declaration were many of the same framers as the Constitution, the aforementioned statement in the Declaration goes a long way towards establishing the intent of the founding fathers.

Thanks for the reply.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
hahah.. Deference,
"[I consider] ethics, as well as religion, as supplements to law in the government of man."


Ethics are something that can be interpreted in many ways. As can religion. Further, I'm not a religious expert but do all religions specifically denounce pornography?
Also, I admit I was wrong on the pursuit of happiness. However, citing the 9th ammendment to the constitution "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.". I would arguee that one such right that shall not be denied to me would be to view what ever material I deemed fit.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
Very true, Sandy. I think our society has objectified women to such an extreme that it has become morally abhorrent and porn is just one small piece of that. The main point in my prior post is that I don't believe the framers of the constitution necessarily had porn in mind when they spelled out the first amendment, much the same as they didn't think of rocket launchers when they crafted the second.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
The main point in my prior post is that I don't believe the framers of the constitution necessarily had porn in mind when they spelled out the first amendment,


I'm not so sure about that. Ben Franklin, at least, was quite the dirty old man...lol, and I admire him for it...

on a serious note, though, I do think that freedom of the press was meant to include porn. Despite the "cleaning up" many of our historians have done, bawdy behavior was very much a tradition of the times. It always has been.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
sandy,

I meant to ask: what happened to your articles? I was enjoying some of the discussions you were starting.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
on a serious note, though, I do think that freedom of the press was meant to include porn. Despite the "cleaning up" many of our historians have done, bawdy behavior was very much a tradition of the times. It always has been.


Have you seen some of the "political cartoons" coming out of France at about that time or even earlier when Voltaire was around? It was definitely not aimed at a family audience. There's no way that stuff would have passed the censors today.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
gideon, I have been very busy sadly, but hope to start some new articles later tonight or tommarow. Thanks.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Have you seen some of the "political cartoons" coming out of France at about that time or even earlier when Voltaire was around? It was definitely not aimed at a family audience. There's no way that stuff would have passed the censors today.


Excellent point. Pornigraphy existed long before the photograph. I wonder how many pornographic cave drawings anthropologists have hidden from us....lol