Freedom of Speech

from JoeUser Forums

What is freedom of speech?  According to most online dictionary freedom of speech is a civil right guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "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."

As you read that in light of current events, I'm sure just like me, you might have had several questions arise.  Example, what is peaceably? I'm sticking with my current question of what is freedom of speech though.

In reality, freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and is subject to limitations.  Since some individuals here at JU seem to have a problem with absolute let me define absolute to you according to websters '1. perfect or complete 2. complete and without restriction or qualification 3. not limited by law'.  Essentially, according to logic a part does not represent the whole (example a tire does not represent a car nor does something having tires make it car).  The absolute part here is pertaining to other posts and is in itself another possible future post.  I am looking at freedom of speech here.

The article that I am referencing and that brings me concern is what Helen Thomas said about Jews should go back to their home countries.  Helen Thomas is of Lebanese descent (she should go back to Lebanon and see how much freedom of speech she would have there).  Now, what she says does not concern me per say.  Nor do comments from several leaders that she should be stripped of her White House correspondence title or should be fired/suspended from Hearst.  What concerns me are people's comments to those comments. 

Here are a few examples: "Please tell me what's wrong with Helen telling Jews to go back to their previous homelands. Perhaps, she believes their lives would be better there. People are too eager to condemn views that don't parrot the conventional wisdom. Her critics are the truly intolerant. Poor Helen's only mistake was believing in free speech!"

"While I totally disagree with Helen, I am just wondering what happened to "Free Speech"? Right or Wrong, good or bad, we used to have the right to say what we wanted, no matter how wrong we were in saying it. Maybe we should be more concerned about our freedoms, that how wrong Helen is."

"As much as I disagree with her abuse of position to insert racist opinions into the news, I cannot bring myself to penalize someone for speaking their mind. If you can, I fear for our freedoms."

There are rights to having freedom of speech as well as consequences (positive and negative) that go along with this right.  Like the waitress who got fired for facebooking about how some customers stayed a long time and gave her a lousy tip.  Or If spoke about my current employer in a negative light/manner, I too could be fired.  Furthermore, say I would go to a black supremacist rally (which I would never do for I am not black nor am I supremacist) that was held in a public setting and some newsperson took my picture.  My company could (please note that I am not saying would here for there is a possibility that I may not as well) fire me for this as well.  If you think about it if I did get fired is the newsperson liable for anything that happens to me even though they were enacting there right to press/freedom of speech.  If my house gets ransacked or my family starts to get harassed because of that picture or story, would the reporter be responsible?

There are consequences to freedom of speech, right.........?

 

 

politics
7,436 views 12 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top

Just because there are consequences to the freedom of speech does not mean you don't have the freedom of speech.  It just means that you need to put a little thought behind what is being spoken, which I understand that probably most people from the States have an easy time at refraining their thoughts and not their speech. 

Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

which I understand that probably most people from the States have an easy time at refraining their thoughts and not their speech.
End of quote

This used to be called diarrhea of the mouth. ;)

Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I find it interesting and quite amusing that media people & members of the left are defending Helen's right to be offensive (with which I agree, BTW) while at the same time decrying 'hate speech' from the right and proposing the de facto return of the 'fairness doctrine'.

I believe we all have (and should keep) the right to be offensive.  We should also be responsible for what we say and if there are consequences to our speech that negatively impact us then so be it.  Demanding that Helen be fired or have her WH press credentials pulled is not the correct response; either ignoring or shining a bright light on her would be the appropriate thing to do in a free society.  Let shame do its work.  (Looks like she's taken the hint & decided to 'retire' from what I hear).

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

There are a couple of choice quotes from left-leaning sources condemning Helen's comments but defending her right to make them that I'll link to later and that should be forwarded to the relevant congressional committee when the bill to ban 'hate' & bring 'fairness' back to the airwaves comes up.

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

Let shame do its work.
End of quote

It has to be applied evenly in order to work correctly. Unfortunately, Daiwa, you pointed that out with a great example.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

You are mixing up the right.  The right of free speech is from government penalties and actions.  Helen Thomas broke no laws.  That is the freedom of speech.  But that freedom is not absolute in 2 respects (let's ignore the fire in a theater part for the moment).  The first is that while you can say anything you want, no one can be forced to listen to you.  So if a tree falls in the forest, yada, yada, yada.

The second is that your employer, neighbor, minister or acquaintance is not bound by the rules of government.  They do not make laws.  But they have the right to hire and fire you, befriend you or not, condemn you or sanctify you.  So while Helen Thomas can say whatever she wants, her employer can say whatever they want too!  And they said "You are Fired".

Helen Thomas exercised her right.  So did Hearst (yes, I know she resigned - like the confession you get from someone with a 45 pointed at their head).

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Shame can't be 'applied' evenly - you either suffer from it or you don't.  Nothing to keep Al-Jazeera from hiring her.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Dr. Guy -

You are right about the distinction.  Constitutional freedom of speech protections can't force us to listen to speech or pay any attention to it.  With the exception of statutory limitations on discrimination, our freedom of association rights also allow us to choose not to associate with (e.g., fire) someone at will.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

I do agree that she should be allowed to say what she wants.

Doc, I understand what you're saying.  I know that she broke no laws. The point of the post was that there are consequences to our freedom of speech.  Whether those consequences affect us directly or indirectly.   That's what I was getting at.  That those commentors were making it seem like we can say whatever we want (which we can) and not expect there to be any consequences or how dare someone do something to me for something I said.  I could just be reading into what those commentors are saying.

An example would be the West Boro Baptist.  They give christians a horrible name.  Say, they're protesting something and they're inciting a group of people.  There is a person not affliated with either the group of people or West Boro and that individual gets jumped by the group.  If you want I can be more specific that situation happened to me.  You can also look at the port authority cop (I think this took place in LA) who shot the black individual and the news footage that set off a riot.  That group of people and the rioters are responisble for what they did YET at least in the West Boro Baptist cased the group of people were being antagonize. If you got in the way of those rioters and had nothing to do with any of the situation.  Both the group of people and the rioters what they did was wrong. I am not saying what the news reporter or West Boro Baptist did that they don't have the right to do that, but when their freedom of speech has a causality on my freedom that's what I'm saying.

When we open our mouths we should realize that what we say has consequences.  I'm not saying that someone (a la Big Brother)  should stop us from opening our mouths but there are consequences that might affect us directly, indirectly, or not at all (but may affect someone else).  I guess I'm getting at accountablity. 

I've been typing and retyping this thing for the past 30/45 minutes.  I hope this makes some sense or a little sense.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top

That those commentors were making it seem like we can say whatever we want (which we can) and not expect there to be any consequences or how dare someone do something to me for something I said.
End of quote

That is a good point.  Too often those yelling "freedom of speech" do not understand what the freedom is, or that it can have non-governmental consequences.  And I threw in the stuff about listening, because often people think their freedom of speech obligates others to listen to them.

An example would be the West Boro Baptist.
End of quote

As a side bar, the objection I have to Westboro is that a funeral is a private ceremony!  So their free speech does not apply. 

Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top

Personally, I'd pay to see Golda Meir & Helen have at it.  Wonder if they ever did.  Too bad Golda's not available.

I think I know who'd get the better of that exchange.

Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Personally, I'd pay to see Golda Meir & Helen have at it.
End of quote

They have a show called Deadliest Warriors (computer matchups).  Perhaps they can do it there! ;)