Freedom of Speech as a guaranteed right?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by greygray, Dec 26, 2010.

  1. greygray macrumors 68000

    greygray

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    #1
    My cousin needs help with this question for his term test, do contribute your thoughts and opinions if possible! :)

    To what extent should freedom of speech be a guaranteed right?
     
  2. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #2
    Are you investigating if freedom of speech exists or not; or arguing that it should be a right?

    It will never completely exist no matter of any circumstances due to social controls.

    In pretty much all nations with freedom of speech, governments have interfered to prevent people from saying/doing something on numerous occasions.

    His argument could side that freedom of speech should or should not resist based on a functionality perspective

    Hypothetical example... freedom of speech often allows warnings to be given, and lack of these warnings would result in loss of life. Furthermore, the announcement of these warnings has ultimately resulted in more saved lives than lost lives.
     
  3. Cromulent macrumors 603

    Cromulent

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Location:
    The Land of Hope and Glory
    #3
    It depends what you lump in with freedom of speech. Should people be allowed to make racist remarks in public? Should people be allowed to incite a riot? Does the act of disallowing these things remove freedom of speech? I know people on both sides of the argument, but much like religion trying to get them to agree is often impossible.
     
  4. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #4
    If you like your lazy cousin, encourage him to think about this himself. Copying other peoples' ideas off the Internet isn't going to make him any smarter.
     
  5. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    This is an unnecessarily harsh comment. There is nothing wrong with soliciting others opinions to help form your own.

    My thoughts are that freedom of speech should be a right with limits regarding slander, falsehoods, racism, and hate mongering.
     
  6. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #6

    Is that what we call cheating on our homework these days? :rolleyes:
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Falsehoods? Politicians, advertisers, churchmen and CEOs would have to be like Trappists.
     
  8. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #8
    Really? So you haven't discussed topics with others to form an opinion? I would argue you have. This and firestarter's reply have added nothing to this topic.

    I believe if it doesn't cause bodily harm to someone and it doesn't interrupt things such as church services or funerals then it is ok.
     
  9. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #9
    What about a common-law wedding service or civil partnership ceremony?
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    Why should these be exempt?
     
  11. renewed macrumors 68040

    renewed

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Location:
    Bemalte Blumen duften nicht.
    #11
    Definitely. Weddings at courts as well as gay weddings or even private weddings at homes should be left alone. Peaceful gatherings should be left alone no matter the religion, the sexual preference or the political view.
     
  12. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #12
    not that they are exempted but if they are on private property (which they often are) then you do not have that freedom there.

    Also if it is a private event (on public property but not in a freedom of speech area) you are not allowed. Courts already up head that.
     
  13. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #13
    There are original thoughts and there are opinions that are influenced by others more wise then yourself. And even your original thoughts have probably been thought of by someone before you. Plagiarism is the only cheating. Opinions are frequently shared. They don't have to be original to be valid.
     
  14. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #14
    I think you mean you don't necessarily have the freedom to trespass on private property... not that the right of free speech is effected by being on private property.

    If that's the case, at my next Christmas party, I'll just tell my loud-mouthed cousin Bob that his right to shoot his mouth off has just been infringed. ;)
     
  15. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #15
    Nothing is wrong with bouncing ideas off a panel if you are looking for inspiration. Feel honored that the OP thought we were intelligent enough to ask and value our opinion. Giving guidelines to someone isn't enabling them to cheat, it's assisting them in moving in the right direction. Geez
     
  16. fivepoint macrumors 65816

    fivepoint

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2007
    Location:
    IOWA
    #16
    Censorship is a form of Tyranny. One of the worst kinds, because it almost always leads to more forms of unadulterated tyranny since the opposition has been silenced.

     
  17. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #17
    Jefferson can be quoted, but it remains for modern civil law to determine what both Censorship and Tyranny are.

    These terms are fluid, until nailed-down.
     
  18. occams razor macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2010
    Location:
    Salem, OR
    #18
    It should be guaranteed but we all know thats not the truth. dont believe me go on a plain and just say bomb and watch what happenes:D
     
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    Insofar as government using force of some sort to deny a person the right to speak his mind, it has long been accepted that the "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theater" exemption exists. Don't do that. It's directly and overtly creating danger and probably harm.

    Otherwise? I don't see it as constitutional to be assailed by the forces of the State if one casually jokes in an airport, regardless of the use of power by employees of the State.

    One can tell racist or sexist jokes without limit, although it could be held to be an incitement for a knuckle sandwich. The "fighting words" precedent. But that's a societal control, not a governmental one. One has an absolute right to be a blathering clot. That was settled at Skokie, Illinois, by the ACLU in its defense of the Nazi Party's right to be blathering clots.

    Telling lies about another person? It's not a criminal act but it can lead to a civil suit for damages--so redress exists, imperfect as it may be. (The first-ever civil tort case filed in Texas came about after some man claimed publicly that, "[Some woman] let a big, fat fart!" Sorry; no cite; I read it in some law magazine or book fifty or sixty years ago.)

    As far as lies and politicians, why do you think they want to control the Internet? Utoob is worse than Wikileaks for never-ending embarrassment. :D
     
  20. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #20
    It's an important distinction to make.

    Although often confused as a first amendment guarantee (I'm talking to you, Dr. Laura) no one is protected from society's reaction to their words. While you can say anything you damn well please, so can other people in response. Free speech cuts both ways. It's not an infringement of your rights if I tell you to "Shut the 'eff up!"
     
  21. greygray thread starter macrumors 68000

    greygray

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    #21
    Thank you for that insightful comment Huntn. BTT, but FOS allows to say what you want without fear of government reprisal even if it is morally repugnant and offensive to 99.9% of the populace, so wouldn't that be a bad or good thing? After all, Obama can say what he wants but we have the right to dispute what he says, even though he's President and we are just ordinary citizens.
     
  22. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #22
    well how about speech that might "create anxiety in the citizenry," "alter public order," or "disrespect public authorities" ?
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    Likewise, I see no valid reason to except these. Only shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is a valid exception, IMO.
     
  24. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #24
    So is the KKK being denied their right to free speech when the city denies them a permit to march down a main thoroughfare in a predominately black/African American area of town?

    (I seem to think there was a court case on this very topic many years ago...).
     
  25. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #25
    In some cases, it is akin to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
     

Share This Page