Freedom of Speech

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Layla,

Government "step in"? Limits on speech should come from the legislature, who are elected by the people. And only after a long public debate. The government shouldn't "step in" at all.

Is that not a branch of the government?

I think it's clear I'm not up to par on politics and the like.

Yes, the branch that makes laws. If by government stepping in, you mean initiate the lengthy process of creating a new restriction to the First Amendment, sure... if you meant circumvent it through the courts or through some form of emergency measure, I would have to disagree.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Yes, the branch that makes laws. If by government stepping in, you mean initiate the lengthy process of creating a new restriction to the First Amendment, sure... if you meant circumvent it through the courts or through some form of emergency measure, I would have to disagree.

OK but if that step was taken and a restriction voted in, then the government... police, courts, etc.... would have the authority to step in and put a stop to those who just wish to cause problems?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Yes, the branch that makes laws. If by government stepping in, you mean initiate the lengthy process of creating a new restriction to the First Amendment, sure... if you meant circumvent it through the courts or through some form of emergency measure, I would have to disagree.

OK but if that step was taken and a restriction voted in, then the government... police, courts, etc.... would have the authority to step in and put a stop to those who just wish to cause problems?

Well first, the ACLU would probably challenge the restriction in court

Gotta love this country.

[Veiled Princess 1]

[Well first, the ACLU would probably challenge the restriction in court

Gotta love this country.

How could it be challenged if there was a vote and the majority wanted it restricted?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[Well first, the ACLU would probably challenge the restriction in court

Gotta love this country.

How could it be challenged if there was a vote and the majority wanted it restricted?

Laws can be unconstitutional. We are a constitutional republic, that means no mob rule.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Laws can be unconstitutional. We are a constitutional republic, that means no mob rule.

I thought we were a democracy?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Laws can be unconstitutional. We are a constitutional republic, that means no mob rule.

I thought we were a democracy?

All laws must be constitiutional. The 'bar' for amending the constitution is much higher than the 'bar' for passing a law. If you need more information, you're going to have to do some reading of your own, Layla.

[pedroh 21]

Laws can be unconstitutional. We are a constitutional republic, that means no mob rule.

I thought we were a democracy?

nope.. US of A is a Republic

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Yes, the branch that makes laws. If by government stepping in, you mean initiate the lengthy process of creating a new restriction to the First Amendment, sure... if you meant circumvent it through the courts or through some form of emergency measure, I would have to disagree.

OK but if that step was taken and a restriction voted in, then the government... police, courts, etc.... would have the authority to step in and put a stop to those who just wish to cause problems?

Well first, the ACLU would probably challenge the restriction in court

Gotta love this country.

gotta love it. can't have the 10 commandments displayed, but child molesters can go free on a minor technicality

[gimygirl 0]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Let's please restrict this thread to freedom of speech discussion and not drag other things in here...

No right is absolute.

Therefore, freedom of speech must also not be absolute. Limited, in other words.

The big question is, what are the limits?

I disagree with people who say the limits are the boundaries of bad taste. I am free to look at two homosexual men kissing and say dude that's nasty. JMHO. I am also free to tell people who are bound by medieval superstition that they are living a lie. I am NOT free to direct people, by means of free speech, that murder or assassination or genocide is ok or desirable. That is where I draw the limit.

But it doesn't really matter where I choose to draw the limit. We live in a society where public opinion matters. I am just one member of that public. My opinion matters but I must obey the laws set by the society I live in. If this country were to make it illegal to say certain things, I would not say them... even if I wanted to. Instead, I would do what I can to change the law.

Well said. Probably the most controversial example of what some believe to be protected free speech is the organization, NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assoc). The ACLU has defended that organization's publications which has caused quite a stir. Although no one has filed criminal charges against the organization, a civil suit has been going on for awhile. The parents of a boy who was raped and murdered by two pedophiles - in their belongings the police found some NAMBLA publications. The parent's attorney is suing the organization for the wrongful death of their son.

I don't see how a publication like that can be protected free speech, but I do understand the ACLU's line of thinking that if even the most heinous and vulgar forms of speech are not protected, then where do we draw the line. The National Rifle Assoc (NRA) has that same zeal for the right to bear arms - they oppose any type of restrictions or regulations. Law is complicated no matter how you slice it.

[Veiled Princess 1]

NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assoc).

Are you kidding??? I thought that was just a joke on South Park!!!

[desert_fox 32]

Your freedom of speech could get you involved in a law suit if your defame someones character by uttering false statements. This is known as slander. The only absolute freedom of speech is on the floor of the US Senate and US House of Reps. They are immune from any tort liability.

The US Supreme court has already ruled on yelling fire in a crowded theatre as freedom of speech as being illegal. There are other illegal forms also.

[gimygirl 0]

Let's please restrict this thread to freedom of speech discussion and not drag other things in here...

Laws can be unconstitutional. We are a constitutional republic, that means no mob rule.

I thought we were a democracy?

NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assoc).

Are you kidding??? I thought that was just a joke on South Park!!!

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Well said. Probably the most controversial example of what some believe to be protected free speech is the organization, NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Assoc). The ACLU has defended that organization's publications which has caused quite a stir. Although no one has filed criminal charges against the organization, a civil suit has been going on for awhile. The parents of a boy who was raped and murdered by two pedophiles - in their belongings the police found some NAMBLA publications. The parent's attorney is suing the organization for the wrongful death of their son.

I don't see how a publication like that can be protected free speech, but I do understand the ACLU's line of thinking that if even the most heinous and vulgar forms of speech are not protected, then where do we draw the line. The National Rifle Assoc (NRA) has that same zeal for the right to bear arms - they oppose any type of restrictions or regulations. Law is complicated no matter how you slice it.

i am still shaking my head over that nambla bit. at least the nra is not lusting after little boys.

one thought - if the nra has it's way and arms everyone, won't the nambla crowd be thinned out?