|
|
Post by hunter480 on Apr 28, 2007 7:53:20 GMT -5
Due to the debate over the appropriateness of the arrest of the student in another thread, caused by his sick essay, and the adamant response that his essay is/should be covered by the First Amendment, I wonder what you think…………..
Are there limits on the freedom of speech? What about pornography? Kiddie Porn? Music that incites youth to commit suicide, murder, theft, idolize a culture of wanton disregard for others, promotes a crime filled existence.
You tell me-Does the First Amendments have limits?
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 28, 2007 8:07:08 GMT -5
"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."
Seems pretty plain and simple....... whether we like it or not. As perverse as something might be, we aren't the judge/jury/executioner. What I CAN do, is teach my children what is right, wrong, decent, & obscene. What I THINK you are testing the waters with in regards to infringing on those protected freedoms to prohibit some sick and disturbed individuals from exposing the rest of us to their slime is really no different than the anti's wanting to erode our Second Amendment rights. Slippery slopes all over the place......
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Apr 28, 2007 8:35:06 GMT -5
Yelling fire in a theater ok?
|
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on Apr 28, 2007 8:44:27 GMT -5
While I was in college, I had the great oppurtunity to hear Stanley Fish speak. He is a constitutional scholar, and an expert on the First Ammendment. His perspective was very insightful, and I will attempt to recreate some of his points here.
First, he would be the first to tell you that the FA does not protect illegal acts. Pornography using children under the age of 18 is illegal. The FA does not protect that.
A more interesting point that he made, and one that I know REALLY bothered the left on campus was that while you have the right to say whatever you want under the FA, I have the equal right under the FA to tell you are a flaming idiot that that I wish I didn't have to hear you. The FA is also not assurance that anyone has to listen to you when you speak, it only says that THE GOVERNMENT will not tell you things you can't say. If your boss tells you that he doesn't like the word "window", and fires you for using it, that is technically, not covered by the FA. The ACLU disagrees, but, who cares what they think anyway.
The FA is intended to keep limits from being formed on public opinion and the speaking of the public will. By definition the ACLU is one of the largest FA violators there is. It is the ACLU that has worked to pass restrictions and laws on what people can say about other people to keep from hurting their feelings.
It's a bad deal overall really...the nature of the FA makes it a paradox...
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 28, 2007 8:49:34 GMT -5
Yes.......it is ok.....if there is a fire.  You can get into debates over the semantics of the first amendment (or any amendment) from here to eternity. No freedoms are absolute. |
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 28, 2007 8:51:18 GMT -5
Was that a personal attack? LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on Apr 28, 2007 8:53:47 GMT -5
I'm sure it will be skewed that way...
|
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Apr 28, 2007 9:31:15 GMT -5
Yes.......it is ok.....if there is a fire. You can get into debates over the semantics of the first amendment (or any amendment) from here to eternity. No freedoms are absolute. Not trying to be difficult BSU-but in your earlier post, you said the First Amendment was pretty straightforward, which I took to mean, couldn`t be infringed in any way-now you say no freedoms are absolute-could you expound? |
|
|
|
Post by duff on Apr 28, 2007 9:45:28 GMT -5
It cracks me some of you will blame the music, TV, computers, liberals, conservatives, government, schools, and a whole list of other contributing factors.
Then in the next post say guns don't cause crimes, people do.
As Earl Pitts would say "WAKE UP AMERICA" place the blame where it belongs. The individual, the parents. Not what music, tv, or other crap they might
|
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on Apr 28, 2007 10:43:30 GMT -5
Really have to go with Duff on this one. As a child of the 90's I have grown up with angry music, violent video game, guns, and even grew up in a broken home. All of the ingredients to make the worst that the human race has to offer. While I'm sure there are some who don't like me and would disagree, this couldn' be further from the truth. Some people are deranged, mental basketcases. Their twisted mind will find a scapegoat to esuage their own responsability for their life. Others, use music with angry lyrics, or grand theft auto as an outlet, rather than reality. After bad days in college, I went to my dorm room, turned on the playstation, and blew up a city block, or went on a rampage in Grand Theft Auto, all the while listening to some Stabbing Westward, and allowing myself to be angry and let it out. How is this destructive? As a well adjusted, mentally stable young adult, I understand that music and video games are not real. They are expressions of a reality like existance. Individuals are responsible for their actions. Millions of people lead lives they are unhappy with and don't go bat  crazy and start shooting people. America needs to quit letting the bottom 5% rule what the other 95% does. Easily 5% of the population has some sort of major defect that prevents them from being a contributing member of society. 5% unemployment is 0% unemplyoment because 5% of the people are unemployable. They are lazy, or drug addicts, or con artists or theives. In the worst case they are hermit headcases who write manifestos and pleasure themselves to the thought of going on a shooting rampage in downtown Anywhere, USA. Why is our country so interested in catering the lives of the rest of us, to that headcase? |
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Apr 28, 2007 10:53:08 GMT -5
Exactly! Anyone is free to say any foolish thing they wish, however, contrary to popular opinion, they are not free of the consequences from doing so.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on Apr 28, 2007 10:59:54 GMT -5
Exactly! Anyone is free to say any foolish thing they wish, however, contrary to popular opinion, they are not free of the consequences from doing so. You said it much more clearly than I did. Thank you. I am entirely to angry to type and make much sense...haha |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Apr 28, 2007 11:31:04 GMT -5
I'll always err on the side of liberty.
Most of our limitations on liberty have proven to be at best ineffective, and quite often counter-productive.
The main effect of drug legislation is to provide a near-perfect market for illegal drugs, thereby resulting in increased usage.
Our restrictions on "bad words" to prevent them from being used to shock society, are what gives those words their shock value.
One of the best books I've ever read to illustrate the transition in thought from a boy raised in an environment of slavery and complete segregation, to a person who sees the humanity of the individual as more important than his racial or social origin, Twain's "Huck Finn", is now banned from school libraries as being "racist" because it uses the "n" word. We're losing a very powerful literary tool that can actually help shape a person's mind towards a truly color-blind society, because the thought police can only react to one word at a time, and have no idea what the entire book means.
I haven't read the other thread yet. Was going to skip it like I skip the "Jerry Springer Show", on the general suspicion that it would be thread that I wouldn't care to participate in. Might read it now that you've titillated me with the thought about a first amendment right being trampled by the thought police.......8^)
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Apr 29, 2007 6:54:22 GMT -5
Since this is really about the other thread, I'll pull it back to there. This is a mental health issue, not a criminal issue; (at least at this time). That move was nothing more than politics and it just disgusts me. At one time we treated the sick just like the criminal, I had hoped we were beyond that, I guess not. Sounds like the boy needs looked at and then go from there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bsutravis on Apr 29, 2007 8:16:58 GMT -5
The true protection of the 1st was to prevent persecution for political statements against the gov't. Of course, over time it's grown as an end all protection for ALL speech & expression. In the pure sense, it is straightforward....Congress has never abridged the freedom of speech as it relates to how an individual can voice their opinion of the gov't, OR the same for the press...both in voice and print. That is what I meant when I said it sounded plain and simple to me. Now, certainly INDIVIDUAL freedoms have been constrained, most notably by Justice Holmes (1919) principle of "Clear and Present Danger," which generally uses your reference of yelling FIRE! in a theater. The same also goes more recently for sexual harassment...you can't tell that hot co-worker what you are really thinking or else risk getting canned and sued. Anyways...... Where I felt your post going in regards to the sick-o kid's essay was to somehow pass legislation to prohibit such distasteful and perverse speech... In principle, I agree with you that he's a sick teen that needs help, but if you are willing to pass YOUR judgments onto his actions by means of the gov't stepping in and somehow outlawing such disturbing writings/essays/stories/speech...... Than you'd better hold tighter to that Glock, cause what you are suggesting is no different than the anti's wanting to step in and cease your behavior with the firearm of your choosing since THEY feel that YOU are out of the norm. Just a game of Devil's Advocate is all...... |
|
|
|
Post by drgreyhound on Apr 30, 2007 5:41:45 GMT -5
Exactly! Anyone is free to say any foolish thing they wish, however, contrary to popular opinion, they are not free of the consequences from doing so. Exactly what I was thinking! |
|
|
|
Post by DEERTRACKS on Apr 30, 2007 6:16:47 GMT -5
Freedom of speech also has counterparts. Freedom to ignore & freedom to refute. Our founding fathers were so very brilliant.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on Apr 30, 2007 7:31:04 GMT -5
Freedom of speech also has counterparts. Freedom to ignore & freedom to refute. Our founding fathers were so very brilliant. This is true, unless your ignoring a "problem" the left deems "important, or you are "refuting" something the left holds as gospel. As long as you do neither of those you are free to ignore and refute. However, ignore or refute something the ACLU, NAACP, HSUS, or UN deem to important or true, and you sir, will be called every name in the book, and made to be an evil villian working for the "man" to keep every un-white non-male from acheiving. |
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Apr 30, 2007 14:22:20 GMT -5
The Bill of Rights does not apply to students in a school setting. Their are some court cases where this precedent was set.
|
|
|
|
Post by tmarsh83 on Apr 30, 2007 19:52:18 GMT -5
The bill of rights doesnt apply to children. Period, that has also been set.
|
|
You can get into debates over the semantics of the first amendment (or any amendment) from here to eternity. No freedoms are absolute. 
