Opinion Question
Argument
Posted by:

No but that doesn't mean free speech can be used as an excuse to validate other behavior.

  Arresting those protesting on private "no trespassing" property is not a denial of free speech. I really get irked about that kind of misrepresentation and people crying over first amendment rights. Death threats are not a form of free speech. They are a threat. Calling a soldier that has never done anything but served his country in good faith a "baby killer" is defamation of character. You say that to someone that is being tried or investigated, that is a gray area. You say that to someone that has been convicted it is free speech. Protest that the government should give amnesty to illegals? It's an opinion, and free speech as long as you don't do it on my private property. It's when freedom of speech isn't freedom of speech that the problem arises. "Hate Speech" is freedom of speech to the extent that the language used does not incite or encourage violence or violation of the law. There is a huge difference in toting a sign that says "No more (fill in the blank) and "Yes, send us more dead (fill in the blank)". One shows your lack of tolerance and opinion that there should be no more whatever. The second shows distinct encouragement for the acceptance of violence against the group being protested. Freedom of speech is NOT the ability to say whatever you feel like when you feel like it where you feel like it. Yelling BOMB in a theater is not freedom of speech. Advertising or protesting you wish someone dead or are looking forward to seeing a group of people dead is not freedom of speech. Reporting that gets people killed is not freedom of speech. Profanity & Sexual suggestions are not free speech.
Victorian says2013-07-28T19:14:01.670
If people are not free to be profane, then what is freedom?
Patricia.Green says2013-07-28T23:52:11.043
You're free to be profane as you like in your own home, or on the telephone with your friends, etc. As far as that goes there's nothing wrong with profanity in public that can't be overheard by people outside of your group. I've cursed in public. I've embarrassed myself by cursing in front of a 2 year old when I dropped a hammer on my toe at Home Depot.

Some public places have no moral or decency laws that prevent you from being as profane as you like. But there are places that have them and it's a law. A pretty good one I think. I don't want to have to deal with my children and grand children not being able to go to public places such as parks and capital buildings because what is supposed to be a peaceful protest/or peaceful assembly has turned into who can shout the most profanity at the opposing group. Or who can use the most profane, vulgar, and objectionable writing on their signs for sensationalism or shock value.
Victorian says2013-07-31T23:11:43.583
I realize that you want to shelter your children, but I still think that people should be allowed to use profanity in public places. We will have to agree to disagree about this.
isabella.rene says2015-03-10T14:47:08.600
Do you mind if i use a few of your points for a speech i need to make? I obviously like some of the points you made haha
Halochicken says2016-05-23T15:14:21.390
Wow you must have a lot on your mind
ABeard says2016-07-03T17:01:13.060
You can exercise all your rights on PUBLIC PROPERTY not PRIVATE PROPERTY like a movie theater.
doge_green says2016-11-17T20:35:02.043
Jeez, where did you get the time to write this
CommonManager says2018-06-17T02:22:24.540
@ABeard Actually a Movie Theater is public property if you think about it, Its open to the public is it not?
brolum says2021-05-03T17:25:44.913
I think u have completely lost brain cells.

Speech by definition is "the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds. "

A death threat falls under the category of speech. I'm not supporting it, But I'm just saying that you can't argue that death threats don't fall under speech because it does by definition. And freedom of speech protects any form of verbal expression.

"Death threats are not a form of free speech. They are a threat. "

A threat is a form of speech. Your argument makes absolutely no sense. Any form of verbal expression is part of speech. And unfortunately, For ppl advocating for no restrictions like you, That implies no restrictions on things like death threats, Racism, Libel, And slander.

If you say death threats, Racism, And libel are not part of speech, Then you are adding a restriction, By claiming that these forms of speech are not allowed. Therefore, You would be on the "yes" side in that case.

But to be on the "no" side means absolutely all forms of speech are allowed, Including the ones that we associate with criminal activity. You cannot just go ahead and deny that as part of speech just to make your side "look good". Nope, Death threats, Racism, Libel, And slander are protected under free speech unless we work together to enforce restrictions.
brolum says2021-05-03T17:30:22.687
"Freedom of speech is NOT the ability to say whatever you feel like when you feel like it where you feel like it. Yelling BOMB in a theater is not freedom of speech. Advertising or protesting you wish someone dead or are looking forward to seeing a group of people dead is not freedom of speech. Reporting that gets people killed is not freedom of speech. Profanity & Sexual suggestions are not free speech. "

These all ARE freedom of speech. The definition of freedom of speech is to articulate your ideas and expression verbally without retaliation, Censorship, Or legal sanction.

As much as u don't like it, The things you listed all are protected under freedom of speech, Which is why the "yes" side believes there should be restrictions. Why is yelling BOMB not freedom of speech? It's not physical, It's just a verbal remark? By definition, It is protected under freedom of speech. And note that I'm NOT supporting any of these actions, I'm simply refuting your arguments.

Yea, Advertising for some groups to die or something unfortunately will fall under that category. You cannot simply just come up and say "oh all the bad forms of speech aren't part of freedom of speech". No, That's the whole reason the yes side wants restrictions. Because bad forms of speech ARE part of freedom of speech and we want to restrict that. Your argument is self contradictory and has no backing. Why are the things you listed NOT freedom of speech when the definition shows it is?
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.