Opinion Question
Argument
Posted by:

People have rights

  People have a right to say what ever they want to say. No one has the right to stop them. You may not like some of the opinions people voice, or the words that they use, but this is absolutely no reason to have the government trample people's natural rights.
DeathReaper says2013-07-19T11:03:09.043
Had you lost a close one lets say on 9\11, would you tolerate someone celebrating that day?
Victorian says2013-07-19T18:21:28.223
Yes. I would not like it, but I would have no right not to tolerate it.
DeathReaper says2013-07-21T11:22:59.840
Its becouse you haven't then. People shouldn't be silenced on topics in which they have opinions reflected with respect and limits, however one has no right to abuse the power of words.
Words reflect ideas, ideas are stronger than guns.
Victorian says2013-07-21T23:33:37.220
I did not lose loved ones in 9/11, but I believe that if I had I would still not want the government preventing someone from celebrating that day. Also, you can shoot someone with a gun, but you can't shoot someone with an idea.
DeathReaper says2013-07-22T09:57:46.890
Ideas are bullet proof, but insults aren't.
For example you are in your car with your mother ( just an example ) and someone passes by and shouts an insult, which clearly offends your mother, don't you think that you and her should be protected by law?
Restrictions to freedom of speech don't necessarly lead to ''police states'', many nations in europe have harsh restrictions and punishments for nazi saluts or failing to recognise the hollocaust, which are universaly considered unjustified atrocities that must be condemned so they would never happen again. Restricting freedom to the point of responsability, in which each individual has the right to spread its ideas however with a conscience on the sensitivities and respect.
Having anyone allowed to say whatever it wants, is just the first step towards anarchy.
DeathReaper says2013-07-22T10:02:35.060
For example towards religion, discussions based on arguments with fundaments, respect etc.. Are valid, acceptable, who can't bear to discuss a topic as such with someone with a different opinion then just leave, but it wouldn't be apropriate to have an atheist ((like myself for example) invade a church ( or station at the door ) etc.. Freedom of speech and opinion is great, but there must be limits, one doesn't just say whatever it wants, otherwise it does whatever it wants too and if thats the case, anarchy.
Victorian says2013-07-22T17:47:57.317
I do not think that my mother and I should be protected by law from insults. Also, If you were to invade a church and preach against religion, the crime would be the invasion, not the preaching. If you were to stand right at the door, you would still be on the premises of the church. If you were to stand in the street and try to persuade church-goers that religion is false, it might be inappropriate, but it should not bel illegal. If someone stood in the street outside my church with darwin fish signs, preaching against religion, I might be annoyed, but I could just go into the chapel and ignore him. I would not want the police to force him away from the church.
DeathReaper says2013-07-23T17:04:46.107
But being protected by the law against insults is a way of restricting the others freedom of speech, in a way that benefits society and protects members of society from unecessary and injustified harm is good. The same way there are restrictions for everything. We can't restrict thinking, that is against values of human rights, no matter how attrocious the ideas of ones might be, they have the right to think freely and also to do their free comentary in their homes, however one doesn't have the right to throw any kind of rants and comments at another by the simple fact of using ones freedom of speech.
Victorian says2013-07-24T00:30:21.767
Restricting freedom of speech might help to protect people's feelings, but that is no justification for infringing on people's rights. What is right trumps what is pragmatic.
DeathReaper says2013-07-24T14:03:49.843
We have reached an impass and have different points of view still.
Patricia.Green says2013-07-25T20:39:08.277
Victorian "Also, you can shoot someone with a gun, but you can't shoot someone with an idea." No but you can incite a person to be shot with how ideas are expressed.

Here is where free speech ends. Scenario: A very loved American Icon is shot in their home. The last person seen leaving is the butler. The butler is questioned and released by the police only to be shot himself sitting in his driveway because the whole city is out in protest to "kill the butler". Doesn't matter if the butler is guilty or innocent. Every person toting a sign reading "kill the butler" is not practicing free speech. They are inciting violence and advocating murder. Every person toting a sign that says "Find the killer" or "arrest the killer" is practicing free speech. Even saying "arrest the butler" is free speech since it is an opinion the butler is guilty as long as they are not standing on the butlers front lawn or private property.

Anyone can practice freedom of speech. But freedom of speech does not trump other laws. No constitutional amendment trumps other laws.

Total freedom is anarchy.
DeathReaper says2013-07-27T16:35:09.057
Agreed.
Victorian says2013-07-28T01:51:11.923
@Patricia.Green
I think your butler analogy is flawed. If the police did not reveal the details of the case, as they shouldn't, no one would know about the butler. The police have different rules from private citizens because they can legally use force to obtain information.

Also, the whole point of the constitution is to trump laws.
Patricia.Green says2013-07-28T23:32:24.807
"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. "

If that is the case then you can also interpret that the establishment of a religion that sacrifices (murders) people legal. And so are the sacrifices it performs at "part" of its religion since the constitution has no legal stance on sacrifices or murder. By prohibiting sacrifices we are infringing on their freedom of religion. The Constitution doesn't expressly prohibit it.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

No where does it state that felons are exempt from the second amendment. And darn it, every felon out there should be able to bear arms even if they have committed violent acts with said arms because the Constitution says so. So John Doe released from prison after 20 years for shooting a gas station attendant in a robbery has the right to bear arms because the constitution trumps the law.

That's just idiotic.

The Constitution does not trump local or federal laws. It does keep laws from being enacted that would violate the passing of laws on the entirety of the United States that would violate the Constitution. It is a guideline that prevents the government from taking away our rights as a whole to: express ourselves, speak out against injustice, file complaints against those who do us harm, protect ourselves, protect our privacy, not be imprisoned for long periods before trial, etc. It's not there so someone can drop the F bomb 500 times in a public place or call for the death of John Doe in Times Square. It's not there so that we can commit crimes and then stand up and say it's my right because the Constitution says so.

As for flawed analogy. Part of freedom of speech prevents the police or government from gagging anyone without a court order. The person that last saw the butler leaving is going to tell the police, then they are going to tell everyone they know and if they want 5 minutes of fame they'll walk out on the lawn and tell the media. Freedom of speech means you can't tell the media not to follow anyone to or camp out on public property. That means they can sit out side the police station and watch the butler show up and leave. That means that they are free to report the facts and make suppositions on what they see without ever talking to the police. And that is freedom of speech.
DeathReaper says2013-07-29T08:37:38.517
Victoria, Patricia is right, there are limits, one cannot make a literal interpretation of the constitution otherwise we face ourselves in anarchy.
Limits must be imposed, its important to establish the line between difference of opinion and flat out smack talk, my freedom is limited by yours and thats the line.
Victorian says2013-07-29T21:02:25.017
Patricia Green,

If a religion called for human sacrifice, it would be the sacrifice that was the crime, not the religion.

Also, the constitution is the highest law of the United States. If it did not trump laws (i.E. Laws that the supreme court finds unconstitutional are void) it would be worthless. I'm not saying that the constitution or the second amendment is perfect, but the fact remains that it trumps laws.

As for the butler analogy, it is true that the media has the right to report what they see, but it is the duty of the police to make sure that no one ever receives any information until the verdict is reached.
DeathReaper says2013-07-30T15:22:57.057
The religion would have to be forbidden, as its common practices include human sacrifices.
The media has the right to report but the responsability and obligation of not distorting the information, otherwise its criminal activity. And even if it wasn't it would be moraly depicable in all sences.
Victorian says2013-07-31T22:48:10.703
If human sacrifices were made illegal, why would we have to forbid the religion? Also, everyone distorts information based on their point of view. Although the media sometimes distorts information maliciously, in the overwhelming majority of cases, information is distorted merely because reporters find some facts significant, but not others.
muricamurica says2014-09-14T19:38:33.577
Murica
garcia123 says2014-11-06T02:02:25.717
Natural rights that people made up joust like they can ignore them
ABeard says2016-08-21T15:08:23.593
Can you please explain what you mean by that?
PhantomBD says2016-12-14T22:36:08.170
Provocative speech, slander, and anything that violates a person's rights are not protected, but your point is still correct.
ABeard says2017-01-16T20:18:02.163
Where in the constitution does it say some speech inst protected. It doesn't, you have the right to say whatever you want, no matter how a socialist politician interprets the constitution.
zhaod1 says2018-06-04T14:40:53.837
Actually, no, because threats aren't protected by the Constitution.
mjklgh says2020-05-06T16:13:14.483
This is flawed as you are using circular logic.

The question literally asks should we amend the constitution by placing restrictions on the 1st amendment.

You guys are saying BECAUSE the constitution says we have the freedom of speech, SO we shouldn’t. That’s literally circular logic. How?

You are saying because the constitution says this, So we shouldn’t change the constitution.
brolum says2021-05-30T01:47:23.693
@PhantomBD

So you're being contradictory. So if ppl have rights to speech and to say whatever they want to say, Provacative speech, Slander, And anything that violates a person's rights would fall under the category of "speech" and "say whatever they want to say". Thus, You can't argue ppl have the right to say whatever they want, And then list a few things they CANNOT say. That completely contradicts its own logic.

The reason the concept of freedom of speech is controversial is because the things you listed DO fall under speech and by definition, It would fall under the protection, But luckily our constitution is smart enough to RESTRICT THOSE. So you see that the constitution actually did restrict freedom of speech already, Which backs the claim that restrictions should be placed on freedom of speech.
brolum says2021-12-04T22:34:32.350
@ABeard

The constitution DOES say some speech isn’t protected. After the Brandenburg vs Ohio case, We learn that speech that “incites violence/imminent lawless action” is not protected. In defamation laws, Speech that tries to cause damage through ruining a person’s reputation is also not protected. Tell me again that the constitution didn’t say anything about unprotected speech.
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)

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