insignificant thoughts » Blog Archive » What Freedom Of Speech REALLY Means

« Uplifting Black People, Episode 1 Daily Links from Ma.gnolia »

Jul 11 2008

What Freedom Of Speech REALLY Means

Posted at 1:17 pm under Obvious

What Free Speech REALLY Means from vincenzof on Vimeo.

Comments to “What Freedom Of Speech REALLY Means”

dOgBOi Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

Excellent coverage of the the 1st Amendment. The Clear and Present Danger test (ie, not yelling fire in a crowded theater) has been used wrongly for a long time now. The purpose of that test is *NOT* to protect people from offensive speech, but instead to protect people from speech that may cause them actual physical or material harm. As Constitutional tests go, it’s one of the better ones, yet somehow, people seem to be able to find wiggle room in it when in fact there is none.

One of the things I believe is that everyone has the right to their truth, no matter how wrong it is. If I don’t want to hear your truth, I can simply ignore you. Generally, I don’t ignore anyone, because someone else’s truth might contain a kernel of usefulness or a bit of necessary knowledge, no matter how wrong or how sick or how twisted their truth might be.

Even inflammatory speech might contain something of value, even if that value is the message “stay away from me, I’m a bigot, I’m a moron, and I’m unreasonable.”

Oh, and when it comes to unpopular speech: The FCC are the fascists of speech and they should lose the power to regulate the airwaves. They are without reason and intellect. I don’t like, for example, Howard Stern, but I don’t think he should have to move to a Satellite network to prevent the FCC from fining him. You can turn on BET or MTV and watch people engaging in actions he only spoke about. *sigh*

Patrick Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:17 pm

So, what is your take on libel laws?

Vinny Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 12:45 pm

That’s a good question… I guess you couldn’t take those away, could you?

I think I was more focused on what you have the right to say and people’s right to not be offended, but I should’ve taken that into consideration.

Patrick Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 1:13 pm

I think that you and I would probably agree on this one, though, upon further consideration, this turns out to be a rather complicated issue.

The Clear and Present Danger clause was also intended as a safe guard against revolt and disorder; to protect the status quo. Is this a good thing? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support an overthrow of the government, but isn’t this despotism?

Vinny Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm

Sure sounds like it. The C&PD clause was a bad idea because it has come to mean anything that can harm a person’s psyche, etc. As with most Supreme Court decisions, it’s twisted in ways it was never intended to be to back up the assertion that words hurt.

Not good.

Patrick Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 4:56 pm

In reality, life might not be so much fun if there existed pure and complete freedom of speech. The C&PD clause has some valid points, but you’re right, it has been misconstrued.

I don’t know that I would want to live in a country that didn’t enforce some sort of speech regulation, but I’d like that regulation to be as little as possible.

Jeff Says:
August 17th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

hmm.. says there is a problem loading this video..

should I check back, or is there somewhere else to see it?

Thanks.

Vinny Says:
August 17th, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Jeff: Try here:

Click

What Freedom Of Speech REALLY Means

Vote!

About Me:

Recent Posts

2008 Books Read

2007 Books Read

Recent Comments

Categories

Blogroll

Archives

Disclaimer / Warning

Meta

Pages