 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Sun Sep 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | Florida &, Arizona USA |
| Posts: | 11288 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
KenC wrote:I would like to make a couple of comments on this "Freedom of Speech" subject that keeps coming up on forums.
1) Freedom of speech is a government/citizen thing. Not a "forum" thing. Our (USA) Constitution guarantees that the GOVERNMENT will not take any action to abridge anyone's right to free speech. That has further been defined as speech that does not create a situation involving personal safety (as in the old cliché, "No one has a free speech right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater").
2) Most forum are privately owned and the owner of that forum has the ultimate right to restrict whatever he wants.
3) Many forums are based in countries outside of the USA and our Constitution does not apply (much less its 1st Amendment).
4) Most importantly, with the "right" to free speech comes the responsibility to accept the consequences for what is said. People that don't like what you "freely" said have the right to respond, criticize, boycott (and for the Dixie Chicks, to not attend concerts or play/listen to their music). Don Imus had a right to say what he did...he also has to take the consequences of being fired for it). The only free speech protection one has is from retribution from the government. Now, if the government starts restricting what Don Imus can say...THAT is a violation of the right to free speech!
So, please, not more FREE SPEECH speeches!!!:D....and please remember, that people have shed blood and died so that you can keep these rights!!!
Ken,
I would just like to take the opportunity to clarify my remarks about free speech, as I think your comments are mostly directed at the statment I made. When I said that freedom of speech cannot be applied selectively, I simply meant that one cannot reserve for oneself rights that one would then deny someone else. If "rights" is to dramatic a word, then the "benefit of the doubt" might be a better definition.
LS,
Sorry that I left that impression.....No, it was not specifically directed at your statement. It's just that I saw the expression "freedom of speech" for the umpteenth time (mostly on WUS) and I just went off on a rant aimed at no one in particular and, perhaps, everyone in general.......and you are "dead-on" in your comment that freedom of speech cannot (or should not) be selectively applied.
That is really the crux of my ire....most (not all) those who cry "freedom of speech" are those who make a statement and do not like the consequences of it.
'nuff said, glad to see you at 3T!!!
Ken