In light of those who can't use Freedom of Speech responsibly, such as the Fred Phelps Clan, or the KKK or the NeoNazi movement, do you think it would be beneficial or harmful to redefine Freedom of Speech?
2006-08-15 09:49:12 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
Why stop there why not silence the Black Panther Party, or the NAACP or the ACLU. If you are going to silence one set of radicals you might as well silence them all. Then you can bet that they will condemn others as radicals until they get to the point where no one can speak their minds without being put in jail or killed. You put a stop to total freedom of speech then you might as well be in Nazi Germany with Hitler at the helm. Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad and remember it is one persons views; an opinion. If the majority rules then it is democracy.
2006-08-15 10:29:49 · answer #1 · answered by jane d 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The following was written by State Representative Mitchell Kaye
from Cobb County, GA.
"You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is
based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not
just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a
different opinion, etc., but the world is full of idiots, and probably
always will be."
Freedom is not divisible either you are free or you are not.
2006-08-15 13:37:26 · answer #2 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of speech should be all-encompassing. Limiting what a person is allowed to say, just because you don't agree, is the exact antithesis of our right. I think the Phelps' are a bunch of inbred wackos, but they have a right to say whatever they want. If someone wants to say that all Muslims should be deported, then that's their right. if someone wants to say that all white people are slave-masters, then that's ok too. The point is, unless you are prepared to completely do away with the notion of equality, you cannot set a limit on free speech.
2006-08-15 10:52:25 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It has already been redefined by the most powerful entity in the world. The liberal media. A person is no longer allowed to speak their mind in public. Just ask Mel Gibson. Although he was drunk, he spewed his mind and was hit with every label you can name because he spoke it all out loud.
2006-08-15 09:57:46 · answer #4 · answered by dlobryan1 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nah, it's good how it is right now. People can have whatever opinion they want, as long as they don't commit a crime or perform acts of violence or anything like that. Let the Klan and Neo-Nazis have their say; no one listens to them anyway.
2006-08-15 09:56:03 · answer #5 · answered by . 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO!! It is a right. One of them that made this country GREAT. If it is downgraded to a privilege then only the "privileged" will have the "right" to speak.
2006-08-15 10:26:46 · answer #6 · answered by Ironball 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Harmful overall. Yes, people will say things you don't like to hear. You can call that "irresponsible" if you choose, but you cannot take it from them. Talk about it all you want, you're free to do so.
2006-08-15 09:54:35 · answer #7 · answered by Beardog 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Absolutely not.
Who would we give this power to? If this person decides to abuse this power, we could do nothing to stop him/her. This is how dictatorships are made.
2006-08-15 09:54:39 · answer #8 · answered by John J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, don't mess with it.
2006-08-15 09:54:44 · answer #9 · answered by Zen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋