for example, protesting at military funerals?
2006-11-16 13:02:34 · 13 answers · asked by alex l 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
let me add this question? liberties are limited to the point where they impede on other people's liberties. wouldn't protesting at a funeral impose on those who are mourning?
2006-11-16 13:11:36 · update #1
food for thought? do we actually have absolute freedom of any liberty?
2006-11-16 13:22:34 · update #2
I believe so, but it is their rights. Ethics and morals are being overshadowed by ego's and opinions. It is sad really as upon my return I was scorned by several people. I wish the media would just stay the hell out. All they print is garbage and half stories and it is making the war that much more difficult.
2006-11-16 13:05:22 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think you or most of your answerers understand what "freedom of speech" means. There's never been anything like a complete freedom of speech in this country or any other, and let's hope there never is. The only thing in the U.S. Constitution about freedom of speech is the First Amendment, which only says that the U.S. Congress shall make no law abridging people's freedom of speech. But anyone who can understand simple English can see that all that does is restrict Congress. It doesn't restrict the states or the counties or the cities or the towns or the schools or the churches or businesses or the military or the funeral managers at military funerals or any others from restricting people's speech any way they like. All it does is restrict Congress. The idea that it guarantees unlimited free speech is a ridiculous exaggeration. The notion that protests at military funerals should be permitted on some supposed grounds that everyone is entitled to unlimited free speech is an absurdity founded on ignorance. Read the First Amendment at the link below.
2006-11-16 21:40:47 · answer #2 · answered by yahoohoo 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is one of the issues that makes the first amendment so controversial, like the Klu Klux Klan. I do not agree with prostesting at funerals. There are better times and places to protest the war, and taking it out on the soldiers and families is not the way to go. My best wishes to anyone who has lost someone overseas or is still awaitng their return. But I feel that our freedom of speech is so important that we have to let things like this happen.
Lets face it if they could restrict our freedom of speech life would be so much different than it is today. Martin Luther King Jr. would be locked up, for one thing. Black rights would not have progressed to the point it has right now. And there would be no chance of progression onward. Oftentimes the right view is not always the popular one.
If having the right to start a revolution will be inhibited because someone decides we should scrap the whole first amendment then I say I can tolerate all the KKK meetings as long as there is no violence. Lets face it, if we didn't have free speech, I'd already be in jail.
2006-11-16 21:25:52 · answer #3 · answered by yay_boxes 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yeah we are taking them too far. Fred Phelps and his lunatic flock protesting at funerals is impeding on anothers rights. Heres one for you, two men in Mass. abducted a 10 year old boy and raped him and killed him and dumped his body in a river. At the trial the prosecuter found one guys diary and in that diary it said he had learned how to rape children from NAMBLAS website (North American Man Boy Association) so the family tried to sue them and shut them down. Guess who steps in, none other than the Communist organization, the ACLU. With the Freedom of Speech comes the added responsibilty of using restraint and having morals, like you cant yell fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire.
2006-11-16 21:19:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of speech is absolute, and should continue to be as such. So if you would like to be able to say what you want without fear of censorship or prosecution, then you have to allow the idiots the same thing.
Any limitations on "freedom of speech" is a very slippery slope, and it is not one I think anyone should step on. . .
"I may not agree with everything you say, but I will die for your right to say it."
2006-11-16 22:30:30 · answer #5 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO when you can not speak your mind you are living in a country like Iran they will just kill you for some words you said an think about the men who gave there lives for this right we have freedom of speech
2006-11-16 21:13:38 · answer #6 · answered by bigdogrex 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you put limits on free speech, it is no longer free. It is much too dangerous to have government decide which speech is not allowed. Protestors at a soldiers funeral should have the bleep kicked out of them by his [her] family.
2006-11-16 21:15:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You can never take freedom of speech too far, unless it is a published form of slander. That is something worth filing a lawsuit over.
Although sometimes people need to know when to limit what they say so they don't appear so rude and overly defiant.
2006-11-16 21:04:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I hate those people protesting at military funerals. They are disgusting and disgraceful.
2006-11-16 21:05:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
it's a fine line... I would prefer to err on the side of "too far" than not far enough...
free speech is a check to the balance of power, and I don't like messing with it very much...
2006-11-16 21:13:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋