How important is free speech and for whom should it be protected?

Question

I see people post on free speech often and many times they seem to be saying that they do not believe free speech should be protected for certain groups or certain people. As an example I will use radio pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I do not necessarily agree or disagree with these people, they are just the best polarizing figures I can think of at this time. I see many people post that these people should be censored or removed from the radio.

My question is this. Is it not more important to protect the rights of people who you don't agree with than those you do based on the idea that if you are not willing to protect the rights of those you dissent against then the freedom itself is in jeopardy as a whole?

Az Grande: Only if they are somehow trying to specifically silence that opinion. To express a counter opinion to opinions expressed is what free speech is all about. We do not have to agree with each others opinions, but we should respect the right to hold and express them.

Az Grande: Yes and those who don't agree with people like Limbaugh label that opinion as hate speech, racism and use a number of derrogatory terms to describe those people who choose to listen. I hate to tell you, but it is no different. Having free speech does not mean you can speak freely without challenge from other sources. You are trying to make an apples and oranges comparison here. In short saying you should be allowed to say what you want without redress, while those who disagree with you should not because by stating their opinion they are somehow limiting your opinion from being heard. My point is that both sides have equal rights to express their opinions whetehr I agree with them or not. If we do not uphold that right in the end no one will enjoy free speech. As for limiting freedom of assembly, I don't agree with that practice either, but that's another discussion entirely.

Answer 1

Well said--say it again and often! :)

There is one--and only one--reason for supressing the right to speak freely: to gain or keep power over others against their interests.

Answer 2

Free speech should be protected for all. That said there should be accountability for that free speech. You should not be free to spout lies, to slander,or to abuse. Words as they have always been are mightier than the sword and you would surely agree that you would want restrictions on who and how a sword was swung in public. Words are very powerful and unsubstantiated words are just as powerful. In the realm of weapons an unloaded gun is of no consequence,in the realm of words the blanks can cause as much damage or more than the loaded ones. In other words lies and truth are equal in the damage they can do.


In our modern society physical attack and even defense are frowned upon and even regulated. Where is the same regulation and respect for the damage words can do.

By the way I listen to both. As Rush often says it is only his opinion. I think that these kind of disclaimers need to be made. If on the other hand you are a news broadcaster and your story is proven untrue you should be charged for liable and make restitution to any party that was damaged. An opinion program is only that and has only the authority you give it. If it is labeled news it carries much more weight because we are led to believe it was investigated and verified.Free speech is not the simple black and white matter that most make it out to be it is instead a very muddled and tangled mess.

Answer 3

Is it not an attempt by the political right to suppress free speech when they falsely label dissidents against their policies as being anti-American, anti-troops and traitors?

Well Bryan; how more specific does it need to be? Is not falsely labeling the opposition voice with derogatory language not an attempt to silence them; thus infringing on the right to free speech? The 1st amendment also includes the right of assembly, which has been severely stepped on by this President by the use of "loyalty oaths" and forcing dissidents out of sight and out of sound when ever he speaks or holds a rally.

Answer 4

You are absolutely correct and I believe Rush and Hannity et al, have their place in radio and TV entertainment.

Peter Parker in the Spider-Man movie said it best: "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility". When someone such as Limbaugh, who speaks to so many people who believe every word he says, tells outright LIES about deathtoll figures in Iraq on his radio program, claiming they aren't even as bad as the "murder rate in Philadelphia", or that "the richest 1% of the US pays 80% of the taxes" or whatever nonsense he has up on his website now, then he is practicing irresponsible journalism and should be censured (not CENSORED) and removed, just as the guy who wrote all those fake "true" stories for the New York Times was removed. You can't say you speak the truth, then tell people the color of the sky is Infrared. If you want to state your OPINION, such as Hannity does, I have no problem with that, as long as you let people know ahead of time it IS your opinion, nothing more. When you say these are FACTS and they are not, then yes, the person who says that needs to be removed (or at least acknowledged as the anti American slimeballs they are).

Or do you advocate bringing that journalist back who wrote those fake "true" stories, the one who phonied up interviews and quotes and passed them off as genuine? In the name of "free speech" of course? You HAVE to have responsibility with Freedom, otherwise you lose those freedoms to mendacities about "security" and "safety".

Answer 5

We do not have a right more important than free speech. Free speech should apply to everyone, especially those with whom we disagree.

I think the current laws are adequate, have eroded free speech sufficiently so as to allow decency, and should not be further eroded by the Fairness Doctrine or anything else.

Unfortunately, I think many liberals do not understand free speech. Yes, we are free to speak our opinions of your speech. It that suppresses your speech, it is your choice to allow it.

Answer 6

It seems to me that there's a lot of liberals out there who only believe in free speech if it agrees with their personal philosophies. I'm not saying that it's only liberals that do this, but they certainly seem to be in the majority. Of the two examples you used, one broadcasts on Fox News and that particular channel sees to set liberals off like no other. I watch that channel quite a bit because I like to hear both sides of the story, and I can see that they always present a balanced debate between opposing points of view and, in my opinion, usually give the left the last word on most subjects. Even that advantage doesn't stop the unending diatribes against Fox coming from the left because they believe that their point of view is the only valid one and should be the only point broadcast. The left is very un-American.

Answer 7

Free speech is for everyone. This is why the ACLU rises to the defense of losers like the ANP or KKK.
I have yet to see someone call or the censorship of Limbaugh or Hannity BTW.
Looks like someone in this thread wants them taken off the air, I stand corrected.

Answer 8

Free speech is the thin veil separating us from the tyranny of ideology. When one group manages to eradicate another group's freedom of saying what they want, that leads to a kind of brainwashing. If everyone is only allowed to hear what a certain group says we're allowed to hear, isn't that brainwashing? When we lose our freedom to say what we want, it will only be because a certain type of speech is imposed, and others are denied.

Answer 9

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity radio shows are very similar in nature to the Orsen Wells broadcast of the War of the Worlds decades ago. People tuned in the War of the Worlds and thought it was an actual event being reported on the radio.
Limbaugh and Hannity are entertainers and not journalists. They are not bound to present any facts based on confirmed sources. People listening, however, take these radio hosts opinions as gospel.
Just as it is now against the law to air programing that will incite riots and panic, as the War of the Worlds did, these shows based solely on one person's opinion must clearly state that fact. Rush keeps stating he is the voice of the Republican party and keeper of the Republican agenda. It is purposely misleading and should be stopped.

Answer 10

"I do, hate speech regulations are solid. evaluations volatile to homosexuals as an occasion, might desire to be censored out of public speech." - the concern is, the opposing argument can say the comparable element approximately censoring professional-gay talk... their information based the comparable way yours is - on the way they sense. Freedom of speech is a lot extra significant... to be able to talk your techniques. words in basic terms harm in case you pay attention. everyone can say something, yet we in basic terms pay attention simply by fact we chosen to. what's a "susceptible minority"? If all human beings are outfitted the comparable, why positioned an emphasis on race in any respect? only simply by fact somebody is born with a distinctive colour epidermis or their ancestors come from somebody different than right here (right here only exhibits any given place), does not recommend they're incapable of questioning and improving in spite of initiate they have. If by minority you recommend to incorporate ALL minorities alongside with those with impairments like down syndrome or another social incapacity, then to assist particular communities like that would desire to be a sensible attempt... i think my answer could be extra sensible geared in case you have been to define "susceptible minorities." yet solid success swaying me from choosing my freedom every time.