No, I'm not talking specifically about Airhead Ann and her idiotic musings about Edwards's sexuality. But this incident has caused me to think about this freedom of speech thing that we all love to cling to when it's convenient.
At what point have we abused this freedom?
2007-03-05 03:56:01 · 16 answers · asked by Bush Invented the Google 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is clear that many do not understand the question I am asking. You can, in fact, abuse a freedom. When you use it to back up something that you're doing that negatively affects someone else, you are abusing it.
2007-03-05 05:01:51 · update #1
As long as I have the Freedom to NOT LISTEN, I don´t care what anyone says.
2007-03-05 04:02:42 · answer #1 · answered by Honest Opinion 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The republican congress systematically shut down any debate over the IRAQ war for 4 years. When ever a Democrat would move to debate the war, the repubs with their majority would call a quick vote and squash the debate.
When the media is controlled by 5% of the richest people on earth and solid facts concerning the real criminals of 911 is supressed or covered up.
Many original eye witness reports were later changed or denied to be complicit with the official story.
The 911 commission was a sham commission of cover-up of the real truth. Consider what the following senators had to put up with.
38. Senator Bob Graham also said: "High officials in [the Saudi Arabian] government, who I assume were not just rogue officials acting on their own, made substantial contributions to the support and wellbeing of two of these terrorists and facilitated their ability to plan, practise and then execute the tragedy of September 11." These investigations remain blocked, classified, covered-up and unresolved to this day by the Bush administration's clear Obstruction of Justice.
39. Senator and 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned, saying: "This is the most serious independent investigation since the Warren Commission. And after watching History Channel shows on the Warren Commission last night, the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious."
http://kucinich.us/node/2896
2007-03-05 04:07:28 · answer #2 · answered by andy r 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The limit is "fire in a crowded theater." The point I am trying to make, ad naseum, is that you can pretty much say whatever you want, but it doesn't mean that people have to print it, air it, pay you to come to their convention to say it, buy it, or condone it. I think Coulter's comments just make her a fascist idiot, not a criminal. She should be relegated with the other idiot hatemongers.
I think one of the big issues here is that the slur she used is somewhat acceptable in today's conservative gay-fearing climate. Had she dropped an "N" bomb, what would the consequences have been?
2007-03-05 04:05:21 · answer #3 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
properly freedom of speech is by definition freedom to declare what you prefer, whether that incorporates issues that would make some human beings upset. yet that doesn't avert others from kicking your *** for being stressful lol. permit's settle for it: there are human beings on the internet that have not something extra perfect to do than hand around in blogs and social networks and fill the comments crammed with crap. i do unlike trolls.
2016-12-18 06:07:59 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Using the right irresponsibly. That is abusing it in my book, however, it is still free thinking, whether people like it or not. Freedom of speech entails freedom of thought, and saying it, whether it is popular or not. No one should be condemned for calling Bill Clinton a lying, cheating, American soldier-killing, commie idiot, either. It happens to be true, but the right to say it, will be condemned by his wife, if she ever gets into office. I pray everyday, we the people will never be that stupid.
If you already have your own answer, why ask us?
2007-03-05 04:06:02 · answer #5 · answered by xenypoo 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
According to some cons, showing disapproval of the (Republican) President constitutes an abuse of the freedom of speech.
2007-03-05 04:00:55 · answer #6 · answered by ck4829 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Your rights end when the next persons begin.. so as long as you abide by that you have not overstepped your bounds in freedom of speech.. and example of overstepping would be yelling fire in a movie theater
2007-03-05 04:01:34 · answer #7 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yelling fire in a crowded theater
Inciting to riot
enjoining people to commit a felony
slander
libel.
It's OK to say "I think all(insert group here) should be shot.
It's no OK to say "I want you to go get your gun and shoot the next (insert group) person you see.
Ann's perilously close to slander unless she said "In my opinion"
Her defense would probably be that she was expressing her opinion, and I doubt Edwards would sue in the heat of a presidential race. But calling someone a fa***t is something that could be proven or disproven in a court of law. She would have to come up with at least one same-sex partner.
2007-03-05 04:45:35 · answer #8 · answered by Charlie S 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
An abuse of any freedom is when it actually hurts someone or infringes on someone else's rights. When you FORCE your beliefs on someone else, this is an infringement.
2007-03-05 04:02:00 · answer #9 · answered by El Hombre de los Libros 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You can't abuse a freedom.
2007-03-05 04:00:28 · answer #10 · answered by Michael E 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋