Fox News briefly reported (03.17.07) on Congress trying to pass a bill that would ban websites from posting "terrorist propaganda" videos. Despite the supposed good intentions of the bill, wouldn't this be a obvious violation of freedom of speech as provided by the 1st Amendment? What are your thoughts, and why do you hold the opinion you do?
2007-03-18 11:12:16 · 14 answers · asked by andalorn 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom to be heard. Just becuase someone has an opinion to express does not mean that anyone must listen to them. Also, though Americans are free to voice their opinions, they must be prepared to suffer consequence if by doing so they violate other laws, i.e. threats of violence etc.
The point of this question is to find out how important it is to Americans that congress clearly define "terrorist propganda," and what its qualifications are. Does it include threats by true patriots against what they believe to be a fascist government? Does it include anti-war, anti-Bush, or anti-Israeli opinion? What are the limits of this censorship?
2007-03-18 11:41:20 · update #1
We would leave it up to congress to decide what is terrorist propaganda and what wasn't? Hm mm.....I don't think they are qualified to do this. What is their reasoning behind this other than shutting down anti terrorist sites. There has to be more to this that I'm not seeing, or all media would be subject to the possibility of censorship. Yes a violation.
2007-03-18 11:20:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, it depends. When I think of terrorist posting videos I think of foreigners posting on US websites. The constitution is for American citizens. It was never intended to be used by our nation's enemies. Could you imagine if Hitler was allowed to come give speeches here?
I cannot see an American filming deaths of Americans and trying to recruit for terror organizations here in America. So the banning of such videos is not a violation of free speech as I do not see it effecting the citizenry, it is hindering those who would harm our nation.
2007-03-18 11:20:10 · answer #2 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its once thing to have freedom of speech but to distribute terroristic activity or to threaten the life of the President or Vice President of the United States are another.Look how many children who have posted on websites their intent to do another Columbine..,that is not freedom of speech that is inciting terroristic activity.Big difference.
2007-03-18 11:20:46 · answer #3 · answered by jnwmom 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's just like the efforts to ban the "N" word.
Any censorship of any speech opens the door to abuse of that power.There would be ample opportunity for the powers that be to ban any opinions or philosophies that they object to.
Besides,keeping these websites available to the public exposes the terrorists as the cowards they are.
2007-03-18 11:18:37 · answer #4 · answered by Zapatta McFrench 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Allowing free speech does not include allowing enemy propaganda to be spread unrestricted. The terrorists have declared WAR on the USA. Does not matter what people nitpick we are at war and allowing anything that encourages the enemy is treason by definition.
2007-03-18 11:25:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, those agencies have the main superb to dictate what speech they're going to enable to be transmitted with the help of their kit. as nicely, we aren't rather in the marketplace for educational lectures on beating our better halves or the advantages of marrying 6 12 months olds to be like Mo the Pedophile Prophet.
2016-10-19 00:37:27 · answer #6 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is a violation of free speech to say anything you want.
BUT, we have to constantly measure how dangerous this right is at any point in time to whatever the current circumstances that be, and exceed it to another right of self-preservation, above all, and temporarily suspend that right till the circumstances that warrant it are no longer a substantial threat to our continued well-being!
2007-03-18 11:31:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Speech that promotes criminal acts is not protected speech.
This falls under the clear and present danger clause. However "terrorist propaganda" needs to be clearly defined.
2007-03-18 11:16:59 · answer #8 · answered by kittenbrower 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
We should trade our freedom for safety like Ben Franklin said.
I'll buy you gas mister Bush if you protect my assets.
Go big Red Go
2007-03-18 11:43:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't, for the life of me, figure out why they are wasting their time when we can get all the terrorist propaganda we want from CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and more?
2007-03-18 11:20:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋