Or should free speech mean free speech?
2007-04-16 03:48:52 · 12 answers · asked by Barbara Doll to you 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Free speech means free speech. There is also no such thing as public airwaves. The Federal Censorship Commission is just another example of the government sticking its big nose where it doesn't belong.
I wish Imus had the guts to tell off the professional racebaiters who went after him. Maybe he'd still be employed if he stood up to the Thought Police. That's how UNLV economics professor Hans Herman Hoppe (author of "Democracy: the God that Failed") is still employed. He was teaching his class about time preference and mentioned that gay people are less likely to save money because they don't have kids as an example. The Thought Police went after him, but he finally stood up to them and they've left him alone since, except for a few occasional defamatory newspaper articles.
2007-04-16 04:06:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Free speech means we both have the right to free speech, not that A has the right to harass B into shutting up and living in fear.
People who's attitude is 'you can't tell me what to do' don't care about free speech, or other peoples rights or freedoms. The threat of punishment doesn't stop them acting in the first place. They don't accept the punishment because they don't see their actions as a problem. So just making the punishment more severe won't make any difference to their attitude.
2007-04-16 11:09:57 · answer #2 · answered by sarah c 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Free speech should mean free speech but punishments should actually be punishments in the first place. Not a few years for 'Life' and then parole after less
2007-04-16 10:53:36 · answer #3 · answered by sonfai81 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Free speech is free speech. Free speech doesn't include slander. There can't be any restriction or punishment for FREE thought, not unless technology rapidly advances, The Constitution is thrown out and laws are geared to that end.
2007-04-16 11:04:38 · answer #4 · answered by reinformer 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Woah! First of all anyone and everyone can THINK what they like. We don't have Orwellian thought crime yet, fortunately.
Secondly it's important for people to be able to say what they like unless its
* Slanderous
* Incitement to hatred / violence
So no I don't believe in punishments being greater, free speech is important. Just ask all the people shipped off to Siberia for voicing "politically unacceptable opinions"...
2007-04-16 10:56:56 · answer #5 · answered by Otter 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Your question is 'interesting' to say the least. I believe that 'free speech' in the USA should mean 'free speech' ... but if a person 'feels he can thing and say whatever he likes' and also 'can do whatever he likes' (NOT the same thing, at all) then he is a 'sociopath' and can be 'arrested and convicted' for 'breaking the law' ... but I really 'don't know' if it is 'better' to send a sociopath to 'prison' or to put him into a 'mental insitution' for 'treatment' ...
When my husband and I went out to dinner a couple of weeks ago, there were some 'college age' young men (about 8 of them in the group) at another table. They had finished eating, and were 'drunk' on alcohol. One was 'talking loudly' about baseball ... and he used the 'F-word' quite frequently, to the point that I was about to ask the waitress to move us to a different table in a quieter section of the restaurant. The 'young men' left, and the table of 8 young women who had also been talking loudly (to be able to hear each other over the 'noise' of the young men) also got quieter ...
Was this 'free speech' in action? I think it was ... and I would have moved to a 'far away' table rather than have to be 'offended' by the one young man's swearing, rather than getting up and 'telling him I was offended and asking him to quit talking so loudly and swearing' ... which was MY CHOICE. That young man was 'acting badly' but he also had 'every right in the world to behave as he wanted' without any 'concern' for anyone else ... but since we were 'trapped' in an 'enclosed area' his behavior was also 'wrong' ...
If I am riding on a bus, and someone's 'talking' is offensive I WILL ask him to 'be quieter' ... even to the point of 'getting into an argument' with him if he doesn't want to quiet down and tells me to 'shut up' ... because there are 'rules' to riding a bus, and one of those rules is to 'respect the privacy of others' ... which IMPLIES that a person may not 'speak loudly in an offensive manner' on a bus ... but I still hear people 'talking loudly on their cell phone' about everything from the business they are in to who they had 'sex' with and how 'good or bad' it was ... which is certainly 'not appropriate' on a bus any more than it is 'on the street'.
What about the case of Don Imus and the 'racist and sexist remarks' he made about the female basketball players? I don't even 'listen' to him, so wasn't 'affected in any way' by what he said ... but I WAS AFFECTED by the 'brouhaha' of the 'aftermath' ... and I am 'glad' that he was 'fired' from his show ... even though I am 'sorry' that his 'bad remarks' are now having a 'negative financial effect' on his GOOD CHARITY WORKS. Should he have been 'not allowed' to say what he wanted over the airwaves? NO. Should he have said what he did say over the airwaves? NO. Am I a 'hypocrite' for saying no to both questions? No ... but it gives one 'pause' to think about HOW WE ASK THESE QUESTIONS OF OURSELVES AS INDIVIDUALS.
People should be 'polite' even to the point of 'being quiet' in many situations ... but they should also HAVE THE BASIC FREEDOM to 'decide for themselves' to think and say whatever they want to ... because that is a 'Constitutionally guaranteed' thing in the USA. I'm GLAD that Don Imus said what he did, because even though it was 'very bad of him to say it on the air' it started people in this country TALKING about 'racism' and 'sexism' and 'freedom of speech' in a very 'real and applicable way' ... and I really 'don't have a clue' what is going to come from all of this 'talk' ... but I am EXTREMELY GLAD WE CAN TALK ... whether you 'agree with me' or not.
2007-04-16 11:41:12 · answer #6 · answered by Kris L 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like you're asking if people should be more severely punished if they think they can do anything (pretty much psycopathic?) then yeh, I guess it's easy to say they should.
Should someone who kills for kicks and has no remorse be punsished harder than someone who kills in the spur of the moment and instantly regrets it? Human nature says yes. Logic says no, because it's the same crime.
Me? I'm human. Hang the psycos!
2007-04-16 11:20:49 · answer #7 · answered by xzerix 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
free speech should remain, but people that abuse it, should come to terms with this. If you stand across the street and holler and holler at others .....this creates harrassment, and no longer falls along the free speech laws.
2007-04-16 10:57:32 · answer #8 · answered by fivefootnuttinhuny 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Read the article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights !!
2007-04-16 10:56:03 · answer #9 · answered by talkingformydog 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Some people believe in free articulation of views. It must be respected.
2007-04-16 11:03:14 · answer #10 · answered by Dave 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋