freedom of speech does not mean freedom to insult, for one. But give me your definition of what you think freedom of speech is.
the dixie chicks saying they were ashamed bush came from texas was NOT freedom of speech. Turning your back on the flag during the pledge of allegiance IS.
just an example of what I feel.
2007-06-06
17:06:00
·
20 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
when you go preaching about your religion, do you break any of these restrictions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech#Restrictions_on_free_speech
2007-06-06
17:08:52 ·
update #1
quetzalcoatl, thinking different is not an insult. However, if you were to outright say 'you are a moron and wrong and this is what free speech is lalalala' then that is an insult. Self-censorship.
2007-06-06
17:10:13 ·
update #2
I did not say that you do not have the right to say that you are ashamed bush is from texas, but do not hide behind freedom of speech when you do.
2007-06-06
17:12:04 ·
update #3
parodies are not free speech. You incorrectly label things as right of free speech when they are just free license instead.
free speech is not an excuse to insult someone and you should not say 'it is my right to free speech to call such and such an idiot'. That is your right to an opinion, not speech.
2007-06-06
17:14:41 ·
update #4
you do not have the freedom to be obscene.
2007-06-06
17:19:30 ·
update #5
kallenart, freedom of speech also entails freedom of expression. one does not have to speak to do something within their freedom of speech.
2007-06-06
17:20:24 ·
update #6
I disagree with your two examples. My definition of freedom of speech is anything that would provoke freedom of thought
2007-06-06 17:08:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by Patrick the Carpathian, CaFO 7
·
3⤊
2⤋
I'm sorry, but you are in fact wrong. Freedom of speech means just that, you are free to say anything you may wish to. In fact the first sentence of the wikipedia article you cited proves this, "Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship". Thus any speech including insults and parodies which is not censored is free. When the Nazis and the Soviet Union prevented people insulting their leaders, that was a restriction on those people's freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means you can express ANY idea that you wish, no matter what the content. Certain countries place restrictions on this freedom through defamation laws and racial tolerance laws. John Stuart Mill stated that freedom of speech should only be limited when it used to directly harm an individual, such as through inciting violence.
2007-06-07 00:37:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
How can you say the Dixie Chicks weren't exercising free speech?
John Stuart Mill outlined free speech fairly well in his "On Liberty". I would go by that definition, for the most part.
*Edit* I believe insulting someone is aprt of free speech. Harrasment is a different matter. But insulting someone, *especially* someone in power must be held has free speech or else the powerful will have even more power and yet another shield to hide behind. We MUST ridicule those in power when it is deserved. Parody and satire are vital to political discourse.
That said, Bush is a buffoon.
2007-06-07 00:10:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
Freedom of speech means to have the freedom to say what is on your mind. Whether or not you agree with the words that someone said they still have the freedom in this country to say them. With Freedom also come responsibility to at least give respect to others by not using vulgar language. At least not all the time and not around young children.
2007-06-07 00:16:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Tarlyng 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's a good question. It's a hard thing to define well.
Freedom of speech is the right to express yourself freely as long as you don't interfere with the rights of others.
A good guideline for this and other forms of behavior is to treat others as you would want to be treated.
It should not include any form of deception, but people should be able to express their beliefs.
You don't have a right to be offensive or obscene, however sometimes it's very appropriate to object to someones actions and they may take that as offensive.
Criminal violations can be difficult to determine and should probably be determined under common law instead being codified.
2007-06-07 11:44:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by Bryan Kingsford 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Dixie Chicks WERE excercising their freedom of speech.
yes, it also means the freedom to insult. Constructive criticism may be more mature and effective, but those are not requirements in the freedom to express one's opinion.
2007-06-07 02:17:41
·
answer #6
·
answered by answer faerie, V.T., A. M. 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hmmm...limits on freedom. Doesn't sound much like freedom to me. People can say whatever they choose to, no matter how disagreeble one may feel about it or how offended one CHOOSES to be by the words.
But, because some people choose to be offended by words and thoughts and ideas, they attempt to control what others can say, or do, or think...to "protect the weak", when what they are actually doing is suppressing free thought and free will.
Define obscene...everything is relative.
Of course, in this case, it's your world, and I'm just passing through...so your definitions are all that count here.
2007-06-07 00:17:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Always Curious 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, I hate to break this to you, but it doesn't matter what you think. The law is the only authority on this issue. Freedom of speech is normally absolute, with exceptions for inciting riots, threats, and statements that result in the physical harm of others. There are also limits to freedom of speech in public schools, the military, in cases of libel or slander, treasonous speech, obscenity, and when the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
2007-06-07 00:16:52
·
answer #8
·
answered by seattlefan74 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Freedom of speech is the right to differ in ideas. Freedom of speech is NOT the right to slander another person or yell fire in a crowded hall or to practise bigotry and racism in people's faces. The Dixie Chicks made a politically incorrect and career-damaging decision when they denounced Bush, but it was a pure example of freedom of speech. Turning your back on a flag isn't any kind of speech at all.
Conclusively, I believe freedom of speech is every person's right to express their views even if they differ from the norm or conflict with another's. But as I've often had to say to loud-mouthed, egotistical, prejudiced dorks, "Your right to freedom of speech ends where my right to freedom from listening to it begins."
2007-06-07 00:19:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
to ME freedom of speech is being able to do things and say things you truly and wholey feel with all your heart. the Dixie chicks were just showing off for crazy fans. Martin Luther King Spoke his true feelings about white and blacks being sepparated.Also freedom of speech isnt just speaking.it is doing what you feel is right. Freedom of speech means lots of different thing to a lot of different people, but that is what it means to me.
2007-06-07 00:15:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
As much as I detest the Dippy (Dixie) Chicks, I will defend their right to free speech.
To express a truthful opinion without damaging a person, company's legal ability to function normally or loose income. Falsehoods and lies are not protected speech when directed at a person, company or corporation.
When there is a loss then it MAY become slander or libel.
2007-06-07 00:10:49
·
answer #11
·
answered by Eldude 6
·
3⤊
0⤋