Are we excessive in our tolerances of Freedom of speech?

Question

When is enough, really "enough"?
Watching a video of an ethnic group, exercising their rights under our constitution, displaying dozens of flags of THEIR country, while they desecrated, demeaned and grossly treated ours, while wearing bandana's to cover their identity. (Which I thought was illegal, except at Halloween.)
Another video, of a zealous and fanatical religious group, intentionally disrupting a graveside ceremony, of the family and relatives of a soldier killed in Iraq.
The Vietnam demonstrations during the 70's, was at least by citizens, who had earned the right to protest their governments actions.
Is it time perhaps that the United States has simply become too large in population, with a government defying the law and the will of the people?

Answer 1

The Bill or Rights is perhaps one of the most wonderful documents ever conceived by man. The rights are not absolute, but there is a balance between them, and this balance is periodically adjusted by laws that are ultimately tested by the Supreme Court, and we have a lot in need of testing.

One of the wonderful rights in America is the right to openly critize the government and its leaders. In other nations this is treason. A problem for some is that they get confused between the people who make the policy and those who have little choice in carrying it out.

Because in a large protest, there is need for police to keep the groups that are hostile to each other separated, there is a need to announce in advance that there will be some parade or march and get a permit to do so. It is important that these permits be issued without favor so that these demonstrations may continue, providing a healthy outlet for protesting.

There was a problem with people protesting the war, by picking on returning soldiers (Vietnam) which I think has been largely resolved without legislation, and by harrassing families at gravesites of fallen heroes (Iraq) which has been addressed by recent legislation not yet tested by Supreme Court.

Thanks to abuses in history, there are some words which have become "fighting words" or "curse words" or "filthy words" or whatever, so there are places and settings where some words are banned. Similarly there are some images (pornography) or promotion of activities (pedophilia) that people no longer have the freedom to engage in.

Burning Crosses is a form of sacriledge that is intended to inlame emotions and strike fear into hearts, so laws have been passed banning this. I do not have a problem with that.

Burning the nation's flag as a gesture of protest was supported for a long time, and I think this has now been banned. I am a bit uncomfortable with that. I think protestors need to have a variety of peaceful means to voice their contempt for government policies.

During the Vietnam war I thought the people who broke into Draft offices and poured animal blood over the draft records had gone too far.

I support the concept of Civil Disobedience, in which there is a willingness to go to jail. Seems to me some people who engage in Civil Disobedience do not understand non-violence and do not understand that filling the jails with the bodies of the protestors is part of the whole point of the thing.

There is a religious right to wear hats (Islam, Jew) cross (Christian) etc. but in matters of public safety there is a conflict. Suppose you have a Christian cross that can be used as a weapon. There are places you may not go (airport, school) because weapons banned there. You still have the right to have your weaponized cross because of religious freedom, but not go every place with it.

Some of Islam believe the face must be totally covered and we respect that religion, except to have a driver's license the face must be shown, for the photo, and while driving the vehicle. The people who need to have their face covered all the time, they cannot also drive a car in this country. It is their choice. Cover face all the time and never have a driver's license.

You see a friend over there whose name is Jack. You shout out "Hi, Jack" which is legal except in an airport or airplane. If you shout "Fire" in a croweded theatre, the panic could kill people, so you not have that freedom of speech there.

I think we have a problem with respect to protesting the practices of private enterprise. People break into the property, do damage, and this damage puts other people at risk depending on the nature of the biomedical research that was being done there. I am referring to groups like PETA that protest the use of animals in research. Some of those animals may have been infected with deadly diseases that should not leave the laboratory.

Then we have abortion clinics. I know that the nation is divided on this topic, and many people deeply troubled. Some of the tactics used by the protestors are prolonging the struggle. Do we ever see any signs "Please let me adopt your baby so you don't have to kill it?"

When people are within a particular nation, their flag is the one of honor, all others below it. Exception is embassy of foreign nation ... that is considered to be soil of that nation, so all the embassies would have their falg higher than the one of the nation there.

e.g. US embassy in Russia flies US flag higher than Russia flag. That is the standard.

At the United Nations, the UN flag flies higher than the member nations whose flags are all equal. This is done at UN HQ in NY and at UN offices around the world.

Answer 2

Depends on what exaclty you are looking at. I at tiems think fredoms of speech can be excessive.

i.e. Burning the flag should NOT be protected speach. People died for that flag. Yet the same courts forbit burning crosses? (I beleive burning crosses is WRONG, but I also believe burning the flag is worse.)

OTOH, with members of congress talking about the "fairness act" we here would be restricting free speak WAY too far. Besides, what is "fair" about restricting radio ONLY. You wnat true fairness then you would have to apply it to all media. ALSO egregeiously wrong in my mind. Yes going after radio ONLY makes it blatantly political which makes it FAR worse that a blanket approach.

There are many other examples in both directions. Basically here is my thought

Freedom of speach is VERY integral to our system and MUST be protected.
Where your speach begins to hurt others (liable, slander etc) you should be restricted.
Labeling some media for adult contenct violence and stuff is fine. Restricting it beyond reasonable age limits is NOT.
We need to tolerate some speach we find distasteful as if we do not freedoms could be restricted much farther than any of us would likely find acceptable.

Just some of my thoughts.

Answer 3

No, it has not gone too far. In fact we are too limited in our freedom of speech. If you were to tell one of those people off, they would prosecute you for harassment and even discrimination.

Answer 4

Interestingly, I don't like what YOU are saying. Don't you feel that YOU are carrying it too far?


"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for
people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

Answer 5

No but we are to tolerant of those that say we are not being "Politically Correct!"

Answer 6

I agree

Answer 7

No.