Do you understand your right to freedom of speech?

Question

Do you realize that in order for your right to free speech to be "infringed," it has to be the GOVERNMENT preventing you from speaking? You'd have to be arrested, or otherwise punished, BY THE GOVERNMENT, in order for your First Amendment rights to be infringed.

Do you understand this, or are you one of those people who thinks that someone objecting to a statement you make is an infringement of your freedom of speech?

Actually, convictionist, that isn't a free speech issue. That's a terrorist threat issue.

avail_skillz: The Constitution only protects you from being controlled by your government. The Constitution does not control the actions of private citizens; it restricts the authority of the government.

convictionist: Read the Constitution. It's available on many webpages. Google it.

Answer 1

Of course I understand it. I've gone so far as to actually read the Constitution. I wish the same could be said for judges & editorial writers. Lots of people seem to think that free speech means the freedom to speak without criticism, but my 1st amendment rights allow me to criticize whoever & whatever I want to.

Answer 2

You're partly correct-the part about the government.

But a private citizen cannot act to coerce you not to speak, either. The can impose some limits under certain circumstances--as, for instance, an employer can resonably tell you you can't tell an obnoxious customer to shut the hell up--even if the jerk deserves it.

Now, strictly speaking, that can be considered to fall under the obvious legal prohibitions against forcing or intimidating someone with threats, rather than a free speech issue. But the body of constitutional law and court decisions is clear on this point--except in special cases (as noted) private citizens may not restrict their felllow citizens speech.

Answer 3

Freedom of speech in the U.S.A. is under seige, and being attacked by the unauthorized doctrine of "Political Correctness." Example, blacks use the word."******" all the time in their own environs, and that seems to be acceptable. However, whites, or others are forbidden to use the word,"******" because it is not politically correct. The right to make a vocal utterance of whatever kind or nature, is a God given right, superceding all man made edicts such as the First Admendment. We know there are severe penalties for using one's free speech, as Jesus Christ was killed by crucifixion for saying what he believed. If freedom of speech prevailed in this country, one could use the so called N word in their answers, as long as it was not directed against someone. Other than white races, use the words, "HONKY", CRACKER", "REDNECK" etc., directed against whites, and that is politically correct, again, confirming the double standard in this sick, wacko, duped nation of idiots and wimps.

Answer 4

I don't think it has to be just the government, but objection to a statement is also free speech. Spinning facts to imply and untruthful statement is also protected by freedom of speech, even though it is an abuse of it.

Answer 5

So I assume you aren't one of the liberals claiming the Dixie Chicks freedom of speech was being denied.

Answer 6

Well, we have a few politicians who are supposed to be representing Americans that do not. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nanci Peloci et.al. who are trying to draft "The Fainess Doctrine". Do not be fooled. This is a measure designed ONLY to silence the voice of opposition. Do you ever see Republicans attempting to silence those who do not agree with their point of view? I honestly don't. They engage the opposition and debate it. Another point: Isn't it funny how John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and John Edwards shy away from Conservative networks and media agencies where *gasp* someone might disagree with them and they might be confronted to defend a position?

U.S. Citizens. It is evident in the education system, the media, and in the actions and policies set forth by the politicians themselves that Liberals wish to silence those who disagree and in doing so, mean to make and keep citizens ignorant to the facts ar even just the other side of the story. Sound a bit like Communism to me.

Answer 7

I'm not sure that definition matches precedent. If someone demands your silence of threat of death (even another civilian), your freedom of speech as been legally defiled.

If you can prove it with a webpage: I'll stand corrected. :)

Answer 8

What's your point? This can pertain to local, state, national, religious, or private government