believe our founding fathers meant for it to go to the extremes that it has. I believe they meant for us to have healthy debate, but I don't think they EVER thought of what it is used for now.
2007-09-24 06:40:54 · 13 answers · asked by judyarb1945 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
I disagree. Freedom of speech is a valued and precious right. It should not be abused, like the left wing liberal loonies do on a daily basis.
2007-09-24 06:44:58 · answer #1 · answered by regerugged 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The intent was for the government to be unable to stifle dissent as it was felt that for the government to be of, by and for the people that the people had to be able to speak freely.
I feel it is being abused, but by the government. Someone asking a political candidate uncomfortable questions should not get him tasered by the goons (billy clubs in the context of when the words were written) but that happened two weeks ago. When Bush has public speeches dissenters are shuffled away out of the view of cameras.
Newspapers tend to print what they've been told to print. There are very few hard-nosed journalistic investigators and the ones who do try and dig deeper dont' last long.
I remember being 19 and saying in public "Jimmy Carter is an idiot!" and no one being upset by it. A little healthy debate, but that's it. If I say something similar today I'm called a traitor, a non-patriot, a muslim-sympathizer and may likely get a call from the Secret Service.
You have no idea, since you lack the years, the extent to which are freedoms are being trampled on a daily basis. That's only the tip of the iceberg.
P.S. I'm 48, close enough.
2007-09-24 07:16:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think our 'founding fathers' or mothers should be the bar by which we measure acceptable or unacceptable speech. They were all rebels facing charges of treason against the crown, so they wanted to ensure that the government would not be in control of what people said or how they said it. These are the same people who threw British tea into Boston harbor - freedom of expression? yeah, I think so. Would they approve of song lyrics advocating rape? I doubt it, but neither do most of us so we can exercise our right to NOT buy it or listen to it. When we allow our government to say what is acceptable speech and punish what isn't, we'll be right back in Joseph McCarthy's day and that would be shameful. In fact, I'm pretty sure our 'founding fathers' and mothers would have found McCarthy and the Red Scare to be exactly the kind of restraints they were afraid we might encounter. For that reason, I support freedom of speech and expression as is befitting today's social expectations.
2007-09-24 06:51:11 · answer #3 · answered by tupi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That doesn't make sense. What is it USED for now. Freedom of speech is freedom of speach...period.
I like that someone can stand up and proclaim they are correct about something with a passion and I like that I can agree or disagree. Even If I really really disagree It is still ok and good. That is the beauty of it.
you are saying you like it as long as they say what you want to hear...that's not freedom. That would be the opposite of freedom.
2007-09-24 06:47:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
On the contrary, I firmly believe that unconstitutional restrictions on FREEDOM OF SPEECH have been attempted over and over again, some successful, some not, for many years, especially in the 7 w. years.
For example, his political appointments to the FCC have imposed unfair restrictions on access to and use of the airwaves, and have greatly increased the amounts of fines for what should be allowable speech in the media.
His restrictions on who gets to attend and ask him questions at supposedly "public" appearances have further made aspects of FREEDOM of speech a laughingstock.
The constitutional right of freedom of speech is a sacred right that must be protected, not abrogated by demagogues seeking to insulate themselves and protect their power.
2007-09-24 06:53:55 · answer #5 · answered by theHoundDawg 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What extremes has freedom of speech gone to? It should stop at hate speech or speech that incites harm to others. But other than that it shouldn't be restricted. Why do you feel our freedoms should be reduced? I am not clear on what you would consider abuse of legitimate freedom of speech.
2007-09-24 06:46:21 · answer #6 · answered by iNsTaNt pUdDiNhEaD 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"thought of what it is used for now." - Like what? I'm not seeing any dangerous abuses slipping by, so I'm not positive what it is you'd object to. What are you seeing that's so extreme, you'd willingly give up such an important right?
Freedom of speech- Say whatever you want, but you won't always like what you hear.
2007-09-24 06:49:03 · answer #7 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If we had freedom of speech Imus would have a job. Imus should have just released it on a rap album and all would have been forgiven
2007-09-24 06:52:18 · answer #8 · answered by archkarat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not so much abused as it has become selective. If only Imus would have sang his comments to a melody rather than spoke them in a clear sentence, he could have won a Grammy
2007-09-24 06:44:14 · answer #9 · answered by espreses@sbcglobal.net 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
I think we have the right to say whatever we want to do as long as we obey the law. Earned it long ago. For instance I think George W. Bush is a jackass and idiot. And I figure his record proves it. He probably thinks I am. But it's his right as a freeborn American. Same as mine!
2007-09-24 06:47:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋