English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

please i need some examples

2007-12-08 16:46:26 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

24 answers

I think people need to take a look at the first amendment and recognize exactly what it is, what it means, and why it exists. Freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything you want at any time, no matter what it is. Read it and understand it before you consider claims that first amendment rights have been denied.

Freedom of speech protects you from the federal government only. Anything not operated by the government can prohibit or require any kind of speech it wants. Only the government must abide by the first amendment. And you are not going to find many legitimate examples because most people who claim to have been denied that freedom were abusing it or doing something illegal. You have the right to peacefully present new ideas and new ways of thinking, even if they directly oppose the status quo. But the key there is "peacefully". If you are inciting violence or any kind of major disruption then you are overstepping your constitutional rights. It also doesn't give you the right to act like an ***. It's like the kid who had the sign that said "bong hits for jesus". If that is what the constitution is protecting then we are in real trouble. But when you have a new idea, be it scientific, political, philosophical, religious, or whatever else, then the constitution was set up to allow you to present that idea in an open forum without fear of punishment by the federal government.

Probably the best example of this freedom, and many other freedoms, being denied was during the late 1940's and 1950's when the fear of communism was starting to take hold in the US. Read about the McCarthy hearings, or McCarthyism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism ).

2007-12-08 17:30:12 · answer #1 · answered by counter774 3 · 1 0

The Supreme Court recognizes seven forms of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment:

1) Words that incite others to commit a crime, prosecuted as incitement or conspiracy. Osama Bin Laden, when caught, could be prosecuted for inciting the 9/11 attacks, even though he was not present at the time of the attacks.

2) Fighting words--words that directly incite a breach of the peace, such as shouting insults at someone.

3) Defamation--harming another person's reputation with words. When done by speech it is known as slander; when done in print it is known as libel.

4) False and deceptive advertising. This is a form of fraud--taking people's money under false pretenses. For example, someone selling swamp land cannot claim First Amendment protection.

5) Obscenity--words or images or live performances that violate community standards of vulgarity and meet a three-part test for what is obscene.

6) Child pornography--not really an extension of obscenity because it has a completely different definition: any depiction of an actual person under 18 involved in sexual conduct.

7) Speech that conflicts with a compelling interest of the government, such as the conduct of a war. Treason is a form of the compelling interest limit.

There is another type of speech that can be prohibited that does not fit neatly into any of those categories: direct threats expressed by symbolic speech, such as cross-burning.

2007-12-10 12:16:35 · answer #2 · answered by Centaur 6 · 1 0

In many middle eastern countries, you cannot speak negatively towards their religion or holy figures. They are actually against their equivalent of Federal laws and you can be subject to punishment including death.

Please keep in mind, "freedom of speech" in the United States ONLY says, there will be no laws against speech. That means, you won't be made a criminal for something you said. There can be other consequences. For example, in appropriate speech can get you fired from your job in private sectors. You could also be disciplined in schools.

2007-12-08 16:52:34 · answer #3 · answered by tkquestion 7 · 4 0

Do you really think any of the candidates for the next presidency really have freedom of speech? I'm sure they could speak truthfully and freely express their true beliefs on certain subjects but what they share might ruin their chances with voters. Freedom of speech is a subjective term for reasons like this. You could speak you mind about outdated and impractical corporate policy at your job but might get passed over for a promotion or fired because of it. Sure, you're free to say most of the things you want as long as you aren't threatening someone but a lot of times that freedom comes with consequence.

2007-12-08 16:52:32 · answer #4 · answered by Gentle One 3 · 1 1

Limitation on Speech falls under these six catagories
1. Obscenity-can't show porn freely and to minors n such.
2. Fighting words- cannot be so offensive to the common person that it poses a threat of immediate violent reaction
3.slander/defamation-I couldn't print an article in my school paper about our headmaster being gay and only being the principle to entice us into sex.
4.Clear and Present danger- yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre
5. Time, place, manner
6. False and misleading advertisement.

2007-12-08 17:41:57 · answer #5 · answered by hockeyfan7602001 2 · 1 0

When you can't speak out against where your tax dollars are going.

Look at the Shac 7

"The SHAC 7 are 6 animal rights activists and the organization Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA (SHAC USA) who were convicted on March 2, 2006, under the controversial Federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act. The Act punishes anyone who "physically disrupts" an animal enterprise. The charges stem from these activists' alleged participation in an international campaign to close the notorious product testing lab Huntingdon Life Sciences.

Specifically, these activists are alleged to have operated a website that reported on and expressed ideological support for protest activity against Huntingdon and its business affiliates. For this they are charged with "terrorism" and face an aggregate of 23 years in Federal Prison."

2007-12-08 16:58:19 · answer #6 · answered by Reflected Life 5 · 1 2

As I recall, she was kept in custody for her own protection. Unless you are talking about another one. Even if she was arrested for what she said however, it wouldn't mean that "Britain does not allow free speech" the line between someones right and hate speech is very thin sometimes mistakes will be made. In the specific case i think you are referring to however, she was arrested for her actions, not her words.

2016-05-22 06:38:55 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

In any environment that is not controlled by the government. Remember, the 1st Amendment only applies to the government. Anyone else (an employer, property owner, etc...) can tell you to shut your pie hole.

2007-12-08 17:34:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

security forces always have had this lack of freedom of speech and courts of law also restrict freedom to talk because they do not allow the time........there is the internet if it calms your soul

2007-12-08 16:59:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

✘ You are not allowed to incite panic with false alarms.
✘ Perjury is another form of illegal speech.
✘ Menacing Threats

2007-12-08 16:52:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

fedest.com, questions and answers