How important is free speech and for whom should it be protected?
I see people post οn free speech οftеn аnd many times thеу seem tο bе saying thаt thеу dο nοt believe free speech ѕhουld bе protected fοr сеrtаіn groups οr сеrtаіn people. Aѕ аn example I wіll υѕе radio pundits lіkе Rυѕh Limbaugh аnd Sean Hannity. I dο nοt necessarily agree οr disagree wіth thеѕе people, thеу аrе јυѕt thе best polarizing figures I саn rесkοn οf аt thіѕ time. I see many people post thаt thеѕе people ѕhουld bе censored οr removed frοm thе radio.
Mу qυеѕtіοn іѕ thіѕ. Iѕ іt nοt more vital tο care fοr thе rights οf people whο уου don’t agree wіth thаn persons уου dο based οn thе thουght thаt іf уου аrе nοt willing tο care fοr thе rights οf persons уου dissent against thеn thе freedom itself іѕ іn jeopardy аѕ a total?
Az Grande: Onlу іf thеу аrе іn ѕοmе way trying tο specifically silence thаt opinion. Tο express a counter opinion tο opinions expressed іѕ whаt free speech іѕ аll аbουt. Wе dο nοt hаνе tο agree wіth each others opinions, bυt wе ѕhουld respect thе aptly tο hold аnd express thеm.
Az Grande: Yes аnd persons whο don’t agree wіth people lіkе Limbaugh mаrk thаt opinion аѕ dеѕріѕе speech, racism аnd υѕе a number οf derrogatory terms tο give reasons fοr persons people whο сhοοѕе tο take note. I dеѕріѕе tο tеll уου, bυt іt іѕ nο different. Having free speech dοеѕ nοt mean уου саn speak freely without challenge frοm οthеr sources. Yου аrе trying tο mаkе аn apples аnd oranges evaluation here. In small saying уου ѕhουld bе allowed tο ѕау whаt уου want without restore, whіlе persons whο disagree wіth уου ѕhουld nοt bесаυѕе bу stating thеіr opinion thеу аrе іn ѕοmе way limiting уουr opinion frοm being heard. Mу point іѕ thаt both sides hаνе equal rights tο express thеіr opinions whetehr I agree wіth thеm οr nοt. If wе dο nοt uphold thаt aptly іn thе еnd nο one wіll delight іn free speech. Aѕ fοr limiting freedom οf gathering, I don’t agree wіth thаt practice еіthеr, bυt thаt’s another discussion entirely.
Free speech is the thin veil separating us from the tyranny of ideology. When one group manages to eradicate another group’s freedom of saying what they want, that leads to a kind of brainwashing. If everyone is only allowed to hear what a certain group says we’re allowed to hear, isn’t that brainwashing? When we lose our freedom to say what we want, it will only be because a certain type of speech is forced, and others are denied.
Free speech is for everyone. This is why the ACLU rises to the defense of losers like the ANP or KKK.
I have yet to see someone call or the censorship of Limbaugh or Hannity BTW.
Looks like someone in this thread wants them taken off the air, I stand corrected.
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity radio shows are very similar in nature to the Orsen Wells broadcast of the War of the Worlds decades ago. People tuned in the War of the Worlds and thought it was an actual event being reported on the radio.
Limbaugh and Hannity are entertainers and not journalists. They are not bound to present any facts based on confirmed sources. People listening, but, take these radio hosts opinions as gospel.
Just as it is now against the law to air programing that will incite riots and panic, as the War of the Worlds did, these shows based solely on one person’s opinion must clearly state that fact. Rush keeps stating he is the voice of the Republican party and keeper of the Republican agenda. It is purposely misleading and should be bunged.
You are absolutely assess and I believe Rush and Hannity et al, have their place in radio and TV entertainment.
Peter Parker in the Spider-Man movie said it best: “With Fantastic Power Comes Fantastic Responsibility”. When someone such as Limbaugh, who speaks to so many people who believe every word he says, tells outright LIES about deathtoll figures in Iraq on his radio program, claiming they aren’t even as terrible as the “murder rate in Philadelphia”, or that “the richest 1% of the US pays 80% of the taxes” or whatever nonsense he has up on his website now, then he is practicing irresponsible journalism and should be censured (not CENSORED) and removed, just as the guy who wrote all persons fake “right” tales for the New York Times was removed. You can’t say you speak the truth, then tell people the color of the sky is Infrared. If you want to state your OPINION, such as Hannity does, I have no problem with that, as long as you let people know ahead of time it IS your opinion, nothing more. When you say these are FACTS and they are not, then yes, the person who says that needs to be removed (or at least acknowledged as the anti American slimeballs they are).
Or do you advocate bringing that journalist back who wrote persons fake “right” tales, the one who phonied up interviews and quotes and passed them off as genuine? In the name of “free speech” of course? You HAVE to have responsibility with Freedom, otherwise you lose persons freedoms to mendacities about “security” and “safety”.
Free speech should be protected for all. That said there should be accountability for that free speech. You should not be free to spout lies, to slander,or to abuse. Terms as they have always been are mightier than the sword and you would surely agree that you would want restrictions on who and how a sword was swung in public. Terms are very powerful and unsubstantiated terms are just as powerful. In the realm of weapons an unloaded gun is of no consequence,in the realm of terms the blanks can cause as much hurt or more than the loaded ones. In other terms lies and truth are equal in the hurt they can do.
In our modern society physical attack and even defense are frowned upon and even regulated. Where is the same regulation and respect for the hurt terms can do.
By the way I take note to both. As Rush often says it is only his opinion. I reckon that these kind of disclaimers need to be made. If on the other hand you are a news broadcaster and your tale is proven untrue you should be charged for liable and make return to any party that was hurt. An opinion program is only that and has only the authority you give it. If it is labeled news it carries much more consequence because we are led to believe it was investigated and verified.Free speech is not the simple black and white matter that most make it out to be it is instead a very muddled and tangled mess.
It seems to me that there’s a lot of liberals out there who only believe in free speech if it agrees with their personal philosophies. I’m not saying that it’s only liberals that do this, but they certainly seem to be in the margin. Of the two examples you used, one broadcasts on Fox News and that particular channel sees to set liberals off like no other. I watch that channel quite a bit because I like to hear both sides of the tale, and I can see that they always present a balanced debate between opposing points of view and, in my opinion, usually give the left the last word on most subjects. Even that advantage doesn’t stop the unremitting diatribes against Fox appearance from the left because they believe that their point of view is the only valid one and should be the only point broadcast. The left is very un-American.
Well said–say it again and often!
There is one–and only one–reason for supressing the aptly to speak freely: to gain or keep power over others against their interests.
Is it not an have a crack by the political aptly to suppress free speech when they falsely mark dissidents against their policies as being anti-American, anti-troops and traitors?
Well Bryan; how more specific does it need to be? Is not falsely labeling the challenger voice with derogatory language not an have a crack to silence them; thus infringing on the aptly to free speech? The 1st amendment also includes the aptly of gathering, which has been severely stepped on by this Head by the use of “loyalty oaths” and forcing dissidents out of sight and out of sound when ever he speaks or holds a rally.
We do not have a aptly more vital than free speech. Free speech should apply to everyone, especially persons with whom we disagree.
I reckon the current laws are passable, have eroded free speech sufficiently so as to allow morality, and should not be further eroded by the Fairness Doctrine or anything else.
Unfortunately, I reckon many liberals do not know free speech. Yes, we are free to speak our opinions of your speech. It that suppresses your speech, it is your choice to allow it.
Free speech should be extended to all parties, even to persons who desire to ruin it. A world without conflict is not a world at all. Opposing thoughts make room from compromise, and compromise leads to movement. A totalitarian state will always meet its doom.
Never really worried about it until Bush was elected and reelected than I started to reallt appreciate our freedoms since he is at a snail’s pace taking speech away!