WHAT is free speech – cite original and primary sources of the idea of free speech?
Best pledge wіll cite original аnd primary sources οf thе thουght οf free speech.
Whаt іѕ free speech NOT?
Dοеѕ thе West presently hаνе free speech, whatever іt іѕ?
Hοw dοеѕ one gеt free speech? Or іѕ one born wіth іt?
Concord! =D
@ Rowlfe, thankyou! I wіll check persons out. I аm seeking thе first formulation οf thе principle οf free speech.
Free speech is when you can say ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING! That means to say whatever your opinion is and even say dirty terms. I skepticism that there is any free speech today. Most people consider what is aptly and incorrect thus they can’t talk freely in the full meaning of the word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak without censorship or limitation, or both. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes used to indicate not only freedom of verbal speech but any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or thoughts, regardless of the medium used, known in United States law as “symbolic speech”. In practice, the aptly to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the aptly is often theme to limitations, such as on “despise speech”. Speech that is permitted by force of the aptly to freedom of speech is also called protected speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
In other terms such restrictions as not being allowed to discuss the absurdities of religion is a violation of free speech. Not being allowed to criticize Islam is a violation of free speech.
Every dictatorship has had free speech as long as what you say agrees with standard opinion. A free nation has no restrictions.
The 1st amendment to the US Constitution is generally cited as a source. Here is the 1st amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the aptly of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a restore of grievances.”
Note the phrase “Congress shall make no law…” and then break down the rest phrase by phrase. First thing, no law establishing a religion. The Church of England is what this was aimed at, which was made the state religion of England by law of the king. Next phrase, regarding free exercise thereof, which means no law telling you what to do regarding religion, again insuring government does not endorse any one religion and giving you the aptly to choose which .if any you wish to believe. Abridging the freedom of speech or of the press means no laws restricting what you SAY or WRITE provided it is right. You are guilty of slander if you SAY lies, and libel if you WRITE lies about another. Finally, peaceful gathering and restore of grievances means you can the boards a protest on the front steps of Congress and present a petition to be heard. This one goes back to the Boston Tea Party and the resentment of taxation without representation. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are two of the basic premises behind the Declaration of Independence.
So, this does not really tell you anything about your individual rights as such, but rather is a restriction on Congress to prohibit making law limiting certain of your rights as a citizen. The Supreme Court determines constitutionality of law as to whether it violates the provisions of the 1st amendment or any other provision in the Constitution. But, nothing gets to the Supreme Court without being challenged at lower court levels first, and then it can rise to the top legal dogs in the land only on fascinate to reverse a lower court choice. The Supreme Court does NOT make law, but rather only interprets unfilled law. There is talk of “activist judges” where they rule and set precedent that in effect makes law, thereby circumventing Congress with their law. The case in Arkansas is a case on point, where certain parts were struck down on constitutional issues regarding the unreasonable search provision of the 4th amendment. There was also an issue with the 14th amendment about equal treatment under the law by allowing a cop on the street to demand you to identify yourself simply because he sought after to, with no grounds for probable cause. A search without a warrant is legal IF and ONLY IF the cop has “probable cause” that a crime has been or is about to be committed or evidence may be ruined if there is a delay in apprehension.
Bottom line: we are NOT born with any rights at all. What we have are documents which provide for certain things through the laws of our society and government. As a citizen, you have these rights granted by defaulting in the USA through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Other countries may differ. The former Soviet Union for example, does NOT have a aptly of free speech as the US does. Their documents and laws DO restrict what people can say. A specific is that you can not stand on the steps of their government and protest your treatment. You can be arrested without a warrant and held indefinitely without being charged with a CRIME. The thing is, the rights you have come from the documents that mark out your government.
The thought of free speech, and free thought, was place forth by Spinoza in the 1600s. He was extremely worried that Church and State were not separate, that people who held differing views were persecuted, and that in many areas writing or speaking against the leading religion or government would have you killed or imprisoned. John Locke, the fantastic British empiricist, lived for some time in Spinoza’s home area around Amsterdam and became familiar with his views. Locke was a fantastic influence on the American founding fathers, who codified the aptly to free speech in their Constitution.