Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

Freedom of Speech! Everyone should have the full right to say they think every gay, 60-year-old and over, black person, and bigamist should be put onto an abandoned island and nuked into oblivion. He should be able to say this in a room full of 60-year-old gay black bigamists. And if any of those 60-year-old gay black bigamists- any of them- take the slightest bit of offense- they're anti-freedom xenophobes who don't want to introduce new ideas.

Freedom of Press! Every newspaper should tell the truth the way they want it, no matter how many lies there are. No one should be obligated to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Any celebrity who thinks, "hey, why should these people have access to my private life?" Is obviously unaware that those pictures were taken on public property, and the press can right whatever they want about anyone, so long as they might have thought it was true if they were eight times more gullible than they really are.

Freedom of Religion! Everyone should have full right to get into any self-destructive, psycho cults they want. The Cult of Satan should be able to set up right next to an elementary school. And if anyone takes offense to that, they're infringing on religion and are hyper-judgmental bigots who don't understand religion for what it really is.

Freedom of Assembly! We should allow pro Al-Qaeda to assemble in the streets and burn American flags, cursing any patriot they can. Anyone who takes offense to this is a control freak who wants to regulate any and all gatherings so he can just root out whatever his highly subjective sensitivities might take offense to.

All right, basically we're debating the four freedoms, if they've changed their meaning from the founding fathers to now, if they're an adequate idea of what creates a nation of free people, and if they should or should not be reformed.

My idea? I like the freedoms in concept. I don't like how they've been interpreted. Freedom of Speech was created so we could speak out against the government. And I understand that I've blown up the freedoms a bit more than most people would really have them. It's to illustrate a point.

How you interpret those freedoms is going to affect things.

Freedom of Speech? Should people really be allowed to say anything they want? anything?

Freedom of Press? Should they be free to lie?

Freedom of Religion? What if one religion says another must be destroyed? Should we annihilate that one, or restrain it? But then we've infringed on their rights. Should we let it annihilate the other? Then we've failed in protecting our freedoms.

Freedom of Assembly? Who should we let assemble in our country? Should we let people who see life itself as a curse to be lifted assemble, if they haven't done anything just yet?

Well, there are laws against libel, slander, yelling "fire" limiting free speech and press, and the unreasonable search and seizure should probably be applicable to the press (though Plessy v. Ferguson sets the precedent that amendments are usually only applicable to governments, not private organizations).

My town has its own mechanism discouraging disruptive gatherings: its drivers. I'm from the town most notorious for its combination of crazy roads and crazier drivers (first commandment of driving around here: thou shalt reach thy destination as quickly as possible. Everyone and everything else be damned).

Good topic idea, Mea.

This is an incredibly difficult subject for debate, because there isn't just no black and white boundary, the grey ones are terribly fuzzy. However, I go by the "end of my nose" philosophy": your right to throw a punch stops at the end of my nose. In other words, you have the right to do whatever is guaranteed under these amendments so long as they do not interfere in the livelihood and well-beings of others, the government, or society, and do not break the law.

I mean, if you wanna go on anti-gay tirades, it's your right to do so, as much as its my right to argue back and call you a jerk. However, when that speech is inciting to riot, disturbing the peace, or trying to begin violence, that is when Freedom of Speech ends because your right to freedom of speech does not trump the rights of anyone who comes to physical harm because of your words.

Freedom of speech: people can be sued for verble assault and slander.

Freedom of press: not much you can do about that but buy the newspaper, their rich so they can handle it...

Freedom of Religion: It's already been done...

Freedom Of assembly: Burning of american flags, against the law. And it won't be long un til cops show up and tell them to disperse, they'll stick around and watch like hawks, then one bottle is thrown and the cops break out their nightsticks

And yah, it;s how you interpret your freedom in america, will you accept it, or misuse it.

Actually, it is perfectly legal to go to the US Capitol building and burn as many American flags as you wish. You may recall the Flag Protection Act of 1989 which did forbid the desecration of a flag. In fact, violators would be jailed. However, it was challenged in 1990 in the court case of US v Eichman, and the US Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitutional. So now, it is perfectly legal for an Al-Queda sympathizer to go to the Capitol and burn a flag. Even though most Americans may not appreciate this, it is protected, and the government will protect one's right to do this.

And as Scalfin2000 said, freedom of speech is not completely free of rules. You cannot, for instance, go into a crowded movie theater and yell "FIRE" without being arrested. However, this law allows any person to say what is on their mind (such as in these forums) without fear of rebuke. In fact, members of Congress have this freedom, where they cannot be, in any way, brought to court because of anything they say while debating. This encourages people to speak their mind without fear of reprisal (we can thank King George for that one). Words cannot harm someone, but you can be accused of slander if you outright attack someone or an organization (Scientology is so fond of suing people over this). Freedom of speech, I believe, is just one of those laws that Congress needs to reanalyze, but cannot because it would require an amendment to, or alteration of, the Constitution.

Freedom of the Press is just a big joke. With all the tabloids and magazines floating around these days, it's hard to tell what is real and what is fake. Only the articles in big-name magazines can be counted on to be true, and if one of them turns out to be false, the newspaper will issue and apology (usually) to the person or organization the column was about. With all the new communication we have nowadays, you really have to be careful what you read.

Freedom of Assembly is, I believe, completely justified. There is an American Nazi party, and American Socialist party, the KKK, and an American Communist party. The world is full of different views, and they deserve a way to be heard. Remember, just because they exist doesn't mean that they're popular or hold any sway in the economy whatsoever.

Freedom of Religion is probably our most accepted freedom. In fact, that's the reason colonists came to America in the first place. Even Satanists should have a right to practice their religion, no matter how corrupt and misguided they may be. My religious views are completely different, but they still have a right to exist. But if they are participating in activities that will harm other people (physically or mentally, such as very young children), that is when the law gets to step in and put a censor on their activities.

But, when it all comes down to it, we still have the Necessary and Proper Clause, also called the Elastic Clause, because it can stretch to meet the needs of the country at that time. It allows Congress "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Short and simple, Congress can make any laws to protect the people, and it should start with our basic rights, and work from there.

So you think it's justified for our country to allow Nazis, Communists, KKK, etc.- into our doors?

Sure, Nazis aren't holocausting, the Communists are mostly harmless passive liberals (I'm the least worried about them- I have a friend who's semi-Communist), and the KKK haven't strung anyone up in recent memory. That we've known of, anyways.

But ideas have consequences. And when people with the same ideas congregate those ideas become stronger. So ask yourself- do we want these ideas to become stronger in our country? In our old and youth? Would you want the KKK meeting next door to your house or apartment? I think I wouldn't- you wouldn't- the majority of us wouldn't. The summary of this is- America is a big place only in population and size. Mass media, The Internet, cell phones, cars- those all made it alot smaller. The KKK have a website that shows up on the first google search. It's not on page 12, or 25, it's the top link on the first page. Not a history. Not a record of the terrible things they've done. A direct link to the cult. You don't think that's influential?

Actually, I'm OK with it. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with many (if any at all) of their political and social views, but that doesn't mean that I can bar them from existing. This is why America is regarded in higher esteem than some other countries, because you can be free from political oppression. Of course I wish they didn't exist, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't. They have just as much right to exist as the Republican and the Democrat party. Just because the citizens don't like it doesn't mean we can control it. They are citizens too, and they have the right to practice their beliefs (no matter how misguided they may be).

I believe that all 'freedoms', all 'rights', all rules and laws are artificial. They are created by man. Even if we believe some are God's decree its clearly man that interprets and implements them. Most importantly I believe that they simply set acceptable limits within a specific society at a specific time. Different time, different society and there will be different freedoms.

For example, here in the UK there is no offence of jaywalking. We can cross the road wherever we please - within reason. In the US (at least some states) I believe it is a criminal offence to cross the road except at designated place and times.

Here in the UK it is a criminal offence to use a mobile phone whist driving. Other places in the world it's probably acceptable practice.

I find it horrific that in the US (some states) people can openly walk down the street with Guns (visible, or otherwise). Here in the UK teachers are now allowed to search students for knives.

Euthanasia is illegal in most countries, but not all.

The point is, freedoms can only be discussed in context. What is reasonable depends on context.

I think what we really mean about freedom is our ability to affect and influence the society in which we live. Freedom of speech is about communication, and our ability to influence and change society. However, society is about balance and obligation and acceptable limits of behaviour.

Society must and usually does tolerate a certain pushing and even exceeding of those limits. Total observance of all limits (law based, moral based, religious based) just never really happens. If there is enough of a push in one direction those limits move, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly. This is how society evolves.

So, newspapers lie. We all know that. We accept that. We let them do it. Up to a point.

So groups like the KKK, or the Nazis are no different (conceptually) than the Mormons, or Vegan society, or any other group. They are trying to influence society (some more than others). We don't have to agree with them, but we should let them be heard. Up to a point.

So, I think its up to you, as part of society to decide what you want the world to be like for your children. Question what you believe is acceptable, and make your thoughts known. You'll need to realise that not everything you want is going to be acceptable, but you cannot have freedom without obligation, any more than you can have light without dark, or good without bad.

Atheists would say the same thing about Christianity "because Christians once started the crusades, therefore they're dangerous". If we abolish freedom of assembly, you can kiss churches goodbye, as atheists all over will be demanding the outlaw of religious meeting. It's a scary thought not being guaranteed the freedoms I have today, and I don't intend to give up even an little bit of them.

Ask an atheist what they beleive in. then ask them to explain it. You can have so much fun with that. just keep asking questions about things they say. oh man Force is going to kill me if he ever hears that I'm telling other what I did to him.

Sorry when you sit on a crew for 12 hours a day or night you and the 38 people around you start to get really weird.

But what are my veiws on these 4 freedoms. maybe a bit diffrent.

Freedom of speech: I serve my country and you so that you can say what you believe not what you want.

Freedom of religion: I serve so that you have the right to believe what you beleive in without causing harm to others.

Freedom of press: I serve so that the press has the right to tell you what is going on in the country and the world without giving up information that could possably cause harm to our country, troops or civilians. In other words if something clasified is found out it isn't printed or reported as it is classified for a reason.

Freedom for assembily: I serve so that you have the right to assemble in a calm and peiceful fashion that doesn't cause harm to others so that you can voice your veiws in a group. once it becomes violent you have given up that right.

that is my stance on it.

Sometimes, things seem to be classified because they are embarrassing, such as all the times The New York Times has released news about still-classified operations after waiting for there to be no harm in reporting it.

yes thats true but if a newpaper found out the names and identidies of our spies thruout the world and posted that. umm I think that would cause lots of damage.

Then they could be held accountable for any loss of life (if the connection could be proven).

What really gets me is why none of the people at Guantanamo haven't sued FOX News for calling them terrorists rather than "alleged terrorists," as is customary concerning those awaiting trial.

Ehhh who knows. but I rather watch Fox over CNN. dont' get me started with CNN. or HNN.

But that could be due to the fact of 12 - 16 hours a day with that on the big screen in a room that has no windows or a bathroom in it. and yes 38 people in a room and only 4 people can leave at any point in time to go smoke, use the bathroom or get their food from the fridge in the breakroom can cause lots of problems.

then you have cnn going off all the time. even though we do use them for information on certain things relating to what we need.

but just sitting there looking at a stupid screen not able to do anything else. and 95% of the time not seeing a danm thing. but when you do you have like 5 minutes of activity and then its back to watching the screen again.

arghhhhh. -slams head off the desk- I'm half mexican and use to be fairly dark skined. now I look like a ghost.

sorry i think I went off topic there.

but yea its the news can't control them.

I suppose I can understand that, I concede the argument. ((WTF? Someone who actually comes back and concedes the argument instead of just disappearing?)) It's just the fact that those people can be scary, is all. KKK more than anyone- Nazis only had anything because they had Hitler- without him, they wouldn't have been able to get any of their real methods on the table. And most people in America are pretty disillusioned about communism, considering every single country it's ever been in is a total moral failure, and most of them are economic ones too.