[Hyacinth Bucket]

I had an interesting conversation this evening on freedom of speech. We know from personal experiences where we can not write or state what we would like to say.

Other than on certain street corners in the states or on the continent, or your own blog, where do you feel you have full freedom of speech.

Looking forward to hearing your responses.

HB

[Muncle]

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Bucket

I had an interesting conversation this evening on freedom of speech. We know from personal experiences where we can not write or state what we would like to say.

Other than on certain street corners in the states or on the continent, or your own blog, where do you feel you have full freedom of speech.

Looking forward to hearing your responses.

HB

HB, surprised to see you open such a potentially huge can of worms. For those who will opine, I'd like to remind them of the basis for this right, the first amendment. "[I]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 right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances[/I]." It does not say that Acme Corp. cannot make employment rules restricting speech nor does it say that an organization cannot impose restriction for membership. Over the years, this right has evolved to include many other than Congress, especially school boards and even non-government organs. We have reached a point where many believe that their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech allows them to say anything about anybody anytime and anywhere, sans the old yelling fire in the crowded theater. I do not believe that was the initial purpose of its inclusion in the Constitution and I hope we eventually move back closer to the framers' intent.

And then there is the standard reply to spee4ch with which one disagrees. You may have the right to say it, but I do not have to listen nor does society owe you a platform for that speech. Case in point were the rantings of Ward Churchill. I firmly believe that he had a right to say what he said, whether he actually believed all his polemics, but I was sorry the press publicized him so much, and I fault the Colorado university system for providing his platform. The same applies to Ann Coulter. Whether you agree with her or not, she has a right to her views and her writings. However, no publisher has a duty to print her books, certainly no one has to buy the or read her columns, and no television or radio show must give Ann her platform. In both cases above, when their expected platforms were denied, both cried "Freedom of Speech." Both were wrong.

So, in answer to your question, HB, I feel that I have full freedom of speech anywhere, anytime (with minimal legal exceptions), but if I exercise that right, I must be prepared for the reaction.

[Boomer]

Wow, Munc,

You sure are coherent in the middle of the night. Here I sit wondering what in the heck I am doing awake.

I like your answer a lot. First, I grabbed it into my post with the intention of going back into it and pulling out just the parts I wanted to comment on, the parts I really liked. But then I decided that I liked all of it. Excellent examples, too.

I wanted to write something in response to this question by HB but I could not get my head around exactly how to say it. It is really late for me right now. I rarely type after midnight.

Anyway, I grow so weary of those who want to shout "Freedom of Speech" in my face while completely ignoring the fact that I have the freedom not to put up with whatever they may feel like saying. Those shouting about their "rights" are often quite one-dimensional and cannot carry their thinking beyond wanting to shoot off their mouths. They can shoot and shout all they want. But that does not mean we all owe them an audience.

(Munc, you said it much better.)

Goodnight

Boomer

[Talk Host]

What it boils down to is that anybody is allowed to go out and buy a printing press and use it. However the government cannot force me to let you use my printing press.

You can print stuff, and control what's printed, but I don't have to read it. I can print stuff and control what's printed, but you don't have to read it.

I can't tell you what to print with your press. You can't tell me what to print with my press.

[graciegirl]

ah jan now i understand.

[Felix the Cat]

Originally Posted by Hyacinth Bucket

I had an interesting conversation this evening on freedom of speech. We know from personal experiences where we can not write or state what we would like to say.

Other than on certain street corners in the states or on the continent, or your own blog, where do you feel you have full freedom of speech.

Looking forward to hearing your responses.

HB

Freedoms are given with the hope of them being used wisely. When we abuse our freedoms or rights they are taken away, as they should be. We all earn our rights and freedoms one way or another. When we use them to hurt another human being it is inappropriate and in some cases illegal. There are boundaries for every freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_light

[JohnnyM]

AH! Now I also see

[Boomer]

Our society is permeated with a sense of entitlement. Our precious Freedom of Speech has been twisted and turned by so many who can see only themselves. And twisted even more by some who consider themselves to be the intelligentsia. There are few who can be more narrow-minded than those types. Talk about "The Death of Common Sense."

Here's a little example of "Free Speech" gone down the wrong road.

Public schools have had to deal with absolutely appalling statements made on t-shirts worn to school by kids. Marketing aimed at our kids. I have seen shirts on teenage girls that say, "When I am good I am very good, and when I am bad I am even better." There was another one that had to do with how to "save a tree." I will not quote that here. But trust me, there was nothing environmental about the statement. I cannot remember which store it was that sold those shirts. It might have been Abercrombie and Fitch, along with many others. Making a buck by prostituting kids. And some parents too stupid to see it.

And so is that Freedom of Speech? Letting kids wear t-shirts proclaiming whatever.

You might be surprised at how often these shirts are bought by parents. I don't get it. I do know that the argument against dress codes always attempts to drag in Freedom of Speech where those t-shirts are concerned. This issue can suck up hours and hours of time for the public schools, trying to enforce dress codes, trying to not allow things that are not good for kids.

And then when a public school wants to go to uniforms, welllllll, then they are accused of another form of infringing on the rights of students to express themselves freely.

Wearing inappropriate statements on the front of one's shirt??? Freedom of Speech???? Defended by some parents who actually buy such shirts for their teenagers???? There are some who do that, you know. Arguing "Freedom of Speech." Infringing on the rights of other kids who do not want to see this stuff.

And, in addition to all that "Freedom of Speech" stuff, I also could never figure out how allowing your kid to wear a sexual invitation on the front of a t-shirt is different from allowing the kid to drink the toilet bowl cleaner.

Boomer

[Talk Host]

Originally Posted by Boomer

Our society is permeated with a sense of entitlement. Our precious Freedom of Speech has been twisted and turned by so many who can see only themselves. And twisted even more by some who consider themselves to be the intelligentsia. There are few who can be more narrow-minded than those types. Talk about "The Death of Common Sense."

Here's a little example of "Free Speech" gone down the wrong road.

Public schools have had to deal with absolutely appalling statements made on t-shirts worn to school by kids. Marketing aimed at our kids. I have seen shirts on teenage girls that say, "When I am good I am very good, and when I am bad I am even better." There was another one that had to do with how to "save a tree." I will not quote that here. But trust me, there was nothing environmental about the statement. I cannot remember which store it was that sold those shirts. It might have been Abercrombie and Fitch, along with many others. Making a buck by prostituting kids. And some parents too stupid to see it.

And so is that Freedom of Speech? Letting kids wear t-shirts proclaiming whatever.

You might be surprised at how often these shirts are bought by parents. I don't get it. I do know that the argument against dress codes always attempts to drag in Freedom of Speech where those t-shirts are concerned. This issue can suck up hours and hours of time for the public schools, trying to enforce dress codes, trying to not allow things that are not good for kids.

And then when a public school wants to go to uniforms, welllllll, then they are accused of another form of infringing on the rights of students to express themselves freely.

Wearing inappropriate statements on the front of one's shirt??? Freedom of Speech???? Defended by some parents who actually buy such shirts for their teenagers???? There are some who do that, you know. Arguing "Freedom of Speech." Infringing on the rights of other kids who do not want to see this stuff.

And, in addition to all that "Freedom of Speech" stuff, I also could never figure out how allowing your kid to wear a sexual invitation on the front of a t-shirt is different from allowing the kid to drink the toilet bowl cleaner.

Boomer

All of that have been so eloquently said, who determines what is "inappropriate statements?" By whose standards do we make the judgment? Which books do we burn?

[beady]

AH ...there is the rub.....who determines what is freedom of speech, versus censorship.

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by Talk Host

All of that have been so eloquently said, who determines what is "inappropriate statements?" By whose standards do we make the judgment? Which books do we burn?

Hey TH, could you hold still. I am trying to read what it says on your t-shirt.

But no matter what it says, you can sprawl across the whole screen here, wearing whatever the heck you want. Because you own the joint. And the atmosphere you choose to create here, obviously gives choice to your readers. Go or stay. Whatever. You own the printing press. It's your call.

But the public owns the public schools. Not easy. Public schools and public libraries have to spend a whole lot of time dealing with this very issue. It has to come right back to the mission statement I guess maybe. I just know it's not easy when dealing with the public. Just a little example I threw out there this morning.

TH! WHAT DOES THAT SAY ON THAT SHIRT YOU ARE WEARING!

Boomer

[Talk Host]

Originally Posted by Boomer

Hey TH, could you hold still. I am trying to read what it says on your t-shirt.

But no matter what it says, you can sprawl across the whole screen here, wearing whatever the heck you want. Because you own the joint. And the atmosphere you choose to create here, obviously gives choice to your readers. Go or stay. Whatever. You own the printing press. It's your call.

But the public owns the public schools. Not easy. Public schools and public libraries have to spend a whole lot of time dealing with this very issue. It has to come right back to the mission statement I guess maybe. I just know it's not easy when dealing with the public. Just a little example I threw out there this morning.

TH! WHAT DOES THAT SAY ON THAT SHIRT YOU ARE WEARING!

Boomer

I was not quarreling with you, I was simply advancing the conversation to the obvious next level. In fact, I was not even talking about Talk of The Villages, I was talking about what you were talking about.

Who the public is (you and me) is different from the Public of (my daughter) and the Public of her two children. The standards change with each generation. We who are on the back nine should not try to dictate the standards to the generation that is coming.

[chelsea24]

Originally Posted by Boomer

Hey TH, could you hold still. I am trying to read what it says on your t-shirt.

But no matter what it says, you can sprawl across the whole screen here, wearing whatever the heck you want. Because you own the joint. And the atmosphere you choose to create here, obviously gives choice to your readers. Go or stay. Whatever. You own the printing press. It's your call.

But the public owns the public schools. Not easy. Public schools and public libraries have to spend a whole lot of time dealing with this very issue. It has to come right back to the mission statement I guess maybe. I just know it's not easy when dealing with the public. Just a little example I threw out there this morning.

TH! WHAT DOES THAT SAY ON THAT SHIRT YOU ARE WEARING!

Boomer

Boomer, I think I can read it from here...

It says:

Silence is Golden
Duct Tape is Silver!

Just kidding TH! Hey! This could be a whole new thread!

Maybe not.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by chelsea24

Boomer, I think I can read it from here...

It says:

Silence is Golden
Duct Tape is Silver!

Just kidding TH! Hey! This could be a whole new thread!

Maybe not.

Clever. Clever. Clever. Oh so Clever and Chels, I thought you were just another pretty face.

[Sidney Lanier]

Originally Posted by Muncle

And then there is the standard reply to spee4ch with which one disagrees. You may have the right to say it, but I do not have to listen nor does society owe you a platform for that speech. Case in point were the rantings of Ward Churchill. I firmly believe that he had a right to say what he said, whether he actually believed all his polemics, but I was sorry the press publicized him so much, and I fault the Colorado university system for providing his platform. The same applies to Ann Coulter. Whether you agree with her or not, she has a right to her views and her writings. However, no publisher has a duty to print her books, certainly no one has to buy the or read her columns, and no television or radio show must give Ann her platform. In both cases above, when their expected platforms were denied, both cried "Freedom of Speech." Both were wrong.

I am in full agreement about Churchill and Coulter that "both were wrong" in crying about denial of freedom of speech. "Crying" is an apt word in this case! Ironic to see these two names mentioned in the same context. I have long been of the thinking that so-called funnies like "Doonesbury" and "Mallard Fillmore" belong not on the funnies page but rather on the editorial page. The first (and I might add 'only') time I ever read Ward Churchill and Ann Coulter, it crossed my mind that writings like these belong not on the editorial page but on the funnies page....