Free Speech

Anne, I'll be totally honest here and give it to you bluntly: My position is basically that people can say what they want, as long as the "owner" of whatever space they're speaking in agrees that what they've said is acceptable. However, that means that others are also free to make their own comments about the original speech. As the cartoon says, "The 1st Amendment doesn't shield you from criticism or consequences." (Boldface mine.) So while someone may feel comfortable speaking their mind, it's ridiculous for them to get up in arms if other people come along and say "I think that's a dumb/wrong/offensive thing to say."

Personally, I have no problem with people speaking their minds (although others may disagree.) I may have some criticism of their comments, but unless their speech is outrageously inflammatory in some way (racist, inciting to violence, etc.) that doesn't generally change my opinion of a person or my willingness to continue dialog with them. I think many people have learned that I'm a big fan of being civil in terms of online discourse, so I don't care for those who immediately jump to take offense when someone criticizes their statements, but that doesn't mean I think they're horrible people. I simply try to treat (almost) everyone with respect in my statements and ask the same of them.

I hope that answers your question.

Well put and terrific statement of position! I'm in agreement.

I suppose the only piece I would add is that the level of free speech allowed needs to depend on the cir****tances and place and purpose intended. For instance, I have the right to call the rules in my home, or determine the the agreements for a group I facilitate or lead in order for the space to be workable for the majority of the members in providing safety or supporting the purpose of the group. We do have the freedom of beliefs and debate, and we have the right to defend our position as well as be a stand for it.

Interesting website re: the legal limits of freedom of speech: http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/curricula/educati onforfreedom/supportpages/L04-LimitsFreedomSpeech.htm

Or Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

The most important thing I have learned from traveling in other parts of the world is a profound appreciation for the freedoms we have here in the US. 

Hey, not bad for just getting out of bed this morning!

Thank you Cunning_Pam, I ran into one here last night.

Genuine question here, are there ANY limitations on free speech in the US? Here in the UK we do have exceptions. (Not talking about slander and libel.)  For example, people cannot openly provoke racial aggression or violence. So someone standing on a street corner saying that all (insert whichever race) are sub-human and should be so treated, would be moved on and, at the extreme, if they refused to stop would in the end be arrested. That would be a last resort.

But I once read that somewhere in the US, a KKK meeting had gone ahead because to stop them would infringe their right to free speech. Is that correct?

Unfortunately yes, the Klan is alive and well in the US.  People can speak on just about any topic in the US and claim their right to Freedom of Speech.  Much like the Right to Bear Arms.  I don't believe our Founding Fathers would have supported the use of today's super guns or many other things happening in the US today.  We still live in incredible country but it is changing fast for the worse unfortunately.

It's difficult, isn't it! I can't even pretend to understand the issue of guns in the US but I can see that freedom of speech is complicated. The KKK would not be allowed to march or to declare their views to an audience here, but that involves some sort of value judgement. And who makes those judgements on behalf of the citizens? Our parliament passes the laws which the police and courts enforce but by so they are denying freedom of speech to one group who are also citizens!

i think I very much prefer to have the limitations but it undeniably means we do not have complete freedom f speech! I suppose as long as we have a democratically elected government, there are checks and balances. 

The KKK would not be allowed to march or to declare their views to an audience here

What about the Neo Nazi types?

As the KKK only  (to my knowledge, I accept I may be wrong) exists to promote racial hatred, a march by them would  be seen here as provocative and inciting racial hatred. Neo Nazis are equally repugnant but often hide their racial hatred in a welter of other policies. They might therefore march under the banner of something like "limit immigration" which is not per se inciting racial hatred. They would not be allowed to march under a banner which, for example, referred to people of other races as sub-human and condoned violence.

Things are rarely clear cut and we also here in the UK try to preserve freedom of speech. Your manner of asking me this seems to imply we would allow Neo-Nazis. Far from it. But as in the US, it is a balancing act. 

Only reason I asked about the Neo Nazi types is because of having seen a TV news story about a resurgence of their ilk.  Don't think their protesting under "limit immigration" is not racist or inciting racial hatred.  That is what those folks are about.  Especially toward Muslims. 

Don, I didn't say I didn't think it was racist. I said that by couching their protests in general terms to include all immigrants and by basing it on economic factions (most people coming to the UK come from the Euopean Union), the authorities cannot issue a blanket ban on marches.

every country has its redneck bigots.