Clarence, you seem confused about the concept of "Free speech".
there s tiny asterisk next ti it.
*its actually the freedom to listen to all points of view!
That asterisk must be microscopic!
Um no, it’s not. You have the right to speak. You don’t however have the right to be heard. And you definitely don’t have the right to make anyone listen.
And two family members arguing has nothing to do with free speech, unless either family member attempts to use government to censor or punish the other for their speaking. The so-called freedom to listen is more closely tied to the freedom of assembly.
The Consitutional amendment for freedom of speech is the guarantee that the government will not silence any type of speech or opposing views (or not supposed to anyway) that is not harmful (such as yelling of “fire” in a crowded theater). It does not, in any way, prevent a private employer from regulating speech in their company area, e.g., preventing someone promoting their competitor.
Since when does the Constitution qualify freedom of speech? It’s freedom to speak your mind, period, without prosecution. And anyone else has the freedom to disagree with you and say so.
How ever, one persons “hate speech” is another persons “moral/ethical conscience.” The govt. makes laws, sometimes arbitrary, to define what “freedom of speech really is.” When Hilary Clinton was running for president, at an assembly, people who shouted things against her were arrested. And those things weren’t hateful, slanderous or disparaging either.
No, we’re just irritated at the conflation of interpersonal censorship and the constitutional right of free speech. It’s a bad argument, and it’s gone viral through news, politics, etc. Any time Person A tells Person B to shut up, Person B complains about “free speech”.
@Steven Young – People weren’t arrested for the content of their message, but for interfering with an event. If they’d stood outside, they could have spoken to their heart’s content. The First Amendment gives you the right to express your ideas, but not the right to shout them from the rooftop with a bullhorn at 3 in the morning.
slug_queen over 12 years ago
Um no, it’s not. You have the right to speak. You don’t however have the right to be heard. And you definitely don’t have the right to make anyone listen.
Stan King over 12 years ago
And two family members arguing has nothing to do with free speech, unless either family member attempts to use government to censor or punish the other for their speaking. The so-called freedom to listen is more closely tied to the freedom of assembly.
pschearer Premium Member over 12 years ago
Every dictatorship lets its citizens listen to every point of view. (Every point of view allowed by the government.)
DW Premium Member over 12 years ago
The Consitutional amendment for freedom of speech is the guarantee that the government will not silence any type of speech or opposing views (or not supposed to anyway) that is not harmful (such as yelling of “fire” in a crowded theater). It does not, in any way, prevent a private employer from regulating speech in their company area, e.g., preventing someone promoting their competitor.
Kydex29 over 12 years ago
Since when does the Constitution qualify freedom of speech? It’s freedom to speak your mind, period, without prosecution. And anyone else has the freedom to disagree with you and say so.
Takhdrkqueen over 12 years ago
Got a credible source we can read?
kaystari Premium Member over 12 years ago
How ever, one persons “hate speech” is another persons “moral/ethical conscience.” The govt. makes laws, sometimes arbitrary, to define what “freedom of speech really is.” When Hilary Clinton was running for president, at an assembly, people who shouted things against her were arrested. And those things weren’t hateful, slanderous or disparaging either.
IQTech61 over 12 years ago
I agree wholeheartedly Kydex29. I’m really tired of people putting addendums and riders on the Constitution that are not there.
Stan King over 12 years ago
No, we’re just irritated at the conflation of interpersonal censorship and the constitutional right of free speech. It’s a bad argument, and it’s gone viral through news, politics, etc. Any time Person A tells Person B to shut up, Person B complains about “free speech”.
calspace over 12 years ago
@Steven Young – People weren’t arrested for the content of their message, but for interfering with an event. If they’d stood outside, they could have spoken to their heart’s content. The First Amendment gives you the right to express your ideas, but not the right to shout them from the rooftop with a bullhorn at 3 in the morning.
DKHenderson 11 months ago
Free speech includes the freedom to keep silent.