Should there be a limit to free speech? - Page 2 - XDTalk Forums - Your HS2000/SA-XD Information Source!

XDConvert9mm · 05-28-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by one-eyed-fatman

I had no idea free speech was a world wide thing. Did the rest of the world steal our constitution while I wasn't looking?

They might as well. We don't seem to be using it much.

jdoe · 05-28-2008, 07:59 PM

I guess if you believe they (radical Islamic groups) are not at war with the rest of the world...it seems quite logical. But unfortunately that's not the case.

**Frenchy** · 05-28-2008, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdoe

I guess if you believe they (radical Islamic groups) are not at war with the rest of the world...it seems quite logical. But unfortunately that's not the case.

I agree...These radical activities seem to go beyond the traditional scope of free speech.

ZenMachine · 05-29-2008, 08:36 PM

There should be no limiting of free speech whatsoever. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I'd rather have newspapers and no government than a government and no newspapers." Freedom of speech is as important as the right to bear arms.

**Frenchy** · 05-29-2008, 08:44 PM

So you're OK with inciting to riot?

**Pugs** · 05-29-2008, 08:49 PM

Generally speaking, the litmus test for the suspension of any Constitutional rights has been whether the exercise of that right presents a "clear and present danger." Hence the well-used example of yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater; that presents a "clear and present danger" to the other patrons due to the ensuing panic and trampling, etc...

Same with limiting a convicted felon's right to bear arms. His right to bear arms constitutes a "clear and present danger" to others. Though I think that this one is taken too far. A violent felon is perhaps a "clear and present danger." A white collar embezzler, perhaps not.

**Frenchy** · 05-29-2008, 09:00 PM

Like all Constitutional rights, there is an interpretation. Nothing is as black and white as we would like it.

XDConvert9mm · 05-29-2008, 09:03 PM

Free speech right up to the point that you infringe on the rights of others is my opinion. The crowded theater example works here.

The problem now is, what is deemed a right that is infringed? The definition seems to be getting more broad. Personal feelings seem to be getting considered more and more as personal rights. The line seems to keep getting moved toward the PC version of free speech where nobody is to even be offended by what gets said. Sad to see. It seems to me that if you want to live in a society with free speech then you have to live with the bad and offensive speech that invariably comes with it.

**Pugs** · 05-29-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frenchy

Like all Constitutional rights, there is an interpretation. Nothing is as black and white as we would like it.

Agreed!

ZenMachine · 05-29-2008, 09:15 PM

In m opinion radicals can preach whatever brand of hate they want, after all they are only distributing ideas. Now when a person switches from distributing ideas to planning, organizing and carrying out criminal acts they should be prosecuted for their crimes. It is not a crime to call for the violent overthrow of the government, only to take action to overthrow the government. These crazies should be allowed to preach hate, just not allowed to act on it.

05-29-2008, 08:44 PM	#15
Frenchy XDTalk 10K Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Mid-Missouri Posts: 12,890	So you're OK with inciting to riot? __________________ ~SC Harvey~ 2008 Election..."Imbrace your ignorance, and vote your preference". It's quite simple, really... *If you vote for Obama, you are a fuking idiot. If you vote for McCain, you are a fuking idiot.* *If your vote is for the lessor of two evils, then you can be comforted knowing that you're less of a fuking idiot than the other guy! Because Fritz says so! RON PAUL IN 2008**

05-29-2008, 09:00 PM	#17
Frenchy XDTalk 10K Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Mid-Missouri Posts: 12,890	Like all Constitutional rights, there is an interpretation. Nothing is as black and white as we would like it. __________________ ~SC Harvey~ 2008 Election..."Imbrace your ignorance, and vote your preference". It's quite simple, really... *If you vote for Obama, you are a fuking idiot. If you vote for McCain, you are a fuking idiot.* *If your vote is for the lessor of two evils, then you can be comforted knowing that you're less of a fuking idiot than the other guy! Because Fritz says so! RON PAUL IN 2008**

05-29-2008, 09:03 PM	#18
XDConvert9mm XDTalk 3K Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: NW Atlanta Suburbs Posts: 3,603	Free speech right up to the point that you infringe on the rights of others is my opinion. The crowded theater example works here. The problem now is, what is deemed a right that is infringed? The definition seems to be getting more broad. Personal feelings seem to be getting considered more and more as personal rights. The line seems to keep getting moved toward the PC version of free speech where nobody is to even be offended by what gets said. Sad to see. It seems to me that if you want to live in a society with free speech then you have to live with the bad and offensive speech that invariably comes with it. __________________ "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-28-2008, 07:59 PM	#12
jdoe XDTalk Newbie Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 12	I guess if you believe they (radical Islamic groups) are not at war with the rest of the world...it seems quite logical. But unfortunately that's not the case.

05-29-2008, 08:36 PM	#14
ZenMachine XDTalk 100 Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 142	There should be no limiting of free speech whatsoever. As Thomas Jefferson said, "I'd rather have newspapers and no government than a government and no newspapers." Freedom of speech is as important as the right to bear arms.

05-29-2008, 09:15 PM	#20
ZenMachine XDTalk 100 Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 142	In m opinion radicals can preach whatever brand of hate they want, after all they are only distributing ideas. Now when a person switches from distributing ideas to planning, organizing and carrying out criminal acts they should be prosecuted for their crimes. It is not a crime to call for the violent overthrow of the government, only to take action to overthrow the government. These crazies should be allowed to preach hate, just not allowed to act on it.