Free Speech

it coincides with an increased prevalence of jerks but the intent of the law is not to do that, that's the distinction i was making. the freedom is not in being able to say things that will hurt others, it's in being able to say things that won't lead to YOU being hurt, which happens to often coincide with others being hurt. i hope that makes sense?
Are we discussing what the founding fathers had in mind? That's not the same as discussing what the law actually does. And the intent behind the law is something that changes with the generations.
Since the people who would hurt you for your speech would do so because of being hurt by your speech, I see no meaningful distinction between freedom to hurt with speech and freedom to speak without being hurt. That only becomes relevant when you restrict speech in some way and have to determine what counts as excessively harmful speech.
 
People in the USA have the right to say what they want to say, within limitations.


If you say you hate all gay people, you are allowed to say that; it is your freedom of speech.

If you say you hate all gay people and are going to kill them all, or address it to one specific individual that you are going to assault/kill/do harm to them because they are gay, that is a hate crime.

You have the right to say whatever you want to me. You can agree with me, disagree, say I am worthless, say that you would worship me as a god. You can say things about my work, my children, my religion- you can say whatever you want.

But just as you have that right, I have the right to disagree. Disagreeing with someone doesn't mean you hate them, it doesn't mean you think they are a bad person.

What it means is that you are a human individual, disagreeing with another human individual's thoughts and ideas. That's all it means.

If you say that you think certain people shouldn't say certain words or treat other people in certain ways, that's fine. That is you expressing your freedom of speech. And others have the right to disagree with you.

Addressing what was said about certain individuals taking words and making false accusations about others which might create propaganda:

They still have the right to do so.

Look at the Watchtower; Look at cults like Jehovah's Witnesses. They have the right to their faith and to teach the way that they do and to believe the beliefs that they hold. They have the right to speak all of that propaganda.

Individuals who are part of that cult, a lot of them, have dropped out because they have critically assessed what was being told to them were lies. People also have the right to critically think about what is being communicated via freedom of speech. That part is important.

Imagine cultures and societies who do not have the freedom of speech that countries like the United States might have. Imagine how it might be like in North Korea or China, to attempt to do the demonstrations and speak your mind like you do here, over there.

People are killed for what they believe. People are literally gunned down by the government because they are not allowed to spread their freedom of speech.

Most social progress that has ever occurred has happened because of freedom of speech. Most of the greatest leaders and politicians have been gunned down, even when they had earned the right to freedom of speech.

Take Abraham Lincoln who united the county when the south wanted to declare independence from us. He was assassinated for his political views and his opinions that he was allowed to express because of freedom of speech.

Take Martin Luther King Jr., who was assassinated for speaking his beliefs on a nation being united, where blacks and whites can hold hands without judgment.

People have lost their life due to their freedom of speech. It is most definitely not something that is 'nice' or 'kind' or is necessarily always going to be nice.

The truth is not going to be pretty.

And if people want to use their freedom of speech to make racial slurrs, to victimize a person or single out a certain class or group of people, that is their right, and they may suffer for excerising such opinions on in their communities.

It is also the right of the people to disagree, and take a stand against those who are using their freedom of speech to say things that they don't find agreeable. But it is never the right of the people to take away someone's freedom of speech simply because they do not like it.

To allow freedom of speech to be limited or taken away is reversing what has been fought over for a very long period of time. The foundation of America is Freedom; freedom to believe in whatever faith you want, and freedom to openly state what religion you believe in without being persecuted by the government.

So yes, people have the right to be a jerk when they are using their freedom of speech. People have the right to say kind things, and encourage social change when they use their freedom of speech.

But people were not born with the right; it was not something that was given to them naturally. It has to be understood and remembered that this right was EARNED. Dirty blood was shed over this issue, like so many others. When you speak to others, remember that people have died for you to have the right to say what you are saying. Perhaps this will help you excerise this freedom of speech in the most appropriate way possible.
 
Are we discussing what the founding fathers had in mind? That's not the same as discussing what the law actually does. And the intent behind the law is something that changes with the generations.

what the law actually does. you said the intent changes with the generations, how so? and how would this affect its effect on society?

Since the people who would hurt you for your speech would do so because of being hurt by your speech, I see no meaningful distinction between freedom to hurt with speech and freedom to speak without being hurt. That only becomes relevant when you restrict speech in some way and have to determine what counts as excessively harmful speech.
you're right, there is no practical difference between the two. i guess i was arguing for semantics. it wouldn't technically be correct to say freedom of speech gives you the right to be a jerk, but if that's the effect it's having, i suppose it doesn't matter :/
 
you said the intent changes with the generations, how so? and how would this affect its effect on society?
The founding fathers had monarchical/feudal suppression of speech in mind. It was primarily about personal insult and criticism of centralized power. Once we were well removed from that structure, however, other contexts of suppression came up. The Civil War saw journalists and outspoken critics of both sides being confronted by the respective governments. Similar clashes of ideology continued on through the World Wars and the Cold War. Generally speaking, we have had a shift of focus from individual to ideological speech. Nobody really considers outlawing jabs at the President. But advocating certain political (and even religious) positions can rouse people's litigious instincts.

I'm regarding "intent" as being defined by those who interpret and enforce, though. Some people would say that intent only comes up at one time (when the Constitution is written) and remains the same thereafter.
 
Back
Top