Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Who should not have Freedom of Speech in this country?


Burgold

Recommended Posts

There's a major court case going on right now about whether priests, ministers and religious figures ought to be able to endorse a candidate in their places of worship. There's a hubbub about whether teachers should be able to teach evolution or mention G_d in schools. There's always books being censored by parent groups. Then, we have people who say that actors, singers, and performers should just shut up and shouldn't share their opinions but just perform. In Florida, I remember a law being passed preventing doctors from asking their patients a question about gun ownership.

It's not a left/right thing... though the desire to censor and deny freedom seems to come more often from the right than the left, but regardless there seem to be an awful lot of people we want to shut up these days.

So, who should have their first ammendment rights stripped?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one should have any one of their rights stripped, especially those found outlined in the original BOR. No exceptions. (bearing in mind your right to do or say something ends when it infringes upon the liberty or life of another.)

I find it curious that the First is often seen as the only one that's important when even the second is seen as archaic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this a trick question? Few to none of those instances involves constitutionally protected freedom of speech, the sand in the gears comes from those that use their status as religious spokesmen or medical professionals to voice an agenda, cloaked in a higher status than just an individual's opinion.

A pastor is free and welcome to endorse a candidate, but it becomes something more/different when he announce it from the pulpit speaking on behalf of his church.

A doctor is again free to voice his political persuasion but when done in the office as part of a medical exam/procedure, it carries a different weight.

The question about actors is a non-starter, anyone really listening to people paid a fortune to pretend to be someone else probably got distracted halfway through by something shiny.

Individual speech, even offensive or outright loony speech, is allowed and protected because the alternative is worse. Opinions offered under the color of authority, speaking on behalf of larger institutions or perceived to be such, is simply a different matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you do start a lot of threads B.

FREEDOM!

:censored:

---------- Post added October-7th-2011 at 08:08 AM ----------

Is this a trick question?

A pastor is free and welcome to endorse a candidate, but it becomes something more/different when he announce it from the pulpit speaking on behalf of his church.

A doctor is again free to voice his political persuasion but when done in the office as part of a medical exam/procedure, it carries a different weight.

Ah, so you think that people should have the Freedom of Speech except in their place of business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, so you think that people should have the Freedom of Speech except in their place of business.

Is a church or school their business?....focus on doing your job,not using your position as a platform.

I try to avoid mixing politics and work.....it's good business

add

that is one difference to me between the Dixie chicks and Hank jr incidents

A political statement ON the job irritates me more.

do it on someone elses dime

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it? Where else does a pastor ply their profession or a teacher theirs? Musicians place of business is on the stage. Actors are a little harder, but I'd argue that one of their places of business is before the camera even if it is a reporter's. A doctor's place of business is certainly a doctor's office.

While I don't think that Church and State should mix I also feel that if a pastor is a spiritual and community leader he really shouldn't be gagged when it comes to temporal issues. Then again, there are few I believe should be forced to shut up. Now, told to hush is a different issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pastor is a spiritual leader not a political one

Teachers should focus on the lessons

Dr.s should focus on treating the patient

Musicians should play the tune

if I want your opinion I will ask for it...now shut up and sing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My pastor is a spiritual leader not a political one

Teachers should focus on the lessons

Dr.s should focus on treating the patient

Musicians should play the tune

if I want your opinion I will ask for it...now shut up and sing

Ah, so you believe no one should have political free speech. At least you believe in equality :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if I worked at Koch Industries....and I went on an interview and said Gov Walker or Speaker Boehner were Hitler or Satan or whatever.....and they decided to fire me. If I could get all up about it over the 1st Amendment. OR, if Koch could make a business decision to let me got because they believe keeping me around is bad business....and there any regulations that force them to keep me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctors have freedom of speech. Yet talking about certain topics are not relevant to the job being done.

The church in my mind is teaching about ...another topic.

But politics has to be consumer driven. Would you enjoy buying a phone if the salesperson brought up a political conversation that made you think that person was an idiot ?

Ignore it or debate ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doctors have freedom of speech. Yet talking about certain topics are not relevant to the job being done.

The church in my mind is teaching about ...another topic.

But politics has to be consumer driven. Would you enjoy buying a phone if the salesperson brought up a political conversation that made you think that person was an idiot ?

Ignore it or debate ?

I would bite on it, discuss it for a while and if the guy was an idiot, I wouldn't buy a phone from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would bite on it, discuss it for a while and if the guy was an idiot, I wouldn't buy a phone from him.

Pretty much. I think we should be free to say what we want... but that doesn't mean we have to agree or buy what the other is selling. As for the doc, KH. Restricting what he can ask via legislation seems pretty wrong to me. If you don't want to see a doc who wants to ask you about guns or has pamphlets on safe sex practices in the reception room that's okay, but should the government be coming in to tell him what he can say or ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Do you want to feel like your Doctor or Preacher is an idiot ? Nope.

To me this is more mental than anything. We have had so many political conversations on this board over the years that intrigue people to be more open minded.

To me politics are personal sometimes. Every person breathing is a judge. We judge differently depending on who we are, but that does not mean we are perfect or right.

---------- Post added October-7th-2011 at 08:58 AM ----------

Pretty much. I think we should be free to say what we want... but that doesn't mean we have to agree or buy what the other is selling. As for the doc, KH. Restricting what he can ask via legislation seems pretty wrong to me. If you don't want to see a doc who wants to ask you about guns or has pamphlets on safe sex practices in the reception room that's okay, but should the government be coming in to tell him what he can say or ask?

The government should have no say on it at all. It is wrong for the government, not for the doctor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it? Where else does a pastor ply their profession or a teacher theirs? Musicians place of business is on the stage. Actors are a little harder, but I'd argue that one of their places of business is before the camera even if it is a reporter's. A doctor's place of business is certainly a doctor's office.

just like an actor, a musician is working whenever they're in front of a camera or microphone as well. same goes for politicians and athletes. that doesn't mean they dont' have freedom of speech. they do. they just have to accept the consequences.

as to your question -- "who should have freedom of speech?": my first reaction is, i'm not enthusiastic about the way the question is phrased. the first amendment applies to everyone. it's situations that it sometimes doesn't apply to, not people.

however, here are a few principles i just made up off the top of my head about how the first amendment should be applied:

- the government should avoid matters of personal spirituality whenever possible. one of the most explicit tenets of the first amendment states that the government must not endorse any religion over any other. public school teachers are agents of the state, and have exceptional influence over children. statements made by teachers, even suggestions or opinions, are often accepted at face value as fact by kids. it can be tricky to teach a young kid about a religion without seeming to endorse it. in an ideal world it wouldn't be the case, but religious education needs to be handled by the parents. (pre-college, anyway)

- the first amendment doesn't guarantee that there won't be repercussions for being a jerk. if a company decides to end its public affiliation with you for offending a ton of people (particularly if you are an entertainer and they're employing you to hype their product), that is part of the responsibility of having freedom of speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, the title was intentionally troublemaking, but it seems to me that there are boatloads of people these days who want whole categories of people NOT to have free speech although if you ask them about freedom of speech they will say they are ardent supporters of it.

This goes for that group in the left that would just like to stuff a stick of dynamite in FOX's piehole or that group on the right that just can't stand the idea of the President of the United States speaking to Elementary school aged children and think that that is the height of interolable controversy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a major court case going on right now about whether priests, ministers and religious figures ought to be able to endorse a candidate in their places of worship. There's a hubbub about whether teachers should be able to teach evolution or mention G_d in schools. There's always books being censored by parent groups. Then, we have people who say that actors, singers, and performers should just shut up and shouldn't share their opinions but just perform. In Florida, I remember a law being passed preventing doctors from asking their patients a question about gun ownership.

It's not a left/right thing... though the desire to censor and deny freedom seems to come more often from the right than the left, but regardless there seem to be an awful lot of people we want to shut up these days.

So, who should have their first ammendment rights stripped?

I do not think churches should be making sndorsements if they want their tax exempt status and if you do not want the government to interfere in the church then stay out of their politics.

As for those who complain about entertainers they only seem to want them to shut up when they do not support them but they are proud when they share the same view

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I'd probably say that member of the government (mainly Congress and the President) should not be protected. They're in such a unique position of power and authority that I think they should be held much more responsible than even the most popular celebrity. And this would extend not just to those holding office, but to those running to hold the office.

Of course the main question is who could enforce this? It would have to be instituted by an act of Congress or something. But then if you outlawed lying and exaggeration by politicians, they wouldn't be able to speak. Hmm....maybe not such a drawback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not think churches should be making sndorsements if they want their tax exempt status and if you do not want the government to interfere in the church then stay out of their politics.

As for those who complain about entertainers they only seem to want them to shut up when they do not support them but they are proud when they share the same view

I agree with all of this. I don't have a problem with pastors and such using their pulpits politically.. but it would stand to reason that if they want to do that, then tax exempt should be surrendered.

the other night on the Daily Show they showed a clip of the Fox Morning Zoo and they were complaining about something some celebrity said,, and were all nodding along with the idea that they just don't understand why people think it's important what celebrities think about politics.. and less than an hour later they happily intoduce Hank Williams Jr who will "break down the GOP race for us". (With the amusing results we've all seen by now.)

And to go off on a tangent,, it's not even the Fox crew's fault. They're just reading their lines like good little hosts.. it's the idiots who believe them that are the problem. The idiots who will nod along when they say celebs need to shut up, but clap when they intro Hank to talk politics,, and they don't even notice the contradiction.

The only one I agree with is the teacher. If you're a public employee, you do give up certain rights... and one of them is that you teach the curriculum regardless of your personal opinions.

If God is not a part of your curriculum and you feel strongly about teaching it, then quit the public school and go get a job in a Christian school. No one will make you discuss evolution or any of the 'controversial' disagreements.

Hell, all employees give up a little bit. When i worked for Pepsi, it was clear that if I were caught drinking a Coke I was fired. And they also implied that it stood for my own time as well.

Now a lot of folks say "They can't do that on your own time!" and they'd be right. But they do it, and then if you want your job back you need to spend about 100,000 dollars taking them to court.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speech is always limitted in this country.

The pastors, priests, rabbis, immans etc can all endorse whomever they choose. They just cant do it and keep a tax emempt status.

I can scream fire all day in my own house, but I cant do so in a crowded theatre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one should have any one of their rights stripped, especially those found outlined in the original BOR. No exceptions. (bearing in mind your right to do or say something ends when it infringes upon the liberty or life of another.)

I find it curious that the First is often seen as the only one that's important when even the second is seen as archaic.

Really? So I should be able to say SnyderShrugged raped my sister and my daughter without any repercussions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, so you believe no one should have political free speech. At least you believe in equality :)

Freedoms are to be used wisely and in moderation....if they would talk less and think more ,a lot of our issues would go away.

Internet posting on the other hand .....:silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...