Free Speech

[Zguy28]

So, in recent days I have been having discussions with friends and friends of friends regarding the SCOTUS case on same-sex marriage. And as we are discussing or debating this all, I have noticed a disturbing trend starting to take shape amongst folks who support it, and who honestly lean to the left (some more than a lean).

I have had several times been on the receiving end of comments (and I quote verbatim here) such as: "You have every right to share your opinion with anyone who 'wants to listen' but noone should be forced to hear your beliefs in a secular government."

Isn't this why we vote?

Or here's another one: "nobody has the right to talk about gay people."

Don't I? Doesn't the First Amendment (for now) guarantee this?

Are news stories like these on the way for the USA? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/8687395.stm (thank God it was dropped).

Just something I've noticed as an emerging trend amongst my "friends" and others that speaking critically or negatively of homosexuality is starting to not fall under the First Amendment.

Oh well, at least I still have Predicto's promise from a while back to defend me if I ever get arrested from the pulpit for saying homosexuality is a sin.

[Corcaigh]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

You are of course entitled to stand in a public place and say things that are distasteful. In your place of work it may well be different because your employer has an obligation to operate a non-hostile working environment. I would expect that an employer punishing their employees for expressing religious views that some find hateful would have mixed success in the courts as it bumps up against First Amendment rights.

[Kosher Ham]

To me it is about being able to voice your opinion without repreccusions.

That is not always the case.

Proper time and place for everything.

[dfitzo53]

I think there's a tendency to think that the first time we encounter something it's the first time it's happened, or that if we notice it a few times in a short period it constitutes a growing trend. I know I do that, but when I step back and look at it objectively that doesn't mean it's true.

The Supreme Court has defended First Amendment rights for some pretty fringe groups in the past, and I don't see any evidence that that's changing. Your friends' erroneous opinions about what speech is and is not protected has no bearing on actual legal situations.

[greenspandan]

To me it is about being able to voice your opinion without repreccusions.

wrong.

LEGAL repercussions, that is what the first amendment protects against. You cannot be locked up for stating an opinion. (the fact that it starts out with the phrase "Congress shall make no law" ought to make that clear).

But Zguy28's friends are under no obligation to tolerate bigotry or stupidity. The first amendment is designed to protect you from the Federal Government, not from the judgment of your peers.

[PleaseBlitz]

The First Amendment actually says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So while Congress shall make no law abridging your right to free speech, regular people are more than within their rights to tell you to :stfu:

[Kosher Ham]

wrong.

LEGAL repercussions, that is what the first amendment protects against. You cannot be locked up for stating an opinion. (the fact that it starts out with the phrase "Congress shall make no law" ought to make that clear).

But Zguy28's friends are under no obligation to tolerate bigotry or stupidity. The first amendment is designed to protect you from the Federal Government, not from the judgment of your peers.

I understand that and thus the rest of my post you ignored.

[Corcaigh]

Are news stories like these on the way for the USA? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/8687395.stm (thank God it was dropped).

Given that everyone knows full well the views of Christians on homosexuality, what decent purpose was he serving in doing this?

For very good reason, due to centuries of conflict between groups due to religious views, racism, and homophobia, many countries have enacted "hate speech" laws to balance free expression with targeting protected groups. It's reasonable to say that preaching publicly and loudly on sin and abomination targeting a specific protected group is intended to create distress and discomfort.

Illegal? Maybe not, but a giant ****ing douchebag? Absolutely.

[Bang]

Since the inception of this country some people think other people should not have the right to say this or that or whatever.

And they've never won.

You can stand up to this day and shake your fist against racial equality, gender equality, you can say you thought Hitler was right, you can say the Holocaust never happened, you can swear in public that interracial marriages are ruining racial purity, you can espouse pretty much any belief you'd like as loud as you'd like,, so long as don;'t threaten anyone or be obscene you're not going to be arrested for what you say.

You may be arrested for disturbing the peace, lacking a permit, etc.. but not for WHAT you say.

And i see no reason to fear that you will be.

Westboro Baptist is proof that expressing unpopular views is protected, especially this one.

~Bang

[Predicto]

Yeah, echoing what everyone here is saying. Your friends may be frustrated and may be overstating or misunderstanding things, but there is no legal force behind what they are saying. Your First Amendment rights are not in jeopardy at all.

It is also possible that you are misunderstanding what they are saying to you. For example,

I have had several times been on the receiving end of comments (and I quote verbatim here) such as: "You have every right to share your opinion with anyone who 'wants to listen' but noone should be forced to hear your beliefs in a secular government."

Isn't this why we vote?

They may be trying to express a view on the separation of church and state and how American laws should not be passed for religious purposes, but they are doing so inartfully.

or

Or here's another one: "nobody has the right to talk about gay people."

Don't I? Doesn't the First Amendment (for now) guarantee this?

You think they are saying that you have no legal "right" to speak. I think it is more likely that they are saying that people should be respectful toward gays, and that people should not sit quietly when others speak bigotry.

Anyhow, don't worry about what happens in England. They don't have the First Amendment. We do, and it is not going away. When those repulsive ****s from Westboro Baptist Church stand there spew hate at families grieving their dead children, no one stops them from speaking. No one is going to stop you either.

[skinsdomination09]

Yeah... I don't follow this one AT all.

I don't think anybody out there is saying that you shouldn't have the RIGHT to disagree with gay marriage and all that fun stuff, but I do think people are saying you should not be a jackass about it and if you don't support it, just don't go throwing it in people's faces and being rude about it - because that will do a lot more bad than good.

Nobody is making a legal deal out of this or whatever. Everbody is aware of the right to free speech, and nobody wants it taken away - people just want ignoramuses (which isn't to say all people supporting one view fall under this bracket) to shut up.

Don't make something out of nothing. People will always have the right to have and voice their opinion, but if it isn't in an attempt to help, defend or please somebody than theres no reason for it to be spoken in the first place.

This isn't rocket science.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Just something I've noticed as an emerging trend amongst my "friends" and others that speaking critically or negatively of homosexuality is starting to not fall under the First Amendment.

You are not noticing that because it is not happening.

Your friends saying that they do not want to hear your opinions has nothing to do with the First Amendment. It has to do with your friendship.

[Jumbo]

... brain disease comes in many forms...

[skinsdomination09]

Both of the last two posts are gold.

[GhostofSparta]

How many freaking times do people need it explained to them that the 1st amendment only applies to the government?

-Your boss can fire you for being an unrepentant (and loud) bigot at work

-Your friends are allowed to stop talking to/hanging out with you because of your views

-Random people in public can tell you to :stfu: if they don't like what you're saying

And absolutely NONE of that violates your constitutional right to free speech. Because none of those things involve the government locking you up for saying something.

[SoCalSkins]

I think this is a preview of the next few decades in America. You have the right to hold your religious views but the tide is turning where people holding religious views will be increasingly mocked, ridiculed and marginalized by a growing secular society as they should be in my opinion. You will have to retreat into a religious bubble with like minded people or accept the fact that your views will be viewed as increasingly absurd with each passing year by society.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think this is a preview of the next few decades in America. You have the right to hold your religious views but the tide is turning where people holding religious views will be increasingly mocked, ridiculed and marginalized by a growing secular society as they should be in my opinion. You will have to retreat into a religious bubble with like minded people or accept the fact that your views will be viewed as increasingly absurd with each passing year by society.

Just like gays in the 50s.

[Bang]

I think this is a preview of the next few decades in America. You have the right to hold your religious views but the tide is turning where people holding religious views will be increasingly mocked, ridiculed and marginalized by a growing secular society as they should be in my opinion. You will have to retreat into a religious bubble with like minded people or accept the fact that your views will be viewed as increasingly absurd with each passing year by society.

Well, i would hope the people pleading for tolerance learn a little bit from themselves and recognize they have as much right to practice their religion in peace.

~Bang

[DeaconTheVillain]

Westboro Baptist is proof that expressing unpopular views is protected, especially this one.

~Bang

This was my first thought when I read OP.

[greenspandan]

Well, i would hope the people pleading for tolerance learn a little bit from themselves and recognize they have as much right to practice their religion in peace.

~Bang

the difference is gay people do not choose to be gay, while bigots do choose to be bigots. there's no compelling need to "tolerate" that.

[Bang]

the difference is gay people do not choose to be gay, while bigots do choose to be bigots. there's no compelling need to "tolerate" that.

Well, someone being religious does not equate bigotry.

In the example the criteria for derision was pretty broad,, people expressing religious views. (Which could be a "Jesus loves you" sticker.. haha,, look who believes this silly story.. or someone yelling "God Hates Fags".)

In the other thread i really agreed with what Popeman said, in that he doesn't personally agree with it due to his religion, but he's an American and recognize that gives people who he may disagree with the same rights. (paraphrased.)

Not everyone has to change their mind to be tolerant.

~Bang

[johnbent]

the difference is gay people do not choose to be gay, while bigots do choose to be bigots. there's no compelling need to "tolerate" that.

The no-choice argument for gay rights is a bit sketchy. There's a subtle implication that it's bad to be gay, but since it's not a choice, we can't penalize them for it.

Let it be a choice. Society still has no right to treat them differently for making a choice about their own sexuality.

[Jumbo]

Just like gays in the 50s.

So religious folks will have to wear sequin jackets, have certain hairstyles, buy candelabras, and learn to play the piano?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

So religious folks will have to wear sequin jackets, have certain hairstyles, buy candelabras, and learn to play the piano?

And utlitize strict British libel laws, yes.

[pjfootballer]

the difference is gay people do not choose to be gay, while bigots do choose to be bigots. there's no compelling need to "tolerate" that.

Alot of bigotry is taught. You see the KKK with their kids marching. I'm not sure a 6 year old child can "choose" at that point when they are having it shoved down their throat. But as SoCal said, with each passing generation, views get changed and I know that while I can't say that I've never been a bigot towards something, I'm nowhere near what my Grandparents were from their generation. Everyone still likes to talk about how horrible George Preston Marshall was in 1940, but you cannot judge people from 1940 if you weren't around. I'm not saying it was the right view, but it was a popular view at the time.