It would seem that during my absence these past few days much has been posted on religion, war and politics. These subjects even under the most docile of conditions can bring forth extreme anger and hate even in the best of us.
Disturbing to me was the fact that some posts border on "hate" of a certain religion and the people that practice it. I have kept my personal feelings and thoughts to myself even though at times I can be very vocal on both topics. I have received several PM’s on the threads and notice that a certain fundamental principle is at stake here, the freedom of speech and expression.
So let’s try and understand what this means. Let’s examine two points.
1) Does free speech protect hate speech directed at particular ethnic or religious groups?
2) Does it protect "fighting words" that can arouse people to immediate violence?
Over the last several decades, these questions have been part of the ongoing debate both within the government and in public discussion, and in many areas no consensus has yet emerged . That, however, is neither surprising nor disturbing.
Freedom is an evolving concept, and, as we confront new ideas, the great debate continues. The emergence of the Internet
and forums such as the one you are part of right here is but the latest in a series of challenges to understanding what free speech means in contemporary society.
While freedom of speech is the rule, it is not absolute , and at certain periods — especially in wartime — speech may be restricted for the public good.
Yes, speech ought to be free, but it is not an absolute freedom; common sense (the obvious need to punish someone who shouts the word "fire" in a crowded theater) make it necessary at times to curtail speech.Free speech is a key right in a democratic society, the notion of democracy as resting upon a free marketplace of ideas.
* Some ideas may be unpopular
* Some might be unsettling
* Some might be false, etc. etc.
But in a democracy, one has to
give all of these ideas an equal chance to be heard, in the faith that the false, the ignoble, the useless will be crowded out by the right ideas, the ones that will facilitate progress in a democratic manner . A marketplace analogy by Holmes is still admired by many people, because of its support for intellectual liberty.
Neither Holmes nor anyone else has suggested that there are no limits on speech; rather, much of the debate in the last several decades has been over how to draw the line between protected and non-protected speech. It takes civic courage to stand up for unpopular ideas, and as both Holmes and Brandeis pointed out, that the majority rarely wants to hear ideas that challenge accepted views.
To prevent the majority from silencing those who oppose it is the reason the Framers wrote the First Amendment. The principle of free thought, as Holmes famously wrote, is "not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate."The cure for "bad" speech is not repression, but "good" speech, the repelling of one set of ideas by another. Truly, many things believed right and proper in today's world were once considered heretical, such as the abolition of slavery or the right of women to vote. Although a majority will always find itself uncomfortable with radical ideas attacking its cherished beliefs, as a matter of constitutional law,
the policy of a truly free democracy is that speech, no matter how unpopular, must be protected. In the early 1940s the Supreme Court announced in rather definitive terms that the First Amendment did not cover obscene or libelous speech, fighting words, or commercial speech. Yet in the last few decades it has addressed all of these issues, and while not extending full protection, has certainly brought many aspects under the protection of the Speech Clause. The decisions have not been without criticism, and it is safe to say that just as the Court has wrestled with these areas, so there has been confusion and disagreement in the sphere of public comment as well. These and other questions continue to be debated in the United States — in the courts, in congressional hearings, in presidential commissions, in universities, in public forums, and in individual households.
Among the rights of the people none is so treasured as that of free speech, and none is so susceptible to changing views. Most Americans recognize, however, their responsibilities as citizens require them to have the opportunity not only to propose unpopular views but also to hear others espouse their beliefs, so that in the end the democratic process can work. And while people are not always comfortable with the idea, they admit the truth that Justice Holmes declared when he said that
the First Amendment is there not to protect the speech with which we agree, but the speech that we hate.Therefore we can conclude that 1) a person does have the right to say whatever he or she whishes about a religion or culture, and that 2) that same privilege is extended to people that want to express fighting words towards others.
Ah The beauty of a democratic society!!!
With that being said now here is my caveat with the above thoughts. When a member signs up in a forum similar to this one, there are always guidelines to follow which everyone has to agree with in order to become a member in good standing.
All posts or threads therefore fall under that “code of conduct” agreement without exception.
If we (admins/mods/referees) find that any thread from this point forward breaks any of the “rules” of posting (agreed to upon sign up), it will be deleted immediately without warning. Hate posts and personal attacks will not be tolerated. This should also serve as a warning that any member caught doing so more than once will have their account banned for good, possibly without notice or warning.
Freedom of speech or not!!!,
this is still my forum; I have set these guidelines in place, and will enforce them to the fullest extent as I/we see fit to do so. Our “Code Of Conduct” states “THINK BEFORE YOU POST”, please take this advice very seriously.
Naf…
Some excerpts taken from usinfo.state.gov
