NationStates Jolt Archive

What are your views on free speech? Do you agree with the restrictions (slander, libel, obscenities)? Why or why not?

Should people be allowed to post anything they want on public forums? Why or why not? How about newspapers, magazines, or books?

Do you think the right to free speech holds in schools as well? Should school districts be allowed to ban certain messages on clothing, ban political buttons, or restrict freedom of the school press?

If you have any comments at all on the rights to free speech anywhere, feel free to post.

What are your views on free speech? Do you agree with the restrictions (slander, libel, obscenities)? Why or why not?

It's not free speech if you can't say some choice words.

Should people be allowed to post anything they want on public forums? Why or why not? How about newspapers, magazines, or books?

On public forums? Of course. On private forums? Well, private forums are privately-owned (hence the name), so you have to adhere to their rules. And publications, whether they're newspapers, magazines, or books, should *not* be censored.

Do you think the right to free speech holds in schools as well? Should school districts be allowed to ban certain messages on clothing, ban political buttons, or restrict freedom of the school press?

Freedom of Speech should exist all the same in public schools. Private schools are another matter entirely.

What are your views on free speech? Do you agree with the restrictions (slander, libel, obscenities)? Why or why not?


Slander and libel, absolutely should be restricted. Abusing free speech for political gain or power or revenge at the cost of another person is a total perversion of that right. Plus, it can put the person in actual danger, so I think libel and slander restrictions should be upheld. Obscenity should be self regulating, but people should be informed ahead of time of the obscenity.

Should people be allowed to post anything they want on public forums? Why or why not? How about newspapers, magazines, or books?

Depends on if the material is not libelous/slanderous. If it is, it shouldn't be allowed. However, if it is some kind of Op/Ed piece it should be clearly described as such. On forums, it is solely up to the founder of the forum to decide what is appropriate.

Do you think the right to free speech holds in schools as well? Should school districts be allowed to ban certain messages on clothing, ban political buttons, or restrict freedom of the school press?

Generally, but much tighter than other places.

Yes, provided the things are in accordance with school rules (and that the person is fully aware of those restrictions) and are not libelous or inflammatory/offensive to those in the school. The school press should also fit these guidelines, but people should be able to express their opinions.

So long as waht is said is true, then there should be no restrictions. Only things that are false and passed off as true should be curtailed.

I believe freedom of speech should have no limits, but when freedom of speech becomes physical violence of any sort, that's where the line has been crossed.

Complete and total free speech. No one can be coerced into silence, and no one has the authority to say what is definitively correct.

Complete and total free speech. No one can be coerced into silence, and no one has the authority to say what is definitively correct.
Including the speach the directly incites violence (none of this clear and present danger crap, actual violence right after/during the speech)?

Including the speach the directly incites violence (none of this clear and present danger crap, actual violence right after/during the speech)?
Anyone participating in violence should no doubt be punished, but I don't believe the speech directly leading to it should.

Anyone participating in violence should no doubt be punished, but I don't believe the speech directly leading to it should.

Agreed.

So long as waht is said is true, then there should be no restrictions. Only things that are false and passed off as true should be curtailed. WHAT?? How on earth are you going to outlaw lies? How are you planning to enforce your legislation?

No, just kidding.

Including the speach the directly incites violence (none of this clear and present danger crap, actual violence right after/during the speech)?

All speech must be allowed. In this situation it is hard to define where a crime occurs. If a person in an authoritative position gives an order or suggests a specific violent act be carried out, then they should be held liable. However, if it is just broad hateful speech that causes people to act out with violence, the liability should be solely on the person committing the crime.

What are your views on free speech? Do you agree with the restrictions (slander, libel, obscenities)? Why or why not?

Those are actually sensible restrictions, except for the obscenities. Those are a matter of opinion.

Should people be allowed to post anything they want on public forums? Why or why not? How about newspapers, magazines, or books? They should be able to post anything they want, write anything they want, and express themselves in any way they want.

Do you think the right to free speech holds in schools as well? Should school districts be allowed to ban certain messages on clothing, ban political buttons, or restrict freedom of the school press? Freedom of speech in schools can of course be curtailed a little bit. After all, a student that walks in wearing a shirt saying "F*** ALL TEACHERS" is pushing the limit. And of course school officials have the right to decide what is obscene and what isn't. But schools should allow freedom of the press; that's one of those inalieable rights that keep popping up.

I also agree with John Adams in believing that freedom of speech should be slightly restricted at least during wartime. A street agitator could cause all young eligible potential soldiers to turn their backs on volunteering for the military, thus causing the war to go down the drain. However, people should have the right to protest during wartime (i.e. a draft).

All speech must be allowed. In this situation it is hard to define where a crime occurs. If a person in an authoritative position gives an order or suggests a specific violent act be carried out, then they should be held liable. However, if it is just broad hateful speech that causes people to act out with violence, the liability should be solely on the person committing the crime. That brings to mind Agatha Christie's mystery novel Curtain (you'll find through my posts that I'm a hopeless mystery buff). In that novel a potential criminal convinces people to go and murder someone, and then can sit back completely untouchable by the law. Talking isn't a crime! *SPOILER ALERT* That's why, instead of taking him to prison in the end, the detectives have to shoot him. True, "inciting to murder" should be a crime just like "inciting to riot". Or is it already? I know threats are illegal, but I don't know about inciting someone to murder.

Anyone participating in violence should no doubt be punished, but I don't believe the speech directly leading to it should.

All very nice in principle, but here at least its a small infirngement on someone rights to stop what could be a very large disturbance.

And please dont anyone throw the slippery slope argument in here about restricting more speech. Any more restricted and we would have a probem, this though i think is small enough to let go.

What are your views on free speech? Do you agree with the restrictions (slander, libel, obscenities)? Why or why not?

Should people be allowed to post anything they want on public forums? Why or why not? How about newspapers, magazines, or books?

Do you think the right to free speech holds in schools as well? Should school districts be allowed to ban certain messages on clothing, ban political buttons, or restrict freedom of the school press?

If you have any comments at all on the rights to free speech anywhere, feel free to post.
I almost hold freedom of speech sacrosanct ... almost. There are a few exceptions:

1. Gratuitous violence and sex in publications and venues to which children have access. Age plays an important part in this.

2. Libel and slander which results in damage to reputation. Sometimes, all a man has to hang onto is reputation.

3. Speech which reveals state secrets to the detriment of national security. Without security, there is no "free speech."

4. Speech which is contrary to "good order and discipline," particularly in organizations. Every organization has to walk a very fine line between making maximum allowance for freedom of expression and insuring other members aren't defamed or harrassed, or that expression of extreme views does not incite to violence.

Those are actually sensible restrictions, except for the obscenities. Those are a matter of opinion.

Examples, please.

They should be able to post anything they want, write anything they want, and express themselves in any way they want.

Exactly. Except for when they're on privately-owned forums.

Freedom of speech in schools can of course be curtailed a little bit. After all, a student that walks in wearing a shirt saying "F*** ALL TEACHERS" is pushing the limit. And of course school officials have the right to decide what is obscene and what isn't. But schools should allow freedom of the press; that's one of those inalieable rights that keep popping up.

I see no problem with such "obscene" shirts, when the students aren't doing any real harm. And that's just the problem --- School officials are given too much power, and they often abuse it (at least, where I've been).

I also agree with John Adams in believing that freedom of speech should be slightly restricted at least during wartime. A street agitator could cause all young eligible potential soldiers to turn their backs on volunteering for the military, thus causing the war to go down the drain. However, people should have the right to protest during wartime (i.e. a draft).

Look at it this way: People are free to make a choice. They're also open to persuasion from both sides. So, who's to say that persuading a person not to join the military is wrong, when people are persuaded to join the military just the same? You've got commercials for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, along with banners, billboards, bumper stickers, and whatnot. So, once again, what's wrong with people persuading others to "stay free"?

Yes to free speech - just like the radio if you don't like what you are hearing turn the dial -Don't Believe Anything You Hear, and Only Half of What You See the contrary can only lead to misinterpertation..... :sniper:

Anyone participating in violence should no doubt be punished, but I don't believe the speech directly leading to it should. You hold the opposite view of Hercule Poirot.

Yes to free speech - just like the radio if you don't like what you are hearing turn the dial -Don't Believe Anything You Hear, and Only Half of What You See the contrary can only lead to misinterpertation..... :sniper:

This is what I like to see in a first post...!

I only skimmed everyone else's posts becuase I need to do my homework, but I personally believe that we have a right to say whatever we want, as long as it isn't clearly a direct threat, "I'm going to assisinate you George Bush!" or like yelling "Fire!" in a movie theatre. Also slander and plaigarism (though I plaigarism is technically freedom of press... is there a speech equilavent?) isn't very cool either.

However, speaking against the goverment/groups/organizations, and even obsenities and slurs I think should be allowed. Dissent is the purpose of freedom of speech and the purpose of taking it away. Also I believe everyone is entitled to their political/societal/economic/racial/etc view, no matter how fradulent, prejudiced, or wrong. However, in my personal view, dissenters sometimes can be dangerously wrong, "Muslims are cockroaches that MUST BE EXTERMINATED." You should not abusde your right and say that, but I think we should be allowed to say that. We hopefully will have people to speak against that and such a statement hopefully will not lead to genecide, despite what such statements have done in the past.

Recently, it's been disturbing me that saying our goverment is wrong is unpatriotic. I think those of us who are willing to say when our goverment is wrong are as patriotic, if not more, than those who say our goverment is always right. I'm called unpatriotic because I say the war in Iraq is baseless.

EDIT: I'm called unpatriotic because I say the war in Iraq is baseless; however it is their right to say and think so.

Examples, please.Slander can destroy people's reputations. Obscenities have to be defined.
I see no problem with such "obscene" shirts, when the students aren't doing any real harm. And that's just the problem --- School officials are given too much power, and they often abuse it (at least, where I've been). Where have you been exactly? Hazelbrook (check the name) perhaps? That's one place where school officials did abuse power by refusing to publish controversial articles. That is an abuse. But banning "obscene" shirts is not an abuse. After all, in schools a) there are bound to be children who will come home talking like that (believe me, I know), b) it will be highly distracting during class, and c) it conveys inappropriate messages to people.
Look at it this way: People are free to make a choice. They're also open to persuasion from both sides. So, who's to say that persuading a person not to join the military is wrong, when people are persuaded to join the military just the same? You've got commercials for the Army, Navy, and Air Force, along with banners, billboards, bumper stickers, and whatnot. So, once again, what's wrong with people persuading others to "stay free"?It's that issue over whether deserters should be sentenced to death, is it? Let's face it, most people don't take the trouble to find out things for themselves. They take for granted what other people say is invariably true. Therefore an agitator speaking out against a volunteer war (like Iraq) can convince a lot of people not to sign up. If there had been such things in 2003 and the government wasn't strong enough to counter them, no one would have signed up for Iraq. Saddam Hussein would never have been overthrown. Iraq would never have gotten democracy. True, hundreds of people might not have died, but that's the major drawback of war: people die.

And remember—as you said, it's their choice. But their choice is made on evidence. If someone told them war was evil and to sign up would be a violation of human rights, the Holy Scriptures, etc., 75% would go away thinking consciously or subconsciously, "I won't sign up." 25% would say "the hell with it, I'll sign up anyway." And with only 25,000 soldiers in Iraq, we would get nowhere and it would be just a big debacle and a loss for America.

True, the war in Iraq is a debacle now. But that's poor strategy on the part of the leaders, not an absence of volunteers.

As I once read somewhere; freedom of speech includes that ability to say stupid hateful things.

Precisely! That's why our country is great!

No that was not sarcastic. That's the only reason I haven't yet pulled a Hemingway and moved to Pamplona :D

It's not free speech if you can't say some choice words.



On public forums? Of course. On private forums? Well, private forums are privately-owned (hence the name), so you have to adhere to their rules. And publications, whether they're newspapers, magazines, or books, should *not* be censored.



Freedom of Speech should exist all the same in public schools. Private schools are another matter entirely.
I completely agree...I realize I look like an ass-kiss but he said my views.

Slander can destroy people's reputations. Obscenities have to be defined.

Yeah, slander should be controlled. You should be allowed to say the things, but if they're found to be untrue and/or complete fabrications, then the situation should be turned around.

Where have you been exactly? Hazelbrook (check the name) perhaps? That's one place where school officials did abuse power by refusing to publish controversial articles. That is an abuse. But banning "obscene" shirts is not an abuse. After all, in schools a) there are bound to be children who will come home talking like that (believe me, I know), b) it will be highly distracting during class, and c) it conveys inappropriate messages to people.

Where've I been? Port Aransas Elementary, Bare Branch Elementary, Tomball Elementary, Gariga Elementary, and Derry Elementary. The abuses of power were in Tomball, Gariga, and Derry. Teachers yelling at kids (which was against school policy), teachers slapping kids, principles biting kids (Principle Marchaun at Derry), teachers giving bad grades to kids just because they didn't like them, Principles covering up things that teachers had done, and so forth. The only one who was brought to justice was Ms. Marchaun, who was arrested for biting a kid in her office.

And, I'll say this: If people are stupid enough to distract themselves with a shirt instead of their schoolwork, then they should be the ones under scrutiny.

It's that issue over whether deserters should be sentenced to death, is it? Let's face it, most people don't take the trouble to find out things for themselves. They take for granted what other people say is invariably true. Therefore an agitator speaking out against a volunteer war (like Iraq) can convince a lot of people not to sign up. If there had been such things in 2003 and the government wasn't strong enough to counter them, no one would have signed up for Iraq. Saddam Hussein would never have been overthrown. Iraq would never have gotten democracy. True, hundreds of people might not have died, but that's the major drawback of war: people die.

If people are stupid enough to believe anything, they are sheep. And these sheep shouldn't be punished for deserting, because they didn't know any better. Why? As I said, they're little more than stupid, gullible sheep. And nobody signing up for Iraq would've been a bad thing? Seems to me that a lot less of our people would have been injured and killed. I'll say this: Wars shouldn't be started over false pretenses. This is another topic for another thread, and I'll go no further with it.

And remember—as you said, it's their choice. But their choice is made on evidence. If someone told them war was evil and to sign up would be a violation of human rights, the Holy Scriptures, etc., 75% would go away thinking consciously or subconsciously, "I won't sign up." 25% would say "the hell with it, I'll sign up anyway." And with only 25,000 soldiers in Iraq, we would get nowhere and it would be just a big debacle and a loss for America.

I want to ask you something: Why are you turning this into a debate about Iraq? Though I will say this in response: Once again, the sheep factor is involved. However, people are allowed to make whatever choice they see fit, and if their choice is to stay away from the armed forces, even if it's just because they've received information from questionable sources, then they have the right to stay free. Millions of people voted for George Bush because of very questionable commercials and publications by the "Swift Boat Veterans". Tell me this: Do you think that those commercials should have been outlawed? It was partisan political slander that twisted the words of John Kerry's autobiography, with no regard for actual facts. Come now, I'd love to hear your response.

True, the war in Iraq is a debacle now. But that's poor strategy on the part of the leaders, not an absence of volunteers.

You've got that right, at least.

Yeah, slander should be controlled. You should be allowed to say the things, but if they're found to be untrue and/or complete fabrications, then the situation should be turned around.



Where've I been? Port Aransas Elementary, Bare Branch Elementary, Tomball Elementary, Gariga Elementary, and Derry Elementary. The abuses of power were in Tomball, Gariga, and Derry. Teachers yelling at kids (which was against school policy), teachers slapping kids, principles biting kids (Principle Marchaun at Derry), teachers giving bad grades to kids just because they didn't like them, Principles covering up things that teachers had done, and so forth. The only one who was brought to justice was Ms. Marchaun, who was arrested for biting a kid in her office.

And, I'll say this: If people are stupid enough to distract themselves with a shirt instead of their schoolwork, then they should be the ones under scrutiny.



If people are stupid enough to believe anything, they are sheep. And these sheep shouldn't be punished for deserting, because they didn't know any better. Why? As I said, they're little more than stupid, gullible sheep. And nobody signing up for Iraq would've been a bad thing? Seems to me that a lot less of our people would have been injured and killed. I'll say this: Wars shouldn't be started over false pretenses. This is another topic for another thread, and I'll go no further with it.



I want to ask you something: Why are you turning this into a debate about Iraq? Though I will say this in response: Once again, the sheep factor is involved. However, people are allowed to make whatever choice they see fit, and if their choice is to stay away from the armed forces, even if it's just because they've received information from questionable sources, then they have the right to stay free. Millions of people voted for George Bush because of very questionable commercials and publications by the "Swift Boat Veterans". Tell me this: Do you think that those commercials should have been outlawed? It was partisan political slander that twisted the words of John Kerry's autobiography, with no regard for actual facts. Come now, I'd love to hear your response.



You've got that right, at least. (directed at Potaria) You're absolutely right. This thread was not designed to discuss the war in Iraq. However, we do have to allow conservatives like NovaCarpeDiem their rights to free speech, don't we?

(directed at NovaCarpeDiem) *coldly* If you wish to discuss the war in Iraq, feel free to start a thread dedicated to doing so.

Of course there need to be controls on the freedom of expression. We dont want people slandering others, inciting riots, publishing child pornography, giving out secrets to terrorists, etc.

As for schools, I think that any school below a college level (ie. middle school, elementary, and high school for those in the US) needs to be controlled alot more heavily. Students get all angsty and rebellious and wanna cause a ruckus, and things that distract others need to be curtailed. In fact, school uniforms are an excellent idea.

Of course there need to be controls on the freedom of expression. We dont want people slandering others, inciting riots, publishing child pornography, giving out secrets to terrorists, etc.

As for schools, I think that any school below a college level (ie. middle school, elementary, and high school for those in the US) needs to be controlled alot more heavily. Students get all angsty and rebellious and wanna cause a ruckus, and things that distract others need to be curtailed. In fact, school uniforms are an excellent idea.

Hell they are. I've been in three schools with uniforms, and two without, though in the last school once I got to sixth form (Last two grades) the uniform rules didn't apply. Anyways, all that came of it was teacher favoritism. Some people followed the rules, most didn't, or pushed them as far as possible. Certain teachers were racist or sexist, and would come down like a ton of bricks on a student for having a shirt untucked, whilst letting someone else dress like a total slut and not say a word. School uniforms do barely anything for discipline (I don't remember ANY events regarding ANY clothing people wore, indeed the only thing which did get a lot of activity and buzz was when I went in with a mohawk/red hair/teal hair/half my head shaved - not against the rules, as hair wasn't covered.), except to cause people to break a rule which shouldn't exist at all.

Oh, and they won't rebel if you're relaxed with them. I remember two teachers very distinctly from High school. My French teacher was a strict bitch, and she'd bite your head off if you went over the line. My English teacher was far more relaxed, and would only get mad if work wasn't done when it should be or if the entire class was being disruptive for some time. The result? Everyone remembers the English lessons fondly, homework was done on time by about 90-95% of the class (We're more loose about getting it in on time here in England.), and generally people came away having a) had a good time AND b) learnt something. French? Lucky if two thirds of the class had done their homework, the teacher was pushed to the limit pretty much every lesson, and nobody remembers anything other than when the teacher got REALLY mad with fondness. Rules are all well and good, but when a rule exists for it's own sake and has a negative effect (Ie it causes people to break the rule who would normally not act in that way, were the thing not proscribed.), it ought to go.

I'm for freedom of speech as long as no other laws are broken. But I'm not sure how libel and slander laws work, so I'll say this; You should be able to say whatever you want, or write whatever you want, so long as you clarify it as opinion/personal belief. If you tout a lie as fact, then you should be in trouble. (Of course, this raises questions of how to prove things. If it's a conversation/argument for example, or a crime like sexual abuse, it's damn hard to prove, but people should still have the right to put forth their side.)

If something is publically owned, then anything ought to go. Decorum ought to be considered, but hardly a prime concern. For example, plenty of us here on NS manage to make good points without serious profanity, but we still use it now and then because it adds to the message. A private forum can have whatever rules it likes though, as long as people are free to question the rules. Through debate, not infringement. And there is no grounds whatsoever for censoring books or newspapers, and as outlined

I'm more for freedom of speech in schools than perhaps anywhere else; we need to teach kids to be individuals, to question things, and so forth, not to regiment them and remove any color from their school years (Already troublesome enough for most.). And in the home, too. If a kid wants to say what he thinks of some rule or another, it ought to be his right. This 'respect your elders' BS is... BS. Eutrusca deserves respect for what he's done, not how long he's lived.

speach is only free if you dont have to pay for it *nods*

What are your views on free speech? Do you agree with the restrictions (slander, libel, obscenities)? Why or why not?yes. there are ways to get your point across without resorting to profanity or insults

Should people be allowed to post anything they want on public forums? Why or why not? How about newspapers, magazines, or books?nope... there is a responsibility for every freedom. you wouldn't want National Secrets or your most private or Embarrassing moments pasted up for all the world to see.

Do you think the right to free speech holds in schools as well? Should school districts be allowed to ban certain messages on clothing, ban political buttons, or restrict freedom of the school press?as long as the Faculty/Staff/and Government are held responsible for our children in those schools, then they have the right and responsibility of laying down the rules.

If you have any comments at all on the rights to free speech anywhere, feel free to post.
Freedom without responsibility, without restraint is Anarchy.

At last, someone who agrees with my views that too much freedom is a bad thing!

I promise that this is my last comment about Iraq. You could say that I'm kinda playing the "devil's advocate" here; I was against the war when it happened. But there should be some restrictions on freedoms in wartime: for example, state secrets should not be exposed. Also, people should not be allowed to incite others to violent action against a government during wartime.

I can hear your comments already that that's the same thing as saying no one can oppose the government. It's not. If someone says, "This government is totally immoral! We must go lynch all the congressmen and burn down the U.S. Capitol!" people might actually do it. This would lead the government to believe that an enemy invasion was taking place, and thousands of innocent people would be killed because of emergency military action. Therefore, in the interests of human life, that kind of speech should be outlawed during wartime. (Any other time, of course, it's also dangerous, but should be allowed since the government isn't in an emergency crisis.)

I draw the line at fraudulant speech, and I am of mind recently to fold slander and libel into fraud. Sauy what you want, but be prepared to show it's true or face criminal charges.

Complete and total free speech. No one can be coerced into silence, and no one has the authority to say what is definitively correct.

Hypothetical: I know your actual name. I visit your neighborhood, and post a flyer with the following message to ever house.

[insert actual name] is a convicted child rapist. Please shoot him on sight. $100,000,000 reward.

Is this acceptable to you? If not, why? If so, why?