Do You Believe in Free Speech?

The essence of Free Speech is the right to question everything and not be stifled in doing so. If we say that opinions may be freely expressed only if they meet a certain set of criteria, then that is not Free Speech.

If we don't have Freedom of Expression, or don't believe that we should, then how is our society better than any dictatorial regime?

It's a simple question.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course I beleive in free speech but just because we can say something doesn't mean we should. We have to be appropriate. We shouldn't yell "fire" in a movie theater when there is none just because we can.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The man who yells 'fire' in a cinema is not expressing an opinion. He is just shouting out a single word that has nothing to do with where he is or what's happening around him. Thus your example is more than a little beside the point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I certainly do. Both freedom of speech and freedom of expression. You should be able to say you hate your government and fly a nazi flag if you want too. However I also believe in certain restrictions (rules and regulations) set down by those in charge of certain establishments. Of course a violation shouldn't be punishable by law, but can get you removed from said establishments. But if you aren't under anyone's authority then you should be able to say and wear whatever you like.

 

Yes I do believe in free speech but from life experience I see that people who oppose your views will do everything to silence you . Some use the courts, some use propaganda and some use even violence . There is no total free speech at 100% in any society . Real ,total free speech is like real, total freedom and they are both just human dreams when it comes to reality .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

I'm curious about how many use real, honest speech in every day life. So many of us censor what we really mean/think to be pc or proper. That's why I LOVE the reports of tv peeps not knowing their mics were on and saying what they really think. Like Jesse Jackson vs. Obama. lol...

 

Freedom of speech is an American concept, hence why Jewish-dominated leftist movements (Frankfurt Marxism) and establishments (America's Anti-Defamation League and Canada's Canadian Human Rights Commission, to mention but two modern examples) give it no value.

Personally, I believe in free speech so long as it is not revolutionary in nature.

 

Civilization vs. Function: A twist on the dialectic of neurosis

Well, let's see. Sandy jumped on blacks. And Slysoon's after the Jews. Anyone want to jump on the Mexicans while we're at it? How 'bout some Italians, too?

The bottom line on speech and expression is the same as any question of freedom and necessity.

Noah Webster famously declared that, "Too much liberty is tyranny!" and in many ways that adage has proven itself over and over again throughout American history. But look around at the tall buildings and pretty lights. Watch the rain spin and bluster and fall sideways in the wind. Take off your leather jacket, or kick away the designer shoes, and sit back with a glass of wine or beer or whatever and watch Olbermann, or a baseball game, or maybe they're doing a Matrix trilogy on cable tonight.

What would you trade it all for?

Humans are inclined toward society. And we've been getting better at it over time. All along we've been wrestling with two primary issues: what is efficient or functional, and what is right.

No solution to this quandary is ever perfect. And none so far have really hit the ground running so that only minimal fine-tuning was necessary.

We are approaching, in the United States, what will be at least a minor milepost along this journey. For reasons unbeknownst, the Roberts Court has decided to transform a small political campaign case into a potential benchmark decision. In re-hearing the Citizens United case, the Court has invited itself to consider a fundamental question of whether free speech should be so free that dialogue is impossible.

Because if you find for the most basic and superficial consideration of free speech, there is no reason that funding sources should prohibit the broadcast of a campaign advertisement disguised as a movie. However, if you look at the reasons for protecting expression, and what that protection is supposed to accomplish, striking the law that blocked the questionable distribution and broadcast of the film will create conditions wherein it is possible to limit and shape the public discourse simply by throwing enough money at it. In other words, the government should protect free speech by empowering other institutions to undermine it.

It's a hard question. I don't think a stake through McCain-Feingold will destroy the nation, but it would certainly constitute a message to "We the People" that we're just not that important to the government anymore. Just vote on Election Day and be a good citizen. When you have enough money to be heard over Microsoft, WalMart, and Texaco, well, make sure to drop the folks in charge a line.

So what would you trade for free speech? And what would you expect in return?

 

Clever argument. You want to limit free speech to protect it. A stake thru McCain-Feingold's heart would constitute a message, all right. That message would be that we as a nation actually do value free speech, especially political free speech. A law that limits the ability to express you opinion right before an election attacks free speech right when it's the most important and limits the very sort of speech the founding fathers wanted to protect.

 

The problem with that is that it assumes that free speech, in and of itself, is an end and not a means.

Free speech has always been the best, most efficient way to make sure that we have responsible, good government relatively free of tyrannical tendencies.

There was a time when monarchy was the means to the most stable government. During these times, people were fairly rough-around-the-edges, poorly educated and just plain didn't have the ability to intelligently select a good government apparatus. In time, society evolved to the point where people were well enough informed to make their own choices in government. Government, having always been corrupt, benefited from this societal oversight. In the end, the best means to good governance, became democracy.

The end goal, of course, is always liberty, justice, prosperity and good government. If there were a way to have all that with a benevolent dictator, that would, of course, be the best means to such an end. But since we all know that benevolent dictators are about as rare as ball lightning, the best compromise is to make people the ultimate authority of what goes on in government.

A similar, and related, compromise was struck in free speech. Free speech, at all times, is just a pain in the ass. It has caused a proportionately noticeable amount of damage as oppressed speech. But in the end, it's better to have it, than not. When the notion of "free speech" was struck upon (specifically in this nation) mega corporations with huge staffs designed to dupe, entice and otherwise beguile ordinary people into giving up their money, time and (yes) freedom to that corporation didn't exist. But such is not the case now. Now, we have (as I previously hinted at) corporations that are as large and as powerful as government but which are free to act in ways that we'd never tolerate from a government institution. They are as distant, inhuman and insensitive to human needs and are, by several factors, significantly more untouchable. Hell, when a government institution is poorly run, at least their bosses can be sacked quickly and prosecuted under federal laws with the agency still is in place to deliver on a fair number of its promises. Companies, especially the large ones, are totally immune to most, if not all, of those things. The prosecution of executives having become a fairly new trend. Humans are consumed and disposed of, lives wrecked over their innate right to do what ordinary citizens do. We have rights. They have rights. In the end we protected ourselves from government tyranny, but have (in many ways) substituted corporate and organizational tyranny.

What is the end goal? Is this an advocacy for collectivism and the disillusion of corporations? Shit, no! But the USA is moving in a direction that is inherently destructive to the individual and family. Every moment of our lives, we have commercial enterprises studying our every move and broadcasting their every whim into our lives. The individual JUST doesn't stand a chance. It literally is "you" verses the 10,000 employees of their marketing department. Who the fuck would you bet on?

The same is true in elections, sales, unions, courts and every other mechanism of society. It's a catchy sounding thing to say, "So we must limit freedoms to protect them." But, the truth is, that has always been precisely what a republic is. Individuals cede rights to the government in order to ensure that the remaining rights and prosperity are ensured.

The trick is in the balancing act, and I have absolutely no clue where the line of too much meets too little, but I am 100% sure we are on the side of "too little" right now. Only a fool would look at things in this society and come to the conclusion that everything is peachy. While utopia is. . . well, it's called "utopia" for a reason. . . utopia is a ruse and unattainable; there are reasonable things that can be done to protect individuals from non-government organizations (companies, unions, collectives, whathaveyou).

It probably starts with saying that individuals have rights, companies have less. It might move into regulating how much (not necessarily what) can be said, bought, usurped and consumed by corporations and non-profit organizations.

It's all a balancing act. Individuals, the root source of society, are fast becoming moot in a nation full of super-organizations that have, essentially, the same rights as the powerless do.

~String

 

I thought freedom of speech was originally meant freedom of discourse. Mainly to criticize the government ... but also other taboo subjects - such as religion. Such criticisms were completely illegal in the past. A death sentence.


That said, should we have the freedom to talk about how to break into a bank ATM? What about how to make car bombs? How to murder with poison? Can pedophiles discuss ways on how to groom children?

I remember seeing a junk mail come in on: How to "hypnotize" women into having sex with you. I thought it was funny and lol and showed it to my firend. He took it way serious said it was sick and got pissed off and ended up telling me that such information should be illegal. (I said I'm sure it's fake. He didn't think so).

So, I suppose, the first point I'd like to make is: Is this Freedom of Discourse or Freedom of Information? Because talking about why you think Mohammad and Paul were both flaming Homosexuals is a lot different than printing up a manual (or relaying specific instructions) on how to blow up Langley, a Synagogue or a Mosque.


Second point is about Hate. I am 100% certain that if you teach 1000 children to hate blacks, 1 to 3 will go out and seriously harm, even kill, a black person. What do we do now? My idea is education. To counter home-made brainwashing, we need counter brainwashing in K-12. We shouldn't make bigotry illegal. We should try hard to Shame those that teach bigotry.

So there are different ways in dealing with Freedoms of Speech. Maybe we as a nation should work to Shame political propaganda as just that. I mean seriously shame it. Stop the nation, dissect it with experts and shame it to hell.

This may surprise you but people can actually handle information longer than a 10sec sound bit (as least up to 3 min I think)

 

I fear an oppresive government much more than I fear any corporation. Government can use force. It can literally send guys with guns out in the middle of the night and toss you in jail. It can seize all your assets, freeze you bank accounts, it can literally kill you.

Now are mega international corporations worthy of some concern as well, of course. The worst situation of all is the union of government with mega-corporations. Where does the individual turn then?

As to freedom of speech, I think we need more, not less. Look at what two 20 year old kids did to the giant corporation, one with extensive ties to government no less, known as Acorn. They kicked it in the balls and caused congress to cut off its funding and the census to cut off all ties. How was that possible? Freedom of speech.

Now imagine some campaign finance regulator decided that politically motivated sting operations like that are polical contributions and must register with the FEC and comply with a million different federal regulations or be thrown in jail. What would the result of that be? To shut them down and protect those same giant corporations that you are concerned with.

We need more freedom, not less. Regulations almost always benefit those already in power (they write them, or pay off those who do), meaning they protect those same giant corporations you're concerned about, not the individual. In this age of the internet with cameras on every cell phone, the individual can be more powerful than ever so long as he is not mussled in the name of "protecting free speech." We are 300 million watchdogs learning how to keep both the government and big corporations in line. Freedom is the greatest protection the individual ever had or will ever had.

 

Fearing one does not remove the fear of the other. Nor does fear of one negate the ability to curttail the actions of the other.

This is a line of argument that is used, and misused, often. It ignores the glaring fact that not all government restrictions are oppressive, will become oppressive or will hurt individual freedoms. That line of thinking is, more often than not, used to scare people into thinking that something precious will be denied them. Which is a load of shit.

Good government isn't about building walls that prevent good government from happening, Mad. There are ways, which exist (which actually used to exist in this nation) that allowed the government (an extension of us) to prevent extremely powerful organizations from harming individuals. This, and precisely THIS is the root purpose of government. By stripping our government of the ability to do its root job, we've empowered equally destructive forces to do harm to individual citizens.

Yeah, I get the "fear of big government" deal. I'm a libertarian. But even the competitive protections that would ensure mega corporations not exercise their "mega" powers have been removed. Good regulation, Mad, does not equate to tyranny and falling back on that line is. . . well it's either purposely deceptive or blatantly ignorant. Was it tyranny when the US ended slavery, child labor, or passed the anti-trust act? Was it tyranny when the US began regulating the food industry so that "shit" couldn't be canned and sold to people? Was it tyranny when the federal government forced the states to adopt health codes for public facilities that ended typhoid? No.

This, like leftist arguments, is an extremist one; bent on making people afraid of the very thing that can, and should, make their lives better. It's not a prescription for more welfare, universal health care or curtailing individual freedoms. It's about regulating those things which government aught to do because some things cannot be regulated totally by a free market, or by individual choices.

No body wants to acknowledge the elephant in the room: people are stupid. Human beings, as individuals make horrific choices. We succumb to temptation, sign away our futures to debtors, and destroy our lives on the newest marketing ploy. Good government is not about telling people what they can and cannot say. It's about telling powerful entities what they can and cannot say and do to people.

Tell me, do you really, HONESTLY think that Americans are going to begin getting thinner any time soon? No. You don't. People getting "fat" is not, in any way, caused by "government". It's caused by the absolute fact that we were evolved to hunt and eat. There was a time when food was so scarce that a whole segment of our brain evolved to ensure that we NEVER were far from food and that food was NEVER, EVER, EVER far from our waking thoughts. This mechanism, is so powerful, that MOST human beings cannot consciously fight it for more than a short time. Companies like McDonald's, Hostess and M&M/Mars know this. This weakness is being so exploited that a health epidemic is approaching, the likes of which will LITERALLY contribute to the collapse of our society. IF you doubt this, consider even the most conservative costs involved in dealing with adult obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, respiratory issues, lost wages, poor parental involvement in their children's lives. Now consider those costs 50 years from now when more than half of the population of the USA will be over 45 years old. The taxes and insurance costs to deal with THOSE factors alone will be more than anything a stable society will be able to bear.

But, FREE SPEECH WINS. For free speech's sake. And PERISH the thought that we exercise an ounce of prevention in order to prevent what will surely be many hundred's of pounds of cure. Simple: restrict the adverts of toxic foods; place a tax on those foods that is directed towards public health. Yes, I'm not stupid. I know that powerful governments use taxes for all sorts of nefarious things, but again, this is about a balancing act. The choice is: the collapse of society because of the stupidity of individuals in the face of corporate greed Vs. what? Big government? Big government is on it's way, NO MATTER WHAT, and possibly quicker if we do nothing. People vote with their stomachs, and when they start dying from all the diseases I mentioned, and nobody will cover their costs; big government WILL step in, no matter how much we fight it, and take over.

A small amount of "big government" now, will prevent many future whoas. In those future times, don't fool yourself into thinking that the government won't curtail individual rights to get its tax dollars to pay for all the dead and dying people caused by corporate greed now.

It turns to the extension of the individual: good government. IT can be achieved through good, honest investment in good honest government. A few handy constitutional amendments would help. Will there still be corrupt government? Yes, but we've never even tried, Mad. Never. The smallest possibility gets lost in the battle between "right" and "left" and for once I'm inclinde to agree (in only a small way) with the left: government is, sometimes, the answer. The Right has set up a self fulfilling prophesy: All Government Is Bad!!! Allow the Congress to create a body to help regulate something that needs regulating, then never fund it and allow cronies to be appointed to it (thus allowing Bernie Madoff scandals; Bush appointee: WIN!) and then when it fails, hold it out as an example of how big government always fails. Not really honest, is it? Then, when someone tries to actually make government work for the people, they are labeled as "big government proponents", examples of all the times government failed to do something right are trumpeted, and the idiotic fool's race continues. Funding a government oversight agency to its minimal needs and actually appointing reasonably talented people to those posts actually makes good government work. That is, I know, a tall order, and one that is worth fighting and NOT giving up on. But we are doing the exact opposite. Not only are we weakening those agencies which act on our behalf to defend us from those who would do us harm; we are actually enshrining freedoms and powers for those would-be harm-doers on a regular basis. It's like we WANT to be harmed. IT's like we want chaos!

Mad. You know I'm not talking about that. I'll chalk this up to either my poor communication or an oversight on your part. I just said, curtailing individual freedoms is NOT any way to build a good society. In fact, it is because of individuals that this society continues. I'm talking about curtailing the actions of organizations, like ACORN (amongst a host of thousands of others who do much worse, like P&G who get a pass to dump tonnes of junk in the Ohio river each year, like Burger King for marketing toxic foods to children [seeding the "fatassed-ness" of this nation] or corporate farms who are allowed to re-feed dead cattle to living cattle to help "fatten" them up). Furthermore, it is possible to acheive this goal while not harming individual freedoms, much to the contrary of people who think that limiting corporate power somehow means limiting individual power. A simple, law (or constitutional amendment as I would prefer) that states plainly: "Non government organizations of any variety, for profit or not, containing more than 100 individuals, employees, advisers or associates, or which has an annual revenue of more than 100 times the per-capita income of the USA (as determined the year before by such government agency as the Congress may, from time to time, deem to create) is not guaranteed the same freedoms as individual citizens. The Congress and the several states shall have congruent power in enforcing this amendment."

But we both know what intelligent people already know, but of which few of us speak: our society is doomed. It's going to end within fifty years. Humans may well survive, but we are fast approaching a point where individual organizations will have more power than governments. Where the proliferation of knowledge and power will be so great that each of them may have the ability to decide the fate of all of humanity, each as individual organizations. We don't want to admit this because it's too gloomy. People who risk talking too much about it are shunned, even ostracized, but it's coming and there's little any of us can do about it except, empower our government to do what it was actually created to do.

Well, that starts with good regulation. I'm for throwing out our constitution as it is and re-writing it. I think that individual agencies should be headed by an executive and an executive committee to which any organization can appeal if the findings of the agency is deemed malicious. Not perfect, but a good start. Our needs and abilities as a society and individuals has far outstirpped our constitution's ability to deal with them. It doesn't have to be wordier, but our government framework is out dated. The only reason we keep it now is out of nostalgia, which is utterly ridiculous because it's like the old junker that dad keeps around because it was his first car. It's inefficient, pollutes, and just doesn't run right, but we keep driving in it because dad loves it so much.

Nobody is, thus far, has voted for limiting individual freedoms. In fact, I think they should be extended. But that's another discussion for another time.

Which is why the 300 million watchdogs should be given more power to deal with corrupt organizations. Also more reason why we should have the power to say as a society, "Nope. Sorry X-Corporation, you can't do that." But, for some reason, companies have the same rights as you and I do.

~String

 

No, at least no in the US. You have the right to question and advocate most issues, but you don't have the right to do so in any manner you choose, like carving kkk into peoples foreheads.

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in "fair" political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States

A more general philosophical exploration of the topic: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

By and far one can express about any idea as long as one is mindful about how the idea is being expressed. It should be clear one is not using free speech as a cover for inciting violence or engaging in things like slander, liable, overt rebellion or other criminal act.

Freedom of expression is not freedom of speech.

 

free political speach? yes, free speach as an apsolute? FUCK NO.

I would be horrifide to find a situation where a goverment law designed for instance to regulate junk food adevertising during childrens shows on TV was struck down based on some apsolute "right" to "free speach"


Futher more the freedom to discriminate and abuse shouldnt be encoraged either. An example which leaps to mind is a US based website whos sole purpose is to defame and threaten citizans of Australia (possably other countries but its here that its been in the headlines). This site has posted death threats, definimation and harasment great enough to push people to suicide against other students, teachers, and yes politions and others who have taken up the fight against this site. However nither the legal system, the police, parliment or the goverment have been able to do a thing about it because its protected under a stupid definition of "free speach" from the US where the site is based. Further more the site is refusing to relace the infomation of the people posting these things which would lead to civil and criminal suits in Australia.

So like everything else in this world nothing is apsolute, political speach SHOULD be free, but not at the cost of generalised harm done to the very people its surposed to protect

 

Maximum freedom of speech is not obtained through minimum regulation, any more than maximum freedom of action is obtained through minimum restriction.

One the one end, you are cemented into a box - you can't do anything. On the other end, you are free-floating in space - you can't do anything.

On the one end, you can't follow a comprehensible signal amid the babble of thousands on the radio. On the other, you have one radio station and it plays "Tiny Bubbles" all day because that's its megarich owner's favorite song. Or speeches from the Dear Leader.

On the one hand, there is only so much gold in the world and it's all in the banks of those permitted by the King to own any - you have to use barter in daily life. On the other end anyone can print a piece of paper that says it's money and you have to use barter in everyday life.

If you don't curb corporate speech, it will take over - because corporations have control of the means, can fill the media world with their message, and because corporations have no accountability for what they "say". You will have less freedom to speak.

 

Clever is as simple does?

Clever argument. Don't have anything to say, you just write down whatever you want to argue against.

I know, I know. Makes you sound smart. Makes you sound tough. And confident.

Keep strutting.

I see. And how would a decision for McCain-Feingold in this case harm free speech?

And what law is this? How does it execute that attack on free speech?

See String's response. Maybe you'll listen to him—after all, he supports Republicans.

Pure free speech includes fraud, mass bullying, and slander.

Is that what you're aiming for, sir? Or is it unreasonable to extrapolate to a purist threshold?

String and I might—I don't think we've gone through this issue closely together—put the balance point at different places, but we both recognize that there needs to be some sense of balance. He and I might argue whether the best way out of the house is to tie together a bunch of blankets and climb down, or try to scrabble down the drainpipe. But here, analogously, you're telling us the house either (A) isn't on fire, or (B) is supposed to be and we don't need to worry about a thing.

The Supreme Court? The fire's out, but they want to argue over whether or not to torch the property and redevelop.

Reaching back to Cellar Door's topic post, the key is a comparison of the restriction and the reason. Clear and present danger, for instance, as Sandy pointed out. Why shouldn't you be allowed to yell, "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium?

Pornography? How about snuff and child porn? Killing people for sexual gratification isn't healthy for the individuals involved or the society at large. And we generally recognize that differences in brain structure and process result in different routes and criteria for decision making between children and adults. While we've long fought child sexual abuse on aesthetic grounds, scientific validation is emerging.

Fraud? If nobody can get anything from A to B, commerce collapses. And if everyone's defrauding people, nobody will buy anything.

Bullying? Free speech at present does not reach to cover deliberate antagonism and harassment. Would you suggest that it should?

So how about politics. Imagine that one day you hear about a law intended to govern some aspect of how you do business. A friend sends you an email alleging that the new law is being written to coddle Wal-Mart and other conglomerates. So you gather down at the Cyclops Room with some people you know in the business and decide to go down to the capitol to speak at a public hearing. Besides, one of your friends suggests, "There's only like twenty people at these meetings, anyway." So you go down and are shocked to find the hall packed with hundreds of people wearing A[sup]2[/sup]O[sup]3[/sup] t-shirts (Associated American Optometrists, Ophthalmologists & Opticians), an activist group that you eventually discover has been formed by Wal-Mart (for the "grass-roots" credibility) and bused in from all over the state. And at the end of the meeting, there is you, your five fellow local optometrists, a few legislative geeks there to watch the festivities, and the hundreds of activists who are, essentially, pro Wal-Mart.

When the law passes, the Speaker explains, "We conducted a broad range of public inquiries, and found that people overwhelmingly supported this law."

And so you sit there thinking, "Who were these people? They weren't optometrists or ophthalmologists or opticians. They, like, have a second cousin who is an optometrist or something."

Well, the system has just been bought out. You as the voter, mean nothing to the legislators except that one special day in November when they have to beg for their jobs. But other than that, you went and gave your forthright opinion only to be drowned out by a dog and pony show.

As I understand it, this is exactly what you're asking for: Free speech is useless unless there's no point in saying anything at all.

Talk your talk and walk your walk;
I'm no common fool and I'd say you took your number
Still when there comes that knock upon your front door,
When you dance across the floor
You'll know one thing for sure:
You know they won't see nothing.
You know they won't see nothing.
You know they won't see nothing.
You'll know they won't see you—
Oh they won’t see you.
While you're working to earn just one slice,
I'll give you this kindly advice:
They'll forget your name at half price.

Oh, you're just a ghost in the making.

(Floater)​

 

wrong.
freedom of speech is being able to speak the truth without fear of reprisal.

don't confuse freedom of expression with freedom of speech.

 

Some Republicans Tiassa. Some.

I'm more flexible than most. I'm also not willing to vote for a candidate that I have not researched first. My dad votes along party lines. He sees the (R) next to the name and they get his little check mark, which annoys the hell out of me. I try to do a little more digging than that.

Less than half the candidates in the last election, who received my vote, were Republicans. In all, I probably cast my vote for about a third [a random guess] of the people on the ballot. The other 2/3 were left unacknowledged and unknown. I assume that the power to vote is often best exercised in not voting at all.

~String

 

Excellent definition that goes back to the Zenger case in 1735.

The famous trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735 showed the perils facing a printer with the audacity to criticize a government leader.

Zenger published articles critical of New York Governor William Cosby. Cosby had the publisher charged with seditious libel. Zenger's defense attorney, Andrew Hamilton, persuaded the jury to ignore the settled law that truth was no defense to a libel action. Zenger's acquittal still stands as a First Amendment triumph in American jurisprudence. ​

Do you support this:

Wisconsin Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, took to the airwaves with radio and TV ads urging Wisconsinites to "contact Senators [Russell] Feingold and [Herb] Kohl and tell them to oppose the filibuster" of conservative judicial nominations. Feingold, a Democrat, is up for re-election; Kohl, also a Democrat, is not. Aware that it was testing the boundaries of the law, the group fashioned ads that do not ask listeners to support or oppose either man, do not mention an election or a political party, and do not even mention the senators' positions on the judicial filibusters that were the subject of the ads—information, says Barbara Lyons, Wisconsin Right to Life's executive director, that the group would have provided but for fear of legal trouble.

"This is a grassroots lobbying campaign," says Lyons. But on August 15, the group was forced to take its ads off the air until Election Day. "It has changed our life dramatically," Lyons says. "We're doing no radio or television advertising—not in terms of candidate information. They've taken away our speech rights in just giving information on candidates, and now they're taking away our lobbying rights. Congress is in session, there are legitimate issues before the Congress, and the public has a right to know about them." ​

So citizens shouldn't be allowed to organize and present their views to the public at large right before an election? That is outrageous. McCain Feingold makes no distinction between Haliburton and the ACLU or the NRA. Very few individuals can afford to run political ads, which is why we organize into groups to pool our resources. Yet McCain Feingold essentially bans this.

Of course I don't support those things. But as Leopold said, truth should be an absolute defense against charges of fraud and slander.

A classic example of a reasonable limit on free speech with, of course, the caveat that it's wholly appropriate to shout fire when there is a fire.

The problem with child porn and snuff films is that people are harmed in their creation. They are, essentially, evidence of a crime. Porno, IMO, so long as everyone is of age and consenting, is fine.

Shit. That happens already. Consider the law regarding verification of contact lens prescriptions. 1800contacts, along with WalMart, pushed for a law that allow for an automated phone call to be used to verify contact lens prescriptions with the proviso that if a doctor fails to respond to these automated phone calls within a few business hours, the contact lens prescription is approved.

Previously such verification of prescriptions were handled by a person calling or via fax. This was reasonable and easy to comply with. But these automated calls are purposely designed to be almost impossible to respond to. Each call lasts about 20 minutes and the patient's name is not given until the end of the call. It's pretty rare for a staff member to have twenty minutes of uninterupted time to sit and listen to an automated call. So the result if that patients end up going for years without having their contact lenses checked. We often don't see them again until they have so abused their eye/contact lenses that they can no longer tolerate the old lenses or they get an infection.

But so long as 1800contacts or WalMart gets a sale, that's cool. I'm really hoping that some patient who suffers a serious loss of vision as a result of this will sue WalMart or 1800contacts and put an end to this bullshit.

I thought we were talking about free speech? I'm not opposed to all regulations, just most of them. It's appropriate for the government to ensure that minimal safety standards are met. But regulation should be kept to a bare minimum.

As people get older, they get less healthy and eventually die. This has always been true. I don't see it as a problem that will cause the collapse of society. Yes, it's rather ironic and sad that, having finally overcome the diseases of starvation and poverty; we have inflicted outselves with an entirely new set of diseases. Yet that is the way of the world. Give us some time, we'll figure out how to deal with the problems of plenty (should we be lucky enough to continue to have those sort of problems).

I'd oppose the restriction of advertisements so long as all claims made are true. But I wouldn't necesarily oppose a tax on unhealthy foods. I mean, we have to tax something. Why not tax things that are bad for you?

I believe that power corrupts. The more power you give government, the more corrupt it will become. If you want good, clean government; it needs to be a limited government. A government the size and with the power ours now has attacts scum bags and shysters like flys to shit.

Government is a necesary evil. But it is evil. It's a lot like fire. In Greek legend, it was the gift of fire that allowed humans to rise above the level of animals and approach godhood. Yet while fire is very useful, if you allow it to grow too large; it will consume everything in its path. It must constantly be watched.

I'm sure there are those who do want chaos. Chaos justifies emergency action that would never be tolerated in normal times.

I'd like to see you expand on that a bit. What rights, in particular, do you want to limit for corporations? I'd prefer an amendment list them specifically.

That's part of the reason we need to get off this damned planet. So long as we're all in one place, we're doomed.

Whoa! Which political figures would you trust with such a responsibity? Ron Paul, maybe. The US was damned lucky to emerge from its revolution with such good government. It's quite rare in human history for a revolution to go so well. If you and I were the ones hammering out a new constitution I might support it. But Washington these days is just full of scumbags I would not trust to put in charge of my basic rights.

The reason, I believe, is an error by a Supreme Court clerk.

Agreed. I will also often leave entire categories blank (especially judges) if I don't know enough about the people in question.