Originally Posted by Gandhi
For those who are ignorant of this America's first amendment is "Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government"
I myself am a huge supporter or free speech,I have never agreed with silencing anybody no matter how vile and disgusting their statement would be.To me if you don't like a statement simply ignore it or reply with your own statement to destroy the statement you disliked.Silencing people is for the cowardly and weak who cannot defend themselves simply by speaking,Thats what I think anyway.
Reason I made this thread is because I was discussing this with my sister,She actually disagrees and says while she does agree with freedom of religion she is not the type that thinks all freedom of speech should be protected.We discussed and spoke of the Westboro Baptist Church members and I even stated that I think nobody is allowed to silence them even if they are disgusting human beings,She disagreed and stated free speech should not always be protected and even that some should be punished or put on exile for stating certain things.
What do you think? Just be honest,Honesty is always more interesting to read.
Aren't we raised under the notion that if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all? I was raised that way, and I can't say that I have always lived by that rule. However, we go our whole lives being told how to behave. Part of behavior is communicating. You are taught to raise your hand when you were to speak in class, and so on. Society has evolved to a point of decency, and etiquette. We don't just say what we want. Do you walk up to some crippled person, and just start belittling them? Probably not, and I would venture to say that it's because you have more "class" than that. However, what's to stop you, or anyone else from this?
In fact people do torment each other with words. There are laws that actually restrict your limit of speech. There are sexual harassment laws, and threats which are verbal. There is slander, and defamation of character. These things are against the law, so it's clear that society does respect the notion of free speech one has to acknowledge that there clearly can be lines drawn to limit what others say. No one has the right to harass, and socially torment others. It's wrong, and never should be considered ok. We should also take into consideration that just as much as one would embrace "free speech", they would also embrace the right not to speak. Sometimes no words is the best way of saying something.
In regards to religion, and the freedom thereof. This is something that is also limited, and your religion has to fall in accordance to the law of the land. The moment that religion is a disruption it becomes a problem that must be dealt with. What if your religion requires you to abuse a certain drug that is illegal here in the United States? That is something to consider. This isn't suggesting that if a religion requires blood sacrifice of a newborn child, then due to our religious freedoms we should allow this to happen. This isn't my point. My point is something within reason like an illegal substance used to alter the mind. Can't one decide what can be digested in to their own bodies based on their religious beliefs?
Then there is freedom of religion all the while gays, and lesbians can't take part in marriage legally in most of the United States. If there is freedom of religion I can't see how a group of people can be held under such oppression by a sustained religion such as Christianity. Freedom of religion does not legislative jurisdiction over marriage, but in fact it does. In this country the Christians have won this battle with Gay marriage. If this were a country that admired freedom of religion it wouldn't allow Christians to ban gay marriage. Their views aren't greater than that of those see differently.
Freedom of the Press, and the right to petition the government mean nothing today. The press is far too large to understand it's power at this point. Not to mention the press hardly cares about the public as much as they do delivering a story. Just look at the Sandy Hook case as an example. The media was more interested in providing a story as opposed to accurately reporting the largest massacre in America in recent memory. First, it was Ryan, and then it was Adam. Next, there were suspected other shooters. Then, it was his mother worked at the school, and so on. What good is the press if they aren't actually providing the public with credible journalism?
Who cares if we can petition our government? Petitioning our government has very little relevance today. People could care less, and have other things that they would rather occupy their time with. Most Americans couldn't think of anything to begin with anyhow. People don't really know what the issues are. It's whatever the media, and that good ole' free press tells them is true. We are a society of good intentions, but are plagued with short term issues. Society would rather not look so far ahead, but just enough to satisfy their childish needs, and calm their erratic egos.