Freedom of speech

[dave10]

The older I get, the more amazed and appreciative I am of the bedrock of our free society - the guarantee of freedom of speech found in the First Amendment to our Constitution, and in our Canadian brethren's counterpart, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

United States: "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."

Canada: "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly and
(d) freedom of association."

It's important to remind ourselves occasionally that such a fundamental freedom, which we here take almost entirely for granted, is something denied to so many others. Our ability to openly question or criticize our leaders is an act that, in other parts of the world, can get someone incarcerated, or worse.

Cherish this right, and as we all do on WC, exercise it often!!

Dave

[The Democrat]

I'm not much of a walleye fisherman, but nobody has ever accused me of not talking enough. :stirthepot:

[jerry bark]

well done dave,

i think we all need to be staunch defenders of our entire bill of rights even if our lawmakers are not.

cheers
jerry

[reelman2]

Let's all just remember that wihout the 2nd Amendment there would be no 1st. Amendment!

[jarhead]

>Let's all just remember that wihout the 2nd Amendment there
>would be no 1st. Amendment!

Amen to that

[EJ]

And in the interest of keeping political discussions relevant to the topic of fishing; I would say without free speech at WC we would not have an ice fishing forum!:thanks2:

[rpieske]

>>Let's all just remember that wihout the 2nd Amendment there
>>would be no 1st. Amendment!
>
>Amen to that
>

If you live in St. Louis it's easy to remember that.

[mac]

Is our free speech being curtailed by the political correct crowd?

I has always heard that you had the right to say anything except yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.

Now we are being told we can't say something if it will "offend" someone or some group.

The ND University "Fighting Sioux" teams are being picketed at eastern universities.

It for some reason has become real easy to "offend" a race, religion or a group that you have never heard of with a single word and so your free speech rights become eaten away slowly by this group or that.

Sure, it is stupid, boorish etc to speak those words but whatever happened to just changing channels, don't go to the game, find other friends, read other newspapers or, go to a different web site?

We all need to realize what is happening and how the "courts" and the self appointed court of public opinion are slowly taking away our beloved freedom of speech.

Politicians are being destroyed by the press which has found a way to censor free speech when they find an opponent to their position using a supposedly "politically incorrect" word. If you don't agree with someone the best way to attack them now has become to attack them under the guise of a slip of the tongue that they made 20 years ago.

Like I said, you don't have the freedom of speech you had 50 years ago.

[loner]

You lost me. Political correctness and the court of public opinion are two examples of free speech. There are many more. You still have the right to agree or disagree with what is being said.

[Big Buoy]

I think Mac is trying to say that not all speech is tolerated. The Minutemen tried to speak at an Eastern college(Ivy League?) and before they could present their thoughts on how they want the LAW on immigration to be enforced, the crowd attacked the stage while the police/security stood and watched. Where was their "freedom of speech"? It's not permissible to want the LAW TO BE ENFORCED and tell people about when it's not? Try having a conversation on "traditional marriage" vs "same sex marriage". If you even hint that you believe marriage should be between 1 man & 1 woman, you are torn apart by the press/media as a religious freak or bigot. You aren't given the chance to explain why you believe this way because the PC crowd won't let you. There doesn't seem to be a chance to "debate" certain topics where each side presents their opinions anymore.

[RickyP]

I'm afraid Mac has confused what is socially acceptable with the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. When he says we don't have the same freedoms we did 50 years ago, is he referring to racial slurs that were acceptable then but are now taboo? I don't follow the logic here.

My hope is that Americans don't fall prey to the wishes of some politicians who want to gut the constitution under the guise of keeping us safe. Fear makes people accept things they wouldn't ordinarily accept, but in this instance we need to stand strong and let them know we won't stand for it.

[dave10]

Thanks for all the thoughts, guys.

To me, one of the more interesting but ironic things about the Bill of Rights generally is that they are specifically designed to blunt (or better said, protect against) imposition of the will of the majority. Yet of course our democracy (i.e. the will of the majority) is also a bedrock of our society.

We had a great example of this in the Wisconsin town where I live, which years ago was compelled under the threat of litigation (by an Illinois athiest, no less - gasp! :) :)) to remove a cross from the City seal. There was a remarkable hue and cry about this. Many people complained that we were a democracy and almost entirely a Christian community, and so of course a cross belonged there. To their credit, many of the local priests and ministers were the most vocal about the need to remove the cross. They reminded people that when it comes to freedom of religious expression, the will of the majority does not rule. They were uncomfortable with what was essentially a municipal endorsement of Christianity (and also about what that might mean in terms of entanglement with their church affairs). They also pointed out that the former City seal might be seen as a message to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, athiests and a host of others that they were not particularly welcome in our town. I will always admire them for their fortitude, in the face of what were certainly angry congregation members.

So keep those thoughts coming - at least until the moderators pull this thread!!

Dave

[Sportdog]

I'm very grateful that this nation has freedom of speech.......it makes it easy to identify the idiots. The saying "better to keep your mouth shut and have people think that you are stupid than to open it and prove them right!", is valid for many folks. :cheers:

[doubleheader]

I too am very appreciative of our feedoms, but I wonder if we sometimes don't exercise freedom of speech to the extreme; to the extent that we jeopardize our ability to keep our country safe. Our ancestors recognized the need for unity, mutual respect, and the importance of restraint during war time. Historically politicians and media often chose restraint over and above the desire for political gain or profit. I was watching a documentary yesterday relative to WWII and the Japanese effort to cause chaos and turmoil on US soil. They released some 9,000 air balloons loaded with exposives. These balloons rode the jet stream from Japan. The balloons were intended to start forest fires throughout the northwest. It is estimated some 1,000 actually landed in North America, fortunately only one balloon resulted in American casualties, but the stories were never reported by the media and never discussed as they didn't want the Japanese to know the balloons were actaully hitting our soil. In a case of crazy coincidence, one balloon actually landed on power lines causing a blackout and a delay in our development of the nuclear bombs that ended the war. The point is, when exercising freedom of speech aids the enemy, I sure wish politicians, media, and the famous would exercise restraint. I'm not suggesting they don't debate, but I am suggesting they understand the power of their words and choose them wisely.

[bob oh]

So who do you want to elect as censor?

rod bender bob

[The Democrat]

You ought to know by now that nobody can keep anything secret for very long in Washington D.C. Heck, even the KGB couldn't stop all the leaks. Official secrecy is more like a sieve than a bucket. On the other hand, there can be no democracy or freedom if we don't know what our government is doing, or can't debate government policies.

But I understand what you're saying ... yes, military secrets need to be kept secret, and we had extensive battlefield censorship in WW2, and these things make sense. I'm still shaking my head over the idiots in our own government who posted captured Iraqi documents on the internet containing secret details on how to assemble an A-bomb, just to score political points.

[RickyP]

You really hit the nail on the head Bob. You know, for a Buckeye fan you're not such a bad guy. :cheers: