Some insensitive minister of a small group in Florida plans to continue a campaign to get many to burn Quran (Koran) copies on 9/11. Even though General Petraeus has said that it will unquestionably cost American lives. Is there no one in this country who can stop this man and is media not able to keep him out odf the news. If the party of no could just say their 'no' to this man, Terry Jones who calls himself a man of God and a minister, perhaps some lives could be saved and this man's five minutes of air time would be over instead of giving him a place in history.
Watch this YouTube on National Security and Free Speech. The government has made it clear that media may not give away troop movements and you may not yell fire in a theater. Free speech, as I have been brought up to believe was in the Constitution so that people can express opinions. They may stand on a soapbox in a public park and not be stopped in expressing political opinion ir expressing differing points of view with the Administration, laws, etc . When, in our history, speech got converted to be interpreted as action, I do not know. The separation of speech and action is something everyone should have learned in Psychology 101. I realize love for your fellow man and common sense cannot be taught.
Burning a flag, Bible or the Koran is an action. It is unnecessary since no one will stop you from standing in the park and expressing hyour dislike of anyone's religion. Why is that such a difficult concept to understand?
Showing posts with label action is not free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label action is not free speech. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Sunday, May 10, 2009
OUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH
Like all else in this world and life, there is always another side to most things. Free speech must always be our right as our forefathers wished it for a free country, but they hadn't counted on the modern age of instant world communication available to everyone.
Today many confused, ignorant, paranoid or psychotic fools can talk their way into a seat in the Legislature and other important places. They can write or speak their hallucinations and impress everyone with their 'truth'...even that the world came directly to them from God. They can play into people's worst fears. They can tarnish the reputations of the righteous with their fantasies and lies.
In 2006, CRIMEDOG45 wrote an excellent essay on the subject. However, I, as a therapist, have always encouraged my patients to make a distinction between speech and action. Too often people take actions that are violent or destructive in other ways and define those as their right to free speech. It is time some scholars bring the free speech portion of our Constitution to our modern technological society. While it may be verbal, and technically speech, it should not be acceptable to plot the overthrow of our government or assassination of elected officials as part of the right to free speech. I believe it was originally intended for opinions and initially most town Commons had a covered grandstand of sorts to accommodate these speakers. When it didn't, people used soapboxes or anything to elevate them above the heads of the audiences that would gather, thus the expression standing on or speaking from a soapbox.
Laws, like most other things are never without overlap to other conditions. While there is 'free speech' we have made some curbs to public lewdness in speech as well as action. Laws governing what is permissible for children limit some of the programming on television. Another is the law prohibiting defamation of character. Suits are costly and many just don't bother to file them though it is likely that shock jocks, media journalists who take liberties to explain the thoughts, goals and emotions of people to whom they have never spoken and about whom they know little, fall in this category all too frequently. Some, like loose cannons, have shot off their mouths and rarely even lost their jobs over what they said...as Don Imus did in 2007 over a racial slur.
Keith Olbermann on MSNBC touches this subject recently when he discussed the worst person in the world that day. Watch this video.
Some would have those who speak out against religion as going beyond the right to free speech. However, it should remain uppermost that this country was founded by many who had fled England for their right to believe in that which might not have been universally shared with those who ruled religion there at the time. Atheists, for example, are as sincere in their beliefs as those who profess to follow the word of God or Jesus, though no living person really knows exactly what that might be. "Beliefs which are true and valid cannot be harmed by criticism, even by unfair and incorrect criticism. Beliefs which are not true or valid will only be revealed through criticism. What this means is that if we care about the truth, we should welcome criticism of even our most treasured beliefs: if they are true then this will strengthen us; if they are wrong, then we will know and be free to follow new beliefs. Attacks on free speech have most recently come primarily from Muslims. Some threaten violence if ideas, images, or words which they find offensive are given public expression. Others deplore both threats and actual violence, but they are perfectly willing to benefit from them and are no less eager to insist that criticisms of their religion are offensive and should not be permitted under the cover of "free speech." They don't seem to realize that the free speech which protects their critics protects them as well."
During the last Administration, our free speech on telephone and, it is said, email was violated and no longer free in the sense that records were kept on what people were saying what and to whom in some fashion which still has not been clarified to the public. Is there anyone who can clearly define what is acceptable to all in free speech. I rather doubt it. Laws may be interpreted by courts but they should not be so unclear that the common man has to figure out what the law covers.
Today many confused, ignorant, paranoid or psychotic fools can talk their way into a seat in the Legislature and other important places. They can write or speak their hallucinations and impress everyone with their 'truth'...even that the world came directly to them from God. They can play into people's worst fears. They can tarnish the reputations of the righteous with their fantasies and lies.
In 2006, CRIMEDOG45 wrote an excellent essay on the subject. However, I, as a therapist, have always encouraged my patients to make a distinction between speech and action. Too often people take actions that are violent or destructive in other ways and define those as their right to free speech. It is time some scholars bring the free speech portion of our Constitution to our modern technological society. While it may be verbal, and technically speech, it should not be acceptable to plot the overthrow of our government or assassination of elected officials as part of the right to free speech. I believe it was originally intended for opinions and initially most town Commons had a covered grandstand of sorts to accommodate these speakers. When it didn't, people used soapboxes or anything to elevate them above the heads of the audiences that would gather, thus the expression standing on or speaking from a soapbox.
Laws, like most other things are never without overlap to other conditions. While there is 'free speech' we have made some curbs to public lewdness in speech as well as action. Laws governing what is permissible for children limit some of the programming on television. Another is the law prohibiting defamation of character. Suits are costly and many just don't bother to file them though it is likely that shock jocks, media journalists who take liberties to explain the thoughts, goals and emotions of people to whom they have never spoken and about whom they know little, fall in this category all too frequently. Some, like loose cannons, have shot off their mouths and rarely even lost their jobs over what they said...as Don Imus did in 2007 over a racial slur.
Keith Olbermann on MSNBC touches this subject recently when he discussed the worst person in the world that day. Watch this video.
Some would have those who speak out against religion as going beyond the right to free speech. However, it should remain uppermost that this country was founded by many who had fled England for their right to believe in that which might not have been universally shared with those who ruled religion there at the time. Atheists, for example, are as sincere in their beliefs as those who profess to follow the word of God or Jesus, though no living person really knows exactly what that might be. "Beliefs which are true and valid cannot be harmed by criticism, even by unfair and incorrect criticism. Beliefs which are not true or valid will only be revealed through criticism. What this means is that if we care about the truth, we should welcome criticism of even our most treasured beliefs: if they are true then this will strengthen us; if they are wrong, then we will know and be free to follow new beliefs. Attacks on free speech have most recently come primarily from Muslims. Some threaten violence if ideas, images, or words which they find offensive are given public expression. Others deplore both threats and actual violence, but they are perfectly willing to benefit from them and are no less eager to insist that criticisms of their religion are offensive and should not be permitted under the cover of "free speech." They don't seem to realize that the free speech which protects their critics protects them as well."
During the last Administration, our free speech on telephone and, it is said, email was violated and no longer free in the sense that records were kept on what people were saying what and to whom in some fashion which still has not been clarified to the public. Is there anyone who can clearly define what is acceptable to all in free speech. I rather doubt it. Laws may be interpreted by courts but they should not be so unclear that the common man has to figure out what the law covers.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
THE TWO FACES OF FREE SPEECH
Free speech is important in our democracy yet there are boundaries to everything. We have already adopted the rule (law?) that you may no longer falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. I know little of laws that aren't beaten into us daily, like not going through a red light, not cheating on income taxes, not breaking and entering, stealing and all those obvious to us through daily living. However, it is less clear to me what we do with radical media who are inciting revolution, death to Obama, overthrow of the government they believe is fearful to their beliefs, even plan revolution.
Max Blumenthal wrote for the Daily Beast on 5/1/09 "Armed Revolt in the Obama Era? Right-Wing Gun Nuts Share Their Paranoid Worldview. Read his highlighted report and you will see immediately the 'slippery slope' thinking that is being fostered by a few hateful media gurus making money off spreading lies and fear.
Is it not time that the FCC, or some agency which can legally monitor these public broadcasts, do something about the actual lies being spread? MoveOn.org is calling for impeachment of Judge Bybee. His crime is interpreting too freely the use of torture. One has to ask the question 'where does misinterpretation of laws and outright lying begin and end?'.
Sean Hannity on radio:: "On the March 18 broadcast of his radio show, Sean Hannity blamed congressional Democrats for the AIG bonuses, falsely asserting that they voted for the bonuses when they voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Hannity stated, "Now, if you're upset about this, you need to understand something, that there's a reason this happened. Every single Senate Democrat voted for those bonuses. Every -- almost every Democrat in the House voted for those, because they voted for the stimulus bill. And by the way, Republicans did not." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, the economic recovery act did not require that AIG pay bonuses. Rather, the relevant provision in the act, which was based on an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to award bonuses in the future."
The American Politics Journal reports on Rush Limbaugh's 20 years of lies and hate. I see that there is a strong line to be drawn between the right to freely express an opinion and calling disciples to illegal action. At the height of the war against abortion, there was a call to kill doctors performing them. The doctors houses were picketed and families and children suffered greatly. Something is wrong with that picture. The group even killed some doctors in the name of saving lives!! It goes beyond the ability to express, verbally, an opinion when innocent people are killed.
We have heard for a long time that there are armed militia ready to revolt. Is this what we wish to develop, American citizen terrorists killing our own people?
Max Blumenthal wrote for the Daily Beast on 5/1/09 "Armed Revolt in the Obama Era? Right-Wing Gun Nuts Share Their Paranoid Worldview. Read his highlighted report and you will see immediately the 'slippery slope' thinking that is being fostered by a few hateful media gurus making money off spreading lies and fear.
Is it not time that the FCC, or some agency which can legally monitor these public broadcasts, do something about the actual lies being spread? MoveOn.org is calling for impeachment of Judge Bybee. His crime is interpreting too freely the use of torture. One has to ask the question 'where does misinterpretation of laws and outright lying begin and end?'.
Sean Hannity on radio:: "On the March 18 broadcast of his radio show, Sean Hannity blamed congressional Democrats for the AIG bonuses, falsely asserting that they voted for the bonuses when they voted for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Hannity stated, "Now, if you're upset about this, you need to understand something, that there's a reason this happened. Every single Senate Democrat voted for those bonuses. Every -- almost every Democrat in the House voted for those, because they voted for the stimulus bill. And by the way, Republicans did not." In fact, as Media Matters for America has documented, the economic recovery act did not require that AIG pay bonuses. Rather, the relevant provision in the act, which was based on an amendment by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), restricted the ability of companies receiving money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to award bonuses in the future."
The American Politics Journal reports on Rush Limbaugh's 20 years of lies and hate. I see that there is a strong line to be drawn between the right to freely express an opinion and calling disciples to illegal action. At the height of the war against abortion, there was a call to kill doctors performing them. The doctors houses were picketed and families and children suffered greatly. Something is wrong with that picture. The group even killed some doctors in the name of saving lives!! It goes beyond the ability to express, verbally, an opinion when innocent people are killed.
We have heard for a long time that there are armed militia ready to revolt. Is this what we wish to develop, American citizen terrorists killing our own people?
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
FOSTERING REVOLUTION: FOX NEWS?
Since I am neither a lawyer nor Constitutional scholar, I naively believed if you went public with pleas to start a revolution that it was considered tyranny and was not rewarded kindly. I guess I was wrong. Whatever happened to patriotism, supporting the President who has been duly elected, saluting the flag, standing up and holding your hand over your heart as the Star Spangled Banner is being played? When we forgot to pass out the Handbook for Illegal Aliens to Pretend to be American, we should have made more copies to go to all Republicans, as well. They seem to have forgotten about Unity, graciously losing, and patience. My guess is they are bored after the exciting last twelve years. With Clinton they had pornographic Congressional sessions. With Bush, eight years of trying to guess what the truth really was that they were expected to support in lock step.
While I am quick to criticize whatever I believe to be wrong, dangerous, and almost everything Bush 43's administration did, I never advocated Revolution. I just impatiently waited for the years to pass so that we could elect a President who was actually fit for the job. Now that we have one, too many people expect him to part the ocean of differences between political factions. While President Obama has made many efforts to pull Republicans with particular expertise into his Administration, too many have made themselves look politically rigid, like Judd Gregg did.
My fantasy is that there is a man behind the Republican curtain, acting like a Wizard of OZ, calling the Republican shots. Who might that be? Limbaugh, Gingrich?...probably not, because the curtain has not yet parted to reveal the 'Reverend Jones' who is busily mixing Republican Kool-Aid. There is absurdity in the tea-bagging, supposed purpose (too much taxation). Taxes have gone down for 95% of the country with representation. I also wonder if the people we see on camera are paid 'extras' as the ad makers against the changes in laws for same-sex marriage found.
L.A. Progressive believes it is Rush Limbaugh. Actually, the published comments are the most fun to read, as one wrote: "Flush Dimbulb and his sycophantic minions, are a scary group. He is a legend in his own mind, the Pied Piper of the bitter, and ignorant." It would appear the tea-baggers want the government overthrown. When last I looked, I thought plans to overthrow the government were rewarded with more than a slap on the wrist. I also wonder if we, the overtaxed citizens, are expected to clean up the mess from the million tea bags planned to be thrown in Washington? If so, I firmly object to their demonstration. We have freedom of speech, which dumping teabags does not represent. What do they not understand about the difference between speech and action?
While I am quick to criticize whatever I believe to be wrong, dangerous, and almost everything Bush 43's administration did, I never advocated Revolution. I just impatiently waited for the years to pass so that we could elect a President who was actually fit for the job. Now that we have one, too many people expect him to part the ocean of differences between political factions. While President Obama has made many efforts to pull Republicans with particular expertise into his Administration, too many have made themselves look politically rigid, like Judd Gregg did.
My fantasy is that there is a man behind the Republican curtain, acting like a Wizard of OZ, calling the Republican shots. Who might that be? Limbaugh, Gingrich?...probably not, because the curtain has not yet parted to reveal the 'Reverend Jones' who is busily mixing Republican Kool-Aid. There is absurdity in the tea-bagging, supposed purpose (too much taxation). Taxes have gone down for 95% of the country with representation. I also wonder if the people we see on camera are paid 'extras' as the ad makers against the changes in laws for same-sex marriage found.
L.A. Progressive believes it is Rush Limbaugh. Actually, the published comments are the most fun to read, as one wrote: "Flush Dimbulb and his sycophantic minions, are a scary group. He is a legend in his own mind, the Pied Piper of the bitter, and ignorant." It would appear the tea-baggers want the government overthrown. When last I looked, I thought plans to overthrow the government were rewarded with more than a slap on the wrist. I also wonder if we, the overtaxed citizens, are expected to clean up the mess from the million tea bags planned to be thrown in Washington? If so, I firmly object to their demonstration. We have freedom of speech, which dumping teabags does not represent. What do they not understand about the difference between speech and action?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)