 |
|
|
|
Visitor Mail Thread
Freedom of Speech
There are 19 comments in this Thread
View the Relevant Historical Document
Search on this Topic
9/25/2001 -
TM, Chester, NJ writes ...
Huffington Misses the PointPost to Main Thread
Reply to TM
...where was Ms. Huffington when USC Berkeley (I think) had their liberal students scurrying around stealing back the campus newspapers that printed the fellow's article on why slave reparations were a bad idea?
Guess she did not feel that that was a violation of free speech. Apparently its a violation only when it does not match her agenda. Typical liberal.
9/25/2001 - JEN, Houston, TX writes ...
Huffington Misses the PointPost to Main Thread
Reply to JEN
On matters of freedom and oppression I look to the writings of Thomas Jefferson for guidance. Here are two quotes which seem counter arguments to Huffington's claim that a corporation withdrawing support from is censorship, and to Maher's claim that his words were proper.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute of Religious Freedom, 1779.
“Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms.” --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.
[Editors' Note: Well said (Mr. Jefferson).]
The Feudal PresentPost to Main Thread
Reply to TM
Enough! Lott was an idiot for making his remarks. As a leader of the Republican Party he should have known better and he will pay the price. He now has a weakness that the Democrats can exploit and thus he should remain just a Senator.
However, the Democrats and every name-brand black oriented organization and spokesperson are using the opportunity to portray the entire Republican Party, and the entire Conservative movement, as racists and bigots.
AND GUESS WHAT????? THE REPUBLICANS AND THE CONSERVATIVES ARE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT!!!!
The RNC simply responded with the boring "another tired example" line. It is high time that the Republicans got their butt in gear and mounted a relentless front against the Democratic bigots and racists that are equating the word conservative as a code word for racist.
Conservatives are color-blind, they want equal rights for all and truely appreciate that America is the type of country where people grow and become more respectful, inclusive and civilized every year. The divisive, ignorant talk of the Democratic party is almost as dangerous as terrorists when it comes to the future and security of the US.
It's high time that conservatives started responding to the attack in kind - not with violence, but with a focused effort on setting the record straight. And not with whimpy retorts like "just another tired example..."!
4/8/2003 - JM, HIGHLANDVILLE, MO writes ...
Miller v. CaliforniaPost to Main Thread
Reply to JM
I THINK THAT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO SHOW WHATEVER HE WANTED TO. HE JUST WANTED TO GET PEOPLE TO SEE HIS WORK.
9/14/2003 - corando t., Mcallen, TX writes ...
Miller v. CaliforniaPost to Main Thread
Reply to corando t.
In the trail of milier v. california it weakend the first amendment.
11/23/2003 - Mortalcow, Kansas City, MO writes ...
Schenck v. United StatesPost to Main Thread
Reply to Mortalcow
Not a lawyer not even really good at picking up on the legal issues but it feels to me that Schenck was a case decided by either a biased judge or a judge under public pressure..I say that the 1919 modification to the test better represents a principle of law..The occuring conduct being the issue rather than the perception or percieving that illegal conduct might occure. A principal of law is that a principle is in fact principle right? As good today as it was in the beginning.. The opinion seemd to turn on the issue of danger.."danger", danger of what Justice holmes? A factually unconcluded event such as the conduct of yelling fire in a crowded theatre that you referenced as unprotected speach..If the issue is the action of the socialist party or the head of a socialist party headquarters and not the speech of a individual, then the parrelel is that the speech of a government employee(Justice Holmes)is equally subject to scrutiney in time of war in determination of the end result of that speech meaning the intended effect.
If the 1917 judments were affirmed, i wonder if those judgments were overturned by the 1919 opinion relating the requalified test of unprotected speech of artificial persons or the speech of artificial persons..IF they went to jail were they let out of jail?
I dont see how the three charges could have been prosecuted in the first place..The target audience of the flyers being American citizens of whom may or may not have been drafted would still require the active membership in the United States military forces..As to the charge of obstructing the "draft"..I could see no reference to how the accused obstructed the procedural operations of the governemnt to ministerially administratie the operations and programs created to process men into the armed forces..
Free SpeechPost to Main Thread
Reply to G. K. Stewart
Ward Churchill—The Freedom of Voice
By G K Stewart
It does not matter, whether you are a democrat or republican, the words of Ward Churchill are/were hurtful, outlandish, inflammatory—and spiteful. But! He has the right to say them.
Some view his words as pathetic, poor, and verifiably dishonest. The political maelstrom that he has created with talk show hosts is that he, Ward Churchill, is a professor at a public university. Where he, as they define it, is being paid by the “citizens of the state” of Colorado to “propagandize” the vehement rant in his essay is a disservic, not only to the victims of 9/11, but to the general public as well. They pontificate, and I paraphrase:
As he is paid by “we,” the citizens of the state that he should be subject disciplinary action including and up to termination. His insensitivity to the victims of 9/11, and the fact that his inflammatory speech supports the terrorist’s actions—should effectively, at the least, be censured and censored from the public university’s system.
However, they all agree that he has right to say them.
Some view his words as treasonous because they seem to provide “aid” and “comfort” to the enemy of the United States; he, nonetheless, has a right to say them.
But what was most upsetting was his “tone” in which he framed the debate. They have termed his words as “hate speech,” “anti-Jewish,” and the comparison of the US and 1939 Nazi’s Germany as malicious. Furthermore, his comparison of 9/11 victims as “little Eichmanns,” to most, was over-the-top; but he has the right to say them.
Unfortunately, setting aside the emotional rhetoric of Churchill’s essay and his professorship has clouded the underlining “thesis” of the essay. His discourse is valid. For instance, the near genocide of American Indian, and the internment of Japanese citizens, and the oppression of African Americans with Jim Crow laws and other minorities could have gave credence to his argument—but his incendiary comments destroy any credible point he may have had; nevertheless, he has a right to say them.
To censor him, as some have suggested, through termination, only validates his anger. Makes him a martyr; further his hate; his views, although destructive, he has a right to say them.
From his writings and this particular essay, we can denote the “modeling” of his Nazi Germany comparison with the US. He has understandable and credible points that are even sympathetic, yet his tonality of hostility within the essay has dissuaded the public from trying to understand. All the same, he has the right to say them.
So, the question begs—is it truly his agenda to persuade the public to his point view, or to fester more hostility between the political correctness crowd and the everyday citizenry? He has certainly, in some quarters, destroyed any chance of winning the hearts and minds, to convert, to invert, or to co-opt those who would be persuaded; but he has a right to say them.
Those who would advocate his departure as a solution have failed on three counts. First, it is far better to discredit and shun an individual in the glaring openness of the light than those who are hiding in darkness. Second, the freedom of speech is not for those in the majority—but for those in the minority. And third, he has invalidated his own speech by his own failure to acknowledge that every person has a right to their point-of-view; yet, he has a right to say them.
Finally, all Ward Churchill has succeeded in doing is destroying his message and any movement that he may have represented. However, that may be truly his purpose: to create outlandish rhetoric and write hateful words to sabotage any credible perspectives from within. Well, anyway—it is just a thought, but remember he has a right to say them….
Schenck v. United StatesPost to Main Thread
Reply to ART
i think that the court ruled wrong here and the Espionage Act was against the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press.
4/16/2006 - TM, Chester, NJ writes ...
Free Speech on Life SupportPost to Main Thread
Reply to TM
Just more proof that there really is no difference between the parties anymore - they are both interested only in maintaining power through the buying of votes (the immigration debate) or the silencing of opponents (typically the approach of the liberals - freedom of speech as long as you speak what I want to hear).
The only answer is to get away from the two party system, which the two parties have made almost impossible via volumes of laws and procedures.
Step one: just vote them all out. We may not get anything better at first, but we have to start somewhere.
11/29/2006 - JM, W.A.F.B., MO writes ...
Schenck v. United StatesPost to Main Thread
Reply to JM
Stop the drafting like Schenck said
[Editors' Note: For the record, the United States does not employ conscription, cannot under current law, and has not since the end of the Vietnam era.]
1/10/2007 - IG, Kato, MN writes ...
Schenck v. United StatesPost to Main Thread
Reply to IG
If any one yells bomb on a plane or fire in a theatre when it is false i there
will be a 95% chance there is a man or woman of another race in the
crowd therefore they will tell there fellow people and it will start a global
nuclear war with some other country wich isnt very smart
1/18/2007 - TM, Chester, NJ writes ...
Senate: Political Critics May Wind Up In JailPost to Main Thread
Reply to TM
hehe - this was sponsored originally by Republicans. Once the GOP realizes how the Internet works - that it is not just a bunch of "pipes" - and realize they can actually use it to their advantage, they will regret this. But it seems that is a long way away for the GOP. They seem to have no clue. They still think it's an invention of Al Gore's to destroy them.
Huffington Misses the Point
...where was Ms. Huffington when USC Berkeley (I think) had their liberal students scurrying around stealing back the campus newspapers that printed the fellow's article on why slave reparations were a bad idea?
Guess she did not feel that that was a violation of free speech. Apparently its a violation only when it does not match her agenda. Typical liberal.
9/25/2001 - JEN, Houston, TX writes ...
Huffington Misses the Point
On matters of freedom and oppression I look to the writings of Thomas Jefferson for guidance. Here are two quotes which seem counter arguments to Huffington's claim that a corporation withdrawing support from is censorship, and to Maher's claim that his words were proper.
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute of Religious Freedom, 1779.
“Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms.” --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.
[Editors' Note: Well said (Mr. Jefferson).]
-
9/26/2001 -
C.D.M., Evansville, IL replies to JEN 9/25/2001 ...
Huffington Misses the PointPost to Main Thread Reply to C.D.M.
... which is a very, very good reason for setting up school voucher programs. As long as public schools insist on advancing liberal ideology, I have a right not to lend my financial support to those beliefs.
The day that schools go back to teaching basic subjects without the political slant, and demonstrably teaching them well, will be the day the argument over vouchers dies back down.
But I don't think that day will come as long as there are powerful teachers unions striking in front of the students with all the attendant foul language, socialist ideas and bending of the laws.
[Editors' Note: We've added these two posts to School Choice as well.]
The Feudal Present
Enough! Lott was an idiot for making his remarks. As a leader of the Republican Party he should have known better and he will pay the price. He now has a weakness that the Democrats can exploit and thus he should remain just a Senator.
However, the Democrats and every name-brand black oriented organization and spokesperson are using the opportunity to portray the entire Republican Party, and the entire Conservative movement, as racists and bigots.
AND GUESS WHAT????? THE REPUBLICANS AND THE CONSERVATIVES ARE DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT!!!!
The RNC simply responded with the boring "another tired example" line. It is high time that the Republicans got their butt in gear and mounted a relentless front against the Democratic bigots and racists that are equating the word conservative as a code word for racist.
Conservatives are color-blind, they want equal rights for all and truely appreciate that America is the type of country where people grow and become more respectful, inclusive and civilized every year. The divisive, ignorant talk of the Democratic party is almost as dangerous as terrorists when it comes to the future and security of the US.
It's high time that conservatives started responding to the attack in kind - not with violence, but with a focused effort on setting the record straight. And not with whimpy retorts like "just another tired example..."!
4/8/2003 - JM, HIGHLANDVILLE, MO writes ...
Miller v. California
I THINK THAT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO SHOW WHATEVER HE WANTED TO. HE JUST WANTED TO GET PEOPLE TO SEE HIS WORK.
9/14/2003 - corando t., Mcallen, TX writes ...
Miller v. California
In the trail of milier v. california it weakend the first amendment.
11/23/2003 - Mortalcow, Kansas City, MO writes ...
Schenck v. United States
Not a lawyer not even really good at picking up on the legal issues but it feels to me that Schenck was a case decided by either a biased judge or a judge under public pressure..I say that the 1919 modification to the test better represents a principle of law..The occuring conduct being the issue rather than the perception or percieving that illegal conduct might occure. A principal of law is that a principle is in fact principle right? As good today as it was in the beginning.. The opinion seemd to turn on the issue of danger.."danger", danger of what Justice holmes? A factually unconcluded event such as the conduct of yelling fire in a crowded theatre that you referenced as unprotected speach..If the issue is the action of the socialist party or the head of a socialist party headquarters and not the speech of a individual, then the parrelel is that the speech of a government employee(Justice Holmes)is equally subject to scrutiney in time of war in determination of the end result of that speech meaning the intended effect.
If the 1917 judments were affirmed, i wonder if those judgments were overturned by the 1919 opinion relating the requalified test of unprotected speech of artificial persons or the speech of artificial persons..IF they went to jail were they let out of jail?
I dont see how the three charges could have been prosecuted in the first place..The target audience of the flyers being American citizens of whom may or may not have been drafted would still require the active membership in the United States military forces..As to the charge of obstructing the "draft"..I could see no reference to how the accused obstructed the procedural operations of the governemnt to ministerially administratie the operations and programs created to process men into the armed forces..
-
3/4/2004 -
Judge Judy, NY, NY replies to Mortalcow 11/23/2003 ...
Schenck v. United StatesPost to Main Thread Reply to Judge Judy
your not so smart young man or woman. Schenck was a dumb dude on theis issue. He couldn't even agree with his own biblical view of "do onto others as you would have them do onto you" A.K.A. helping a brother(world) out
-
1/14/2006 -
ART, Wichita, KS replies to Judge Judy 3/4/2004 ...
Schenck v. United StatesPost to Main Thread Reply to ART
u aren't so smart either
dude
1/10/2007 - IG, Kato, MN replies to Judge Judy 3/4/2004 ...
Schenck v. United StatesPost to Main Thread Reply to IG
Judge Judy sucks you cant even spell biblical backwards therefore you are
mentally challenged
Schenck v. United StatesPost to Main Thread Reply to ART
speech not speach
-
1/14/2006 -
ART, Wichita, KS replies to Judge Judy 3/4/2004 ...
Free Speech
Ward Churchill—The Freedom of Voice
By G K Stewart
It does not matter, whether you are a democrat or republican, the words of Ward Churchill are/were hurtful, outlandish, inflammatory—and spiteful. But! He has the right to say them.
Some view his words as pathetic, poor, and verifiably dishonest. The political maelstrom that he has created with talk show hosts is that he, Ward Churchill, is a professor at a public university. Where he, as they define it, is being paid by the “citizens of the state” of Colorado to “propagandize” the vehement rant in his essay is a disservic, not only to the victims of 9/11, but to the general public as well. They pontificate, and I paraphrase:
As he is paid by “we,” the citizens of the state that he should be subject disciplinary action including and up to termination. His insensitivity to the victims of 9/11, and the fact that his inflammatory speech supports the terrorist’s actions—should effectively, at the least, be censured and censored from the public university’s system.
However, they all agree that he has right to say them.
Some view his words as treasonous because they seem to provide “aid” and “comfort” to the enemy of the United States; he, nonetheless, has a right to say them.
But what was most upsetting was his “tone” in which he framed the debate. They have termed his words as “hate speech,” “anti-Jewish,” and the comparison of the US and 1939 Nazi’s Germany as malicious. Furthermore, his comparison of 9/11 victims as “little Eichmanns,” to most, was over-the-top; but he has the right to say them.
Unfortunately, setting aside the emotional rhetoric of Churchill’s essay and his professorship has clouded the underlining “thesis” of the essay. His discourse is valid. For instance, the near genocide of American Indian, and the internment of Japanese citizens, and the oppression of African Americans with Jim Crow laws and other minorities could have gave credence to his argument—but his incendiary comments destroy any credible point he may have had; nevertheless, he has a right to say them.
To censor him, as some have suggested, through termination, only validates his anger. Makes him a martyr; further his hate; his views, although destructive, he has a right to say them.
From his writings and this particular essay, we can denote the “modeling” of his Nazi Germany comparison with the US. He has understandable and credible points that are even sympathetic, yet his tonality of hostility within the essay has dissuaded the public from trying to understand. All the same, he has the right to say them.
So, the question begs—is it truly his agenda to persuade the public to his point view, or to fester more hostility between the political correctness crowd and the everyday citizenry? He has certainly, in some quarters, destroyed any chance of winning the hearts and minds, to convert, to invert, or to co-opt those who would be persuaded; but he has a right to say them.
Those who would advocate his departure as a solution have failed on three counts. First, it is far better to discredit and shun an individual in the glaring openness of the light than those who are hiding in darkness. Second, the freedom of speech is not for those in the majority—but for those in the minority. And third, he has invalidated his own speech by his own failure to acknowledge that every person has a right to their point-of-view; yet, he has a right to say them.
Finally, all Ward Churchill has succeeded in doing is destroying his message and any movement that he may have represented. However, that may be truly his purpose: to create outlandish rhetoric and write hateful words to sabotage any credible perspectives from within. Well, anyway—it is just a thought, but remember he has a right to say them….
-
2/2/2005 -
Charlie T., Randall Co., TX replies to G. K. Stewart 2/2/2005 ...
Free SpeechPost to Main Thread Reply to Charlie T.
I'm not suggesting that what this idiot had to say was, in fact, treasonous. But if it did qualify as "aid and comfort to the enemy" under the Constitution, then I have to disagree that he has a right to say it. The Constitution doesn't grant a right to do what it has just finished labeling as a crime.
The fact that a lot of folks labeled this guy -- like I did -- as an idiot, etc., constitutes *their* right to free speech and is, in fact, the necessary balance that helps put ugly speech in perspective. If you want to rail about hyperbole, let's look at all the lefties who throw around "Nazi!" and "hate speech!" for simply holding a different opinion on social issues, still within the mainstream.
Beyond these two comments, I agree that this idiot has a right to express his opinion ... and a right to be condemned by other free citizens for it. He needs to make sure that,as a publically-supported teacher, he keeps unrelated opinions out of the classroom and sticks to the knitting. I think that's the real rub here.
-
2/3/2005 -
G K Stewart, Lakewod, CO replies to Charlie T. 2/2/2005 ...
Free SpeechPost to Main Thread Reply to G K Stewart
We are pretty much on the same page here. Free Speech pretty and ugly applies to Everyone. I do not care if you one is a card carry communist (although, they do not believe in free speech), or a wacked out Anarchist, or even a member of the KKK-- I will defend the persons right to say it.
It is far better to know thy enemy than to have the mushrooming in a closet ready to pounce (excuese the mixed metaphor). And, I agree the left is just intolerent--in fact more so--but the right seems to forget, with this issue, that it is suppose to represent "rationality" not "emotionality."
Finally, it looks like Ward Churchill--days are numbered for "playing" like he is a legimate American Indian. He is not. Several of the members of AIM have exsposed him as a fraud. Unfortunately, it took this forum to do it. My question for CU is why did they not know it sooner? Why did AIM rail about this guy sooner? The essay of his is nearly four years old, what took so long to exspose him? There is a lot of why question that need to be answered by the right, the left, CU, and AIM...
As they say, this has legs....
-
2/3/2005 -
G K Stewart, Lakewod, CO replies to Charlie T. 2/2/2005 ...
Schenck v. United States
i think that the court ruled wrong here and the Espionage Act was against the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press.
4/16/2006 - TM, Chester, NJ writes ...
Free Speech on Life Support
Just more proof that there really is no difference between the parties anymore - they are both interested only in maintaining power through the buying of votes (the immigration debate) or the silencing of opponents (typically the approach of the liberals - freedom of speech as long as you speak what I want to hear).
The only answer is to get away from the two party system, which the two parties have made almost impossible via volumes of laws and procedures.
Step one: just vote them all out. We may not get anything better at first, but we have to start somewhere.
11/29/2006 - JM, W.A.F.B., MO writes ...
Schenck v. United States
Stop the drafting like Schenck said
[Editors' Note: For the record, the United States does not employ conscription, cannot under current law, and has not since the end of the Vietnam era.]
1/10/2007 - IG, Kato, MN writes ...
Schenck v. United States
If any one yells bomb on a plane or fire in a theatre when it is false i there
will be a 95% chance there is a man or woman of another race in the
crowd therefore they will tell there fellow people and it will start a global
nuclear war with some other country wich isnt very smart
1/18/2007 - TM, Chester, NJ writes ...
Senate: Political Critics May Wind Up In Jail
hehe - this was sponsored originally by Republicans. Once the GOP realizes how the Internet works - that it is not just a bunch of "pipes" - and realize they can actually use it to their advantage, they will regret this. But it seems that is a long way away for the GOP. They seem to have no clue. They still think it's an invention of Al Gore's to destroy them.
* * End of the Trail * *
Punch this link to offer a new thread with your submission.
This site hosted as a courtesy of 
Copyright © 1999-2010 Common Sense Americanism - All rights reserved Privacy Policy Submitting Articles Site Guide & Info Home Page |