Sat Sep 15, 2012, 03:08 PM

Jessy169 (425 posts)

Our Freedom of Expression Is Killing Us

Freedom of expression is a concept that that has been developed in Western Civilization over the course of many centuries. Through the often times bloody and always contentious development of that concept, Western Civilization has emerged stronger and more tolerant of diverse views. Freedom of Expression is a fundamental right, one that we will fight and sacrifice our lives to protect.

But in America, we have gone TOO FAR in advancing the all-encompasing constitutional right to feedom of expression. Nowhere else in Western Civilization except America has the concept of freedom of expression been expanded to include the right to incite riot, the right to lie and spread false propaganda, the right to promote hate and discord among the population.

A few examples.

In Canada, under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith.

In the United Kingdom, there are sweeping exceptions to the right of free expression including threatening, abusive, or insulting speech or behavior likely to cause a breach of the peace, incitement, incitement to racial hatred, incitement to religious hatred, and more.

In Germany, criminal law prohibits insulting of religious faiths if they could disturb public peace, hate speech may be punishable if against segments of the population and in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace, including racist agitation and antisemitism, and more.

No one can argue that these countries, and more, are not free. We do not have credible examples of citizens in those countries who feel oppressed by their governments because they are NOT free to disseminate lies, false propaganda and hatred.

But what does our American brand of "freedom of expression" give us?

Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and a host of assorted nuts who daily spew their anger, hatred, lies, distorted half-truths and inciteful rants through the airwaves and directly into the homes of susceptible citizens.

Fox News, a "news" channel dedicated almost entirely to spreading false information, propaganda and deceptions, all on behalf of a political party that is nothing more than the legislative tool of wealthy and powerful special interests who hide behind the curtain.

Innocence of Muslims and numerous similar productions whose only intent is to incite hatred and to promote ulterior agendas.

Our constitutional right to free expression puts the dangerous power of lies, insult and hatred into the hands of those who would wield that power to incite violence, to damage foreign policy, to spread hatred and to cause untold discord among us.

Our constitutional right to free expresson puts the worst and most deceitful elements of our society into a postion to pollute and dictate the national dialogue by means of the lies, propaganda and hate speech that is their "right" to disseminate.

Our constitutional right to free expression allows special interest groups to target susceptible segments of our population with lies, false propaganda and hate speech meant only to divide America into two warring factions -- those who fall for the lies, and those who do not. The result is a nation suffering from a level of dysfunctionality that cannot be long tolerated, where one half of the country is living in the reality imposed upon them by the liars and hate-spreaders and the other half of the country is fighting not just for the truth but against the lies and false information that corrupt our national debate to such a degree that we are no longer able to trust or believe those who we elect to inform and lead us.

Our constitutional right to free expression gives us Citizens United and unimaginable big money corruption of our politics, to the point the we have simply come to expect all of our elected leaders to be bought and paid for to a lessor or greater extent.

We ask our brave soldiers now to fight and die for the constitutional right of Media for Christ and it's anti-government right-wing activists to spread their lies and hatred around the world. This is a travesty.

We must re-evaluate our positions on freedom of expression in America. Nowhere else in the Western world do we find the Rush Limbaughs, the Glen Becks, the Fox News channels, the Media for Christ companies -- all of them dedicated to spreading hate and lies -- all of them simply exercising their "First Amendment" rights. Only in America do these subversive individuals and groups operate with impunity under the umbrella of "First Amerdment Rights".

We need to take a hard look at our freedom of expression. We need a RE-DO -- something along the lines of what Canada, United Kingdom and Germany have. Otherwise, we will remain victims of those who, under the protection of the First Amendment, are free to infect the nation and the world with their sordid and devisive communications, to the detriment of us all.

333 replies, 16365 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

333 replies	Author	Time	Post
Our Freedom of Expression Is Killing Us (Original post)	Jessy169	Sep 2012	OP
du rec. Nt	xchrom	Sep 2012	#1
kr	Robyn66	Sep 2012	#297
Alrighty then! How about a constitutional amendment repealing the 1st amendment.	Hey Jude	Sep 2012	#2
Let him or her go ahead and try to sell the repeal of the First Amendment to We the People.	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#7
You did not read and comprehend	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#22
ROTFLMAO!!! You're living in denial. A re-do is a repeal.	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#72
Will membership on the peoples' committee that subjectively determines "truth",	Riftaxe	Sep 2012	#84
That's the way that it is done now & the reason is, in part, because it is assumed	patrice	Sep 2012	#92
Has nothing to do with the 1st A., and everything to do with slander, libel, and counter-points.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#172
Why stop at the 1st Amendment? There are lots of the	COLGATE4	Sep 2012	#17
Just talking about limiting free speech to NOT include hate, lies	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#25
I support the right to free unfettered speech, unequivocally.	COLGATE4	Sep 2012	#32
Really. So it's okay that those with a voice constantly lie?	Zoeisright	Sep 2012	#63
What Is The Mechanism You Would Use To Remove FAUX Noise From The Air?	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#69
This message was self-deleted by its author	COLGATE4	Sep 2012	#76
It's their right as U.S. citizens. In fact, courts have held	COLGATE4	Sep 2012	#102
Problem is that the only real way of countering the message is money	Jkid	Sep 2012	#282
I think you're absolutely correct. That's why	COLGATE4	Sep 2012	#320
Yes- Freedom of speech especially protect speech you do not like	Marrah_G	Sep 2012	#322
Faux is the price we pay for living in a Democracy	COLGATE4	Sep 2012	#332
How good is the concept of more speech if you have to pay for it.	Jkid	Sep 2012	#280
It's tough. But why can't we hit up donors like	COLGATE4	Sep 2012	#321
Your 'lie' might be another's 'truth'	B2G	Sep 2012	#33
Exactly!	MNBrewer	Sep 2012	#39
You are looking at an armed rebellion that the WORLD will regret	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#87
you have been lied to	Whisp	Sep 2012	#123
If you want a dictatorship so much, then why not move?	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#196
I was in the lucky sperm club and born Canadian.	Whisp	Sep 2012	#208
Well, goody for you!	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#216
you are making yourself look very foolish!	Whisp	Sep 2012	#246
You're also making yourself look like an anti-American bigot.	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#248
you have a nice day too!	Whisp	Sep 2012	#253
You can crow all day about how superior you think you are.	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#254
:) Yes, you got it. ''America's freedoms bother me''	Whisp	Sep 2012	#258
Your "lucky sperm club" comment constitutes hate speech under Canadian law.	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#262
no it doesn't and you are now just being silly	Whisp	Sep 2012	#264
Your "lucky sperm club" comment kicked off the silly hour.	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#265
Not sure why that bothers you so much.	Whisp	Sep 2012	#266
Not sure why America's freedoms bother you so much.	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#267
I like your President a lot	Whisp	Sep 2012	#269
I don't know why our freedoms bother you.	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#270
you have less freedoms than I do	Whisp	Sep 2012	#271
Okay so we let crazy people speak here without being sent to jail.	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#272
Why is it that the US is so different from most of the rest of western countries?	Whisp	Sep 2012	#274
But why does our freedom of speech bother you? After all, you're so superior!	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#275
it bothers me because it doesn't make sense	Whisp	Sep 2012	#277
It doesn't make sense to YOU.	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#316
Here is the problem	DonCoquixote	Sep 2012	#116
Yes, I do support the right to lie and I do support the right to speak hatefully.	NYC Liberal	Sep 2012	#143
Mass media must be responsible for truth and common sense and the individual must not incite to	The Wielding Truth	Sep 2012	#155
Actually I would point out that you would have to get rid of	nadinbrzezinski	Sep 2012	#273
I brought this exact point up the last time this crap happened and was nearly run off the boards.	Initech	Sep 2012	#186
And how do you define "hate," "lies"?	JDPriestly	Sep 2012	#231
That's a false choice	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#21
But Prohibiting "Hate Speech" Is Of A Whole Different Order	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#26
Simple assault	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#49
It Still Come Down To What Speech Is Verboten And What Speech Isn't	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#52
Absolutely	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#77
Please Read The Thread	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#90
No he didn't	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#121
Where's The Proof That Ann Coulter Is A Slut?	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#126
+1 nt	BarackTheVote	Sep 2012	#79
Thanks jberryhill for your fabulous critique!	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#118
It all depends on the details	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#80
Hmm	tama	Sep 2012	#133
More pro-censorship shit.	Odin2005	Sep 2012	#3
Sounds like you support Glen Beck, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#16
I Support Their Right To Free Speech As I Support Your Free Speech And Mine	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#23
Who decides what's acceptable?	Mz Pip	Sep 2012	#35
^.^ This	justiceischeap	Sep 2012	#234
I support Glen Beck, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh. The KKK too.	Xithras	Sep 2012	#54
Exactly	Major Nikon	Sep 2012	#142
Another card carrying member here.	Dash87	Sep 2012	#255
False dichotomy fail	Major Nikon	Sep 2012	#140
Who decides what is propaganda or not?	Odin2005	Sep 2012	#191
Whoever is in charge	Dash87	Sep 2012	#256
Is that your idea of a conversation?	jberryhill	Sep 2012	#24
This message was hidden by jury decision.	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#122
What the hell do you NOT grasp about the First Amendment? it is NOT up for repeal, FGS.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#177
Spam deleted by Hassin Bin Sober (MIR Team)	kolayamilya	Sep 2012	#4
If mocking religion was a criminal offense, DU would be a different place.	Nye Bevan	Sep 2012	#5
In England, Canada and Germany people are free to mock magic underwear	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#10
How Is Not Hateful To Make Fun Of Garb That Is Required By A Certain Religion?	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#14
OFGS. Are you American? Because, seriously, dude.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#178
What's Your Point?	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#181
Wait, what?	Marrah_G	Sep 2012	#323
The Point Flew Right Over Your Head If You Followed The Discussion Within The Discussion	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#325
You totally lost me	Marrah_G	Sep 2012	#329
You could be arrested and tried.	Nye Bevan	Sep 2012	#15
I have rarely, indeed never, been arrested for mocking religion here.	Posteritatis	Sep 2012	#20
Where is "here"? (nt)	Nye Bevan	Sep 2012	#27
One of the countries where you think I'd be arrested and tried. (nt)	Posteritatis	Sep 2012	#38
It's pretty smart of you to choose to post on a US website, instead of one based in your country.	Nye Bevan	Sep 2012	#62
LMFAO	laundry_queen	Sep 2012	#202
Ah, it's Canada. With its notorious Canadian Human Rights Tribunals.	Nye Bevan	Sep 2012	#203
We on DU have our own self-inflicted kangaroo court, I suppose.	JDPriestly	Sep 2012	#236
Also, people who post unacceptable stuff on this board don't go to prison.	Nye Bevan	Sep 2012	#237
Do you mean, Posteritatis, that you live in a country in which the	JDPriestly	Sep 2012	#232
You interpreted that in the exact opposite manner that I expressed it. Well done! (nt)	Posteritatis	Sep 2012	#249
rarely arrested -- Good heavens.	JDPriestly	Sep 2012	#235
Christ on a crutch, people here need to learn what sarcasm is. (nt)	Posteritatis	Sep 2012	#250
I have no sympathy for these men	MNBrewer	Sep 2012	#43
Again, what about Christianity?	Bluefin Tuna	Sep 2012	#104
OR what about this?	MNBrewer	Sep 2012	#110
No thanks.	former9thward	Sep 2012	#6
I Think Some Of Our Guys Said Some Pretty Hateful Things About Right Wing Figures	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#8
Were they true statements -- then, ok	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#11
Ed Schultz Called Laura Ingraham A "Right Wing Slut"	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#18
To be determined	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#31
What Proof Do You Have That Ann Coulter Is A Slut?	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#42
really, dear? you KNOW that Ann Coulter is a "slut".	cali	Sep 2012	#111
Except, Cali, I didn't really say what "I would ban", did I	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#124
That's The Whole Problem With Abridging Freedom Of Speech	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#131
Exactly!!! And I've called Romney and the Repbs WORSE!!!	liberallibral	Sep 2012	#53
So we would constantly be in court proving statements	Union Scribe	Sep 2012	#165
The main issue is the lines between words, incitement, and actual actions	Posteritatis	Sep 2012	#9
Totally agree	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#13
Good for you	Herlong	Sep 2012	#12
No thanks. I'll choose freedom of speech over religious mob appeasement	rollin74	Sep 2012	#19
No thank you.	longship	Sep 2012	#28
The likes of Limbaugh could be fixed with better radio licensing laws and	Waiting For Everyman	Sep 2012	#29
I agree, but	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#34
It's The First Amendment To The Constitution.	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#45
No offense intended, but you really should inform yourself a bit better for this argument.	Vinnie From Indy	Sep 2012	#65
This message was self-deleted by its author	Vinnie From Indy	Sep 2012	#66
Let me guess -- you're a lawyer	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#134
You don't need to be a lawyer.	Jim Lane	Sep 2012	#224
Well said, Jim Lane.	JDPriestly	Sep 2012	#239
K&R. Well done.	COLGATE4	Sep 2012	#333
Before you make this sort of OP	kiva	Sep 2012	#107
I'll agree with you on licensing laws	malokvale77	Sep 2012	#162
Totally agree, and you may have hit on THE solution	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#164
Thank you	malokvale77	Sep 2012	#170
First of all, you have demonstrated poor knowledge of world media,	MadHound	Sep 2012	#30
Fox News is available in other countries	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#44
Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of Fox and its worldwide reach	MadHound	Sep 2012	#112
But you're obscuring the main point and playing gotcha	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#136
It does NOT include the 'freedom to incite riot.'	elleng	Sep 2012	#36
Yes, it does	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#141
freedom of speech is stupid	BOG PERSON	Sep 2012	#37
Who's Freedom?	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#47
in the main, freedom for perverts and douchebags	BOG PERSON	Sep 2012	#64
They don't in authoritarian societies either.	Dash87	Sep 2012	#261
and they're usually right, too	BOG PERSON	Sep 2012	#268
Would you want to leave it up to a Republican Congress	SickOfTheOnePct	Sep 2012	#299
You just criticized one of our government's founding documents.	Dash87	Sep 2012	#260
Actually incitement to a riot is penalized under law	nadinbrzezinski	Sep 2012	#40
Is that only in Montana, or is that Federal law too?	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#144
Here is one of the U.S. Code in question	nadinbrzezinski	Sep 2012	#200
I doubt that that section would apply to the anti-Muslim film.	Jim Lane	Sep 2012	#225
I agree with you, Jim Lane.	JDPriestly	Sep 2012	#241
Alas, at least to me this is about LIMITS TO FREE SPEECH	nadinbrzezinski	Sep 2012	#244
That movie insults a religion, but I have not heard that it incites to riot.	JDPriestly	Sep 2012	#240
There are complications	nadinbrzezinski	Sep 2012	#245
To say that you were 'wildly' misunderstood	xchrom	Sep 2012	#41
Who Gets To Judge?	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#48
This isn't the Great Unknown.	xchrom	Sep 2012	#74
+1 & I resist the assumption that we are incapable of doing that reasonably so we must'nt do it in	patrice	Sep 2012	#78
What Infringements On Free Speech Beside Those Established By Case Law Would You Be Comfortable With	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#85
I'd like to see those "established by case law" more widely considered, relative to new technologies	patrice	Sep 2012	#99
Nicely said.	99Forever	Sep 2012	#113
Paternalism. "People are bad. They are dumb, so they can't grow. Everything should be defined or not	patrice	Sep 2012	#117
Oh, REALLY? You mean like the UK, that censors articles about the royals because they'd be offended?	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#175
Thank you xchrom!	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#129
Careful now... Cause I'm a Left Wing Loonie.	xchrom	Sep 2012	#153
I'm a left-wing loonie too -- I use the term lovingly	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#156
I'd worry more about the deliberate misinterpretation of the 2A going on.	Loudly	Sep 2012	#46
We've tryed this before	Progressive dog	Sep 2012	#50
And it led to the first Slander and Libel laws, some of which are still in the books	nadinbrzezinski	Sep 2012	#56
No one is defending lying about others as free speech	Progressive dog	Sep 2012	#67
I am familiar with the history	nadinbrzezinski	Sep 2012	#75
Not quite	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#132
That is ok, and welcome to the club	nadinbrzezinski	Sep 2012	#201
Sorry, but I'm willing to die for our freedom of expression...	liberallibral	Sep 2012	#51
Then maybe you should ...	frazzled	Sep 2012	#71
How about we stay right here in America	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#82
Is posting something on YouTube a right?	frazzled	Sep 2012	#115
Youtube refused to take it down. So there.	Zalatix	Sep 2012	#195
No, that is a corporation	nadinbrzezinski	Sep 2012	#207
Yep, I'll fight and even DIE for those I disgree with, such as Glen Beck, etc....	liberallibral	Sep 2012	#95
So when they riot because the US allows gay marriage	hack89	Sep 2012	#138
bingo this seems to be were its all going	loli phabay	Sep 2012	#188
LOL!	Vinnie From Indy	Sep 2012	#55
Like any ideology, an absolute formulated as "We need more speech, not less" seems to be based	patrice	Sep 2012	#57
"assert one's own biases, i.e. fascism in one degree or another"	BOG PERSON	Sep 2012	#98
The will to power is fundamental to survival. It's agendas, more but usually way less, honestly	patrice	Sep 2012	#106
Here is the problem	DonCoquixote	Sep 2012	#279
Perhaps you could be the first cabinet head of the Ministry of Truth.	MineralMan	Sep 2012	#58
Imagine DU If That Law Was On The Books During The Bush* Administration	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#59
You know, you could always move to Iran.	name not needed	Sep 2012	#60
Thanks for your contribution	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#145
Fits quite nicely with the OP.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#176
Under your proposed limits to our rights, I assume you would allow preachers	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#61
??? OP seems VERY much to be saying the opposite of what you think:	patrice	Sep 2012	#73
I note the OP refuses to respond, and no patrice the OP does not at all address	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#139
I'm not sure I understand how you get that from OP. Maybe one thing we could talk about would	patrice	Sep 2012	#159
OP is very much saying the opposite of what Bluenorthwest is saying	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#147
Well why not simply respond to the questions you are being asked?	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#154
Responding	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#167
You did not reply to a single question I asked you, nor to any point I raised.	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#197
James Holmes Was Set Off Because Of The Batman Franchise	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#211
Wrong. Other peoples in other places reaction to our Freedom of expression is.	hobbit709	Sep 2012	#68
Would this bit of unvarnished mockery of religion be unacceptable in your new country?	Vinnie From Indy	Sep 2012	#70
Would you care if you were the subject of that mockery? What if that mockery progressed to	patrice	Sep 2012	#86
We Have Laws On The Book That Ban Discrimination On The Basis Of Race, Religion, And National Origin	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#96
You and I probably differ on that point of "curtail". I think it is possible to say almost anything	patrice	Sep 2012	#114
No, the solution is always more speech	treestar	Sep 2012	#81
Blame the victim? How about blaming the troglodytes who think killing is O.K.? nt	Speck Tater	Sep 2012	#83
Canadian or UK style restrictions would not preclude the filming or posting of Innocence of Muslims	tifanyhunter	Sep 2012	#88
Not a good idea	lunatica	Sep 2012	#89
Is it time to burn our RR, blues, hiphop and rap records yet?	L0oniX	Sep 2012	#91
excellent.	Whisp	Sep 2012	#93
What Would Have Happened If Attorney General Ashcroft Had The Power Of Those Laws Behind Him?	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#101
Exactly.	Bluefin Tuna	Sep 2012	#103
I'm not sure exactly but	Whisp	Sep 2012	#120
Limbaugh Didn't Invent Nutters	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#137
If Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are the price for the freedom to speak freely,	NYC Liberal	Sep 2012	#148
then explain why the US is in such a sorry state compared to others.	Whisp	Sep 2012	#212
You think all things are equal, except for that?	NYC Liberal	Sep 2012	#263
Totally agree, Whisp	Jessy169	Sep 2012	#151
the herd is fattened, and now we see the the powerful feed on them.	Whisp	Sep 2012	#158
Some would argue that our freedom of expression	silvershadow	Sep 2012	#94
Defining what constitutes "hate speech" would be a nightmarish, never-ending debate.	Bluefin Tuna	Sep 2012	#97
This is a completely misguided approach	abumbyanyothername	Sep 2012	#100
Hate speech laws are tempting	M_M	Sep 2012	#105
codswallop.	cali	Sep 2012	#108
I don't think so.	ProSense	Sep 2012	#109
FAIL. Religious nut jobs are killing us and you're trying to further empower them.	trouble.smith	Sep 2012	#119
Nope.	abumbyanyothername	Sep 2012	#166
religious zealots do stupid things for stupid reasons	trouble.smith	Sep 2012	#193
Uh, card carrying ACLU member here	Warpy	Sep 2012	#125
But what about the right of those people not to be killed? Why is that less of a right than	patrice	Sep 2012	#135
Manson said he was told to kill by the Bible and the Beatles. Son of Sam said a dog	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#149
I operate on the basic assumptions of rational empiricism, which include the fact that	patrice	Sep 2012	#163
Please try to demonstrate cause and effect in this situation.	MNBrewer	Sep 2012	#183
I was responding to a post saying that Manson and Son of Sam claimed cause and effect in their cases	patrice	Sep 2012	#187
Keep up instead of just spouting. David Berkowitz recanted that claim long ago.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#290
I was speaking hypothetically in response to a claim made by someone else. And, if you'll	patrice	Sep 2012	#301
You do understand that the rational methods to which I refer only yield possibilities?	patrice	Sep 2012	#303
The hateful crap will always be with us in one form or another	Warpy	Sep 2012	#179
Take it up with the violent thugs. Oh, I forgot; they're "sensitive."	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#289
Yeah, drug dealers have no part in the crimes committed for whatever high they propagate. nt	patrice	Sep 2012	#305
Are some people born certain ways that limit their choices or not? nt	patrice	Sep 2012	#306
Nope. Sorry. We let the courts decide when speech has gone so far as to actually harm someone.	kestrel91316	Sep 2012	#127
The religious RW in this country would like nothing more than to limit free speech. n/t	cynatnite	Sep 2012	#128
People are always offended by new truths	Yo_Mama	Sep 2012	#130
But freedom is not served by what we are doing. Regressive feedback loops get going and	patrice	Sep 2012	#146
The point of allowing people to speak freely	Yo_Mama	Sep 2012	#169
WHO will be the arbiter? You? Me? Oh, wait; it would be THE US SUPREME COURT, TYVM.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#174
You assume that the only effective forms of control are external and, hence, hierarchical	patrice	Sep 2012	#189
What? I'm SAYING that the US Supreme Court has ruled against the OP's restrictive concept.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#288
Why is it that so many people who are allegedly so interested in freedom almost never think in any	patrice	Sep 2012	#308
You have an interesting defintion of "freedom." And of "free."	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#291
Do you dispute that the post to which you are responding describes pretty much what is going on	patrice	Sep 2012	#298
Are you implying that the mere fact that some -one/thing expresses something because s/he/they WANT	patrice	Sep 2012	#300
If we're going to limit free speech, let's start with the people who want to get rid of it...	Comrade_McKenzie	Sep 2012	#150
Amen.	Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin	Sep 2012	#168
I'm Actually More Concerned About An Expansive Construction Of The Second Amendment	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#152
Then you'd be better served leaving the 2nd alone...	eqfan592	Sep 2012	#157
We do not have to change the First Amendment.	RoccoR5955	Sep 2012	#160
Free expression is not the problem.	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#161
Take it up with the Supreme Court.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#173
Sure thing!	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#180
Oh, haHA! At least these men are more apt to protect speech than YOU, apparently.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#184
At the expense of others, of course. Just like you.	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#210
You are, alas, completely illogical. To equate rape with speech is, in a word, STUPID.	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#286
Just Out Of Curiosity Did You Support Or Oppose The Supreme Court's Flag Burning Decision?	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#185
"Beyond what case law proscribes," you say?	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#209
Where Did I Suggest	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#217
In your response to my post	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#218
And I Established That To Some Burning That Cloth Is "Heaping Abuse On Them"	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#220
And you seem to accept their argument wholly.	Scootaloo	Sep 2012	#221
Straight White Male	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#222
It may very well be abuse, but outside of specific venues (e.g., schools), "verbal abuse", if not a	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#293
If burning a cloth is OK, then what about burning some paper, like a Koran? nt	kelly1mm	Sep 2012	#223
Free speech also protected	Confusious	Sep 2012	#233
Disgusting and risible at the same time. JUST WHOM DO YOU NOMINATE to "RE-DO" our Freedom of Speech?	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#171
No, it's not.	Iggo	Sep 2012	#182
What a crock.	Warren DeMontague	Sep 2012	#190
We have always had to put up with crap to have our right to free speech.	Jennicut	Sep 2012	#192
To everyone reviling OP in this thread, do you consider Citizens United free speech? Why not?	patrice	Sep 2012	#194
Free speech applies to people	Confusious	Sep 2012	#238
The ACLU defends Citizens' United.	patrice	Sep 2012	#251
So my next point is	Confusious	Sep 2012	#287
I believe the ACLU discusses modification of the Constitution for this & is against it. nt	patrice	Sep 2012	#304
Well, I'll have to disagree with them about it.	Confusious	Sep 2012	#318
If you think our freedom of expression is killing us -	lynne	Sep 2012	#198
And the ONLY reason you were able to post this	NashvilleLefty	Sep 2012	#199
You can add all "bad" speech to the Patriot Act.	hack89	Sep 2012	#204
^^^This.^^^ nt	msanthrope	Sep 2012	#206
Oh, snap.	Quantess	Sep 2012	#226
Nope, can't get behind this.	JoeyT	Sep 2012	#205
Do you think that simply muting people will make them go away?	Bluefin Tuna	Sep 2012	#213
What is "offensive" is entirely in the ears of the beholder.	Bluefin Tuna	Sep 2012	#214
US freedom of speech	MellowDem	Sep 2012	#215
You and the 22 who have so far rec'd this thread may support appeasing the fundies	SpartanDem	Sep 2012	#219
I disagree with all three foreign laws you mention. Citizens United is a different matter.	Jim Lane	Sep 2012	#227
There are people all over the world fighting for free speech sitting in a jail cell	davidn3600	Sep 2012	#228
Facts are objective. Truth is subjective. How one uses facts can be subjective.	cali	Sep 2012	#229
Jessy169, who among us should decide whose speech, what speech incites to riot?	JDPriestly	Sep 2012	#230
Jessy169's post #122 was hidden, so they cannot reply to you	muriel_volestrangler	Sep 2012	#243
That poster was simply rude and non responsive. I asked specific questions and that	Bluenorthwest	Sep 2012	#247
I like be Canadian	riverbendviewgal	Sep 2012	#276
Canada may have some graces	DonCoquixote	Sep 2012	#281
I know this but so far it is not like the USA right now	riverbendviewgal	Sep 2012	#283
I hope so	DonCoquixote	Sep 2012	#317
Sorry - I refuse to give volent people veto power over my civil rights.	hack89	Sep 2012	#242
+1	X_Digger	Sep 2012	#315
speech can be abusive and even scar for life... it is a psychic weapon...	trailmonkee	Sep 2012	#252
I am wondering what you would think if there were more and better counter-weapons.	patrice	Sep 2012	#257
See all the above responses to this argument. The U.S. does NOT have laws against "hate speech."	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#285
The U.S. has laws against speech which increases danger to vulnerables beyond what they would	patrice	Sep 2012	#307
There are no laws against hate speech in the United States	SickOfTheOnePct	Sep 2012	#302
Speech that increases danger to vulnerables beyond what they would otherwise	patrice	Sep 2012	#309
Nice try, but no cigar	SickOfTheOnePct	Sep 2012	#319
Perhaps the principle should not be applied by law, but by community assent instead. You've heard	patrice	Sep 2012	#324
hate crimes more specifically... sorry, speech can be part of that...	trailmonkee	Sep 2012	#311
"A hard look at freedom of expression?" Never	Dash87	Sep 2012	#259
I'm afraid your wrong	GordonHide	Sep 2012	#278
I strongly disagree with your viewpoint.	Marrah_G	Sep 2012	#284
I think I've got it: The OP doesn't like "Saturday Night Live."	WinkyDink	Sep 2012	#292
The solution to speech you don't like is more speech, not restricting speech.	alarimer	Sep 2012	#294
Sorry, but our freedom of expression has saved us and will continue to save us. eom	yawnmaster	Sep 2012	#295
I think this OP was an exercise in dragging a shiny thing under the water behind a boat...	cherokeeprogressive	Sep 2012	#296
I think whenever people talk with one another about important stuff that's good, who cares	patrice	Sep 2012	#310
Inciting violence? I just don't see it.	michaelslomo	Sep 2012	#312
No it isn't.	4th law of robotics	Sep 2012	#313
Man I miss that unrec button. nt	Skip Intro	Sep 2012	#314
This is an astonishingly stupid post.	WilliamPitt	Sep 2012	#326
Bullshit--how about we have a re-do of the live and let live principal?	librechik	Sep 2012	#327
Sigh...unrec	Taverner	Sep 2012	#328
Dumbest. Thread. Ever.	Alduin	Sep 2012	#330
Under The Broad Hate Speech Laws	DemocratSinceBirth	Sep 2012	#331

Response to Jessy169 (Original post)

Sat Sep 15, 2012, 03:10 PM

xchrom (91,618 posts)

Our Freedom of Expression Is Killing Us

1. du rec. Nt

297. kr

2. Alrighty then! How about a constitutional amendment repealing the 1st amendment.

7. Let him or her go ahead and try to sell the repeal of the First Amendment to We the People.

22. You did not read and comprehend

72. ROTFLMAO!!! You're living in denial. A re-do is a repeal.

84. Will membership on the peoples' committee that subjectively determines "truth",

92. That's the way that it is done now & the reason is, in part, because it is assumed

172. Has nothing to do with the 1st A., and everything to do with slander, libel, and counter-points.

17. Why stop at the 1st Amendment? There are lots of the

25. Just talking about limiting free speech to NOT include hate, lies

32. I support the right to free unfettered speech, unequivocally.

63. Really. So it's okay that those with a voice constantly lie?

69. What Is The Mechanism You Would Use To Remove FAUX Noise From The Air?

102. It's their right as U.S. citizens. In fact, courts have held

282. Problem is that the only real way of countering the message is money

320. I think you're absolutely correct. That's why

322. Yes- Freedom of speech especially protect speech you do not like

332. Faux is the price we pay for living in a Democracy

280. How good is the concept of more speech if you have to pay for it.

321. It's tough. But why can't we hit up donors like

33. Your 'lie' might be another's 'truth'

39. Exactly!

87. You are looking at an armed rebellion that the WORLD will regret

123. you have been lied to

196. If you want a dictatorship so much, then why not move?

208. I was in the lucky sperm club and born Canadian.

216. Well, goody for you!

246. you are making yourself look very foolish!

248. You're also making yourself look like an anti-American bigot.

253. you have a nice day too!

254. You can crow all day about how superior you think you are.

258. :) Yes, you got it. ''America's freedoms bother me''

262. Your "lucky sperm club" comment constitutes hate speech under Canadian law.

264. no it doesn't and you are now just being silly

265. Your "lucky sperm club" comment kicked off the silly hour.

266. Not sure why that bothers you so much.

267. Not sure why America's freedoms bother you so much.

269. I like your President a lot

270. I don't know why our freedoms bother you.

271. you have less freedoms than I do

272. Okay so we let crazy people speak here without being sent to jail.

274. Why is it that the US is so different from most of the rest of western countries?

275. But why does our freedom of speech bother you? After all, you're so superior!

277. it bothers me because it doesn't make sense

316. It doesn't make sense to YOU.

116. Here is the problem

143. Yes, I do support the right to lie and I do support the right to speak hatefully.

155. Mass media must be responsible for truth and common sense and the individual must not incite to

273. Actually I would point out that you would have to get rid of

186. I brought this exact point up the last time this crap happened and was nearly run off the boards.

231. And how do you define "hate," "lies"?

21. That's a false choice

26. But Prohibiting "Hate Speech" Is Of A Whole Different Order

49. Simple assault

52. It Still Come Down To What Speech Is Verboten And What Speech Isn't

77. Absolutely

90. Please Read The Thread

121. No he didn't

126. Where's The Proof That Ann Coulter Is A Slut?

79. +1 nt

118. Thanks jberryhill for your fabulous critique!

80. It all depends on the details

133. Hmm

3. More pro-censorship shit.

16. Sounds like you support Glen Beck, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh

23. I Support Their Right To Free Speech As I Support Your Free Speech And Mine

35. Who decides what's acceptable?

234. ^.^ This

54. I support Glen Beck, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh. The KKK too.

142. Exactly

255. Another card carrying member here.

140. False dichotomy fail

191. Who decides what is propaganda or not?

256. Whoever is in charge

24. Is that your idea of a conversation?

177. What the hell do you NOT grasp about the First Amendment? it is NOT up for repeal, FGS.

4. Spam deleted by Hassin Bin Sober (MIR Team)

5. If mocking religion was a criminal offense, DU would be a different place.