Freedom of Speech

[AllentownJake]

The only way the first amendment works is when I have the right to say or print whatever I want and you have the right to respond either positively, negatively, or by ignoring it.

The Klu Klux Klan has the right to march in Skokie, Illinois however, the citizens of Skokie have the right to verbally let the klan know how they feel about their world view as they are marching or to ignore the parade (provided the Klan get the permits that are required for a parade like anyone else).

Fox News has a right to operate its channel, however we have the right to not watch it or criticize its commentators by calling them out on their right wing bias.

The New Yorker has the right to publish an offensive cover with blatant racist overtones in the name of "satire" however, we have the right to say it offends us and to not buy the New Yorker for a while or cancel our subscriptions.

The first amendment is a two way street not a one way street. It only works if its a two way street. The two way street is actually the only control that is needed on freedom of speech. If you say something offensive you have the right but be prepared for others reaction to what you have to say.

Saying something is offensive and you won't support the outlet that promoted it anymore doesn't mean you support book burning or can make a comparison to the islamic outrage that resulted in people's deaths over the Mohamed cartoons.

In summary you can say or publish whatever you want and I'll defend that to my dying breath....doesn't mean I can't call you a schmuck for saying it.

[BklynChick]

1. I agree. Of course they have a right to do it and I defend that. And they are still schmucks.

[TexasObserver]

2. Straw man!!! No one is challenging the New Yorker's 1st amendment rights.

Not a single person has done that, and it is silly to try to pose this as an attack on the first amendment. It's not. It's an attack on smear journalism. The cover and the article it supposedly promotes are both smear jobs and irresponsible. The first amendment protects the speech, but it doesn't make the speech wise, or good, or appropriate.

[AllentownJake]

5. I've read several threads

comparing the critics to book burners and islamic reactionaries to the Mohamed cartoons. Some of them seem to be written by the same people who want 150 threads devoted to FISA and cry if you criticise them for it...I digress.

I was just putting things in perspective.

[TexasObserver]

6. I've read those comparisons, too.

And they miss the point. The right to speak freely does not alter the ability of everyone to criticize the things said in the exercise of that right. No one suggests that the New Yorker should be punished in any respect other than disdain and remonstration.

The New Yorker wouldn't try to call it humor if they ran a cover about lynching, or nut cutting, of Obama. They wouldn't call it humor to make light of the holocaust or some other tragic event.

Ridicule is one of the most useful tools in diminishing a political opponent. Either the New Yorker is so out of touch with reality that it didn't know what it was doing, or it knew and didn't care. I do not give them a free pass. I think they knew exactly what they were doing, and I'm not buying their coy responses. They knew it would cause a shit storm, and that's what they wanted - to sell their magazine. I'm sure it will be a big hit with Lady Full of Shit de Rothchild and her ilk.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. But there are limits to speech

For example, you can't claim that a product or service will do something it won't. That's fraud.

[AllentownJake]

4. and you can't make

Terroristic threats or yell fire in a crowded theatre. Those are public saftey issues.

I think the examples I gave were meant to put the speech we are talking about in context. I was talking about political free speech.