Is freedom of speech really a good thing for everyone to have? Should people be allowed to say absoloutely anything that they want without limitation?
There are a few articles that I have just read that discuss this. I have only quoted parts of the articles, so feel free to click on the links to read the rest:
Free Speech and its Limitations
Even free speech absolutists will not deny that unfettered speech can be lethal. Using no tool other than words, it is possible to poison the minds of impressionable young (usually) men, and turn them into killing machines.
The four suicide bombers who blew themselves up in London on July 7 are a case in point. While we will never know all the words to which they were exposed in the last months of their lives, it is clear that they underwent very dramatic transformations over a relatively short period of time. Typical cricket-playing, soccer-following British lads of Pakistani descent became Islamist fanatics bent on killing as many of the kufars (deniers) as possible.
Such cases have been almost entirely the province of Islamists in recent years, but not completely. Eden Natan-Zada, the 19-year-old AWOL Israeli soldier who killed four Israeli Arabs earlier this month also underwent a similarly rapid transformation after drawing close to a cell associated with the banned Kach movement in the West Bank settlement of Tapuach.
The question now facing all Western countries is: Can the poisoning of the minds be prevented without placing intolerable restrictions on freedom of speech? Let us sharpen the question. Remember that those doing the poisoning are rarely involved in the planning of specific crimes. They do not often issue clear suggestions like, “Go blow yourself up on the Waterloo line.” If they did, they would be subject to prosecution as participants in a criminal conspiracy, even though their participation was limited to words and even though no crime was ultimately committed.
http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2005/09/02/free-speech-and-its-limitations-–-part-ii/ ‘White people have no freedom of speech’
This is what Jackie Mason said in defense of his “schw*rtze” comment. Because you know in addition to the general unfairness that Oprah is a multi-bazillionaire even though Jackie is more talented, it’s also grossly unfair that white people cannot speak freely!
This sentiment is commonly uttered by white people and it takes a number of forms: It’s about “historical accuracy.” Not giving in to the “PC Police.” About “oversensitivity” stifling free discussion. About First Amendment rights–hey, we’re white people, we have rights! Why does everybody except white people have the right to free speech? You have to be so careful now and walk on eggshells because otherwise somebody will get offended about something.
So why do white people want freedom of speech?
They want to be able to write racist shit about other people without suffering the consequences. Because they don’t want their racist speech “stifled.”
They want to be able to dress up in redface and mock First Nations people. Because racism is a part of “personal expression” as well as free speech.
They want to spew nice-sounding words about cultural diversity while doing nothing about racist “South of the Border” parties.
They want to defend Don Imus’ right to call black college students “nappy headed hos.” Because “shutting down offensive speech” is against the First Amendment and because black people are haters too!
They want to wear racist Halloween costumes if they feel like it. Because it’s “all in good fun” and because they have the right to free speech! So there!
They want to display confederate flags. And then officials are shocked and don’t know what to do when racial tensions erupt into violence.
They want to use the n-word. And then defend themselves … why, those black people just misunderstood and misinterpreted what I said! Because I was actually making a complex free speech argument!
They want the freedom to use ethnic and sexual slurs. Because they are against censorship.
http://resistracism.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/white-people-have-no-freedom-of-speech/The Westboro Baptist Church and The Freedom of Speech Myth
The Westboro Baptist Church, founded and operated by Fred Phelps, became notorious by picketing the funerals of gay and allegedly gay people. Fred Phelps was disbarred from practicing law in Kansas in 1979 then in 1989 he was disbarred from practicing in Federal Courts. There is no official affiliation between the Westboro Baptist Church and any known Baptist organization, and all recognized Baptist associations vehemently deny any affiliation with this church.
Their demonstrating at the funeral of Mathew Shepard put them in the national spotlight. Shepard was a student at the University of Wyoming and was severely beaten and murdered because he was gay. The signs that the Westboro Baptist Church used during the demonstration at his funeral read, “No Fags in Heaven” and God Hates Fags.”
They have since moved on to disgrace the funerals of slain soldiers killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Which has lead to their current legal predicament.
Lance Corporal, Matthew Snyder was killed in action in Iraq. At his funeral, in 2006, the Westboro Baptist Church came to demonstrate. They held up signs reading “God is your enemy” and “God hates fag enablers.” They sang the song “God Bless America” but substituted the words “God Hates America” in place of “God Bless America.” They carried out their protest while the funeral was in process. Their argument for protesting at military funerals is that the U.S. is being punished by God for being tolerant of homosexuals.
Lance Corporal, Matthew Snyder’s father, Albert Snyder, sued the Westboro Baptist Church and last week was awarded $2.9 million in compensatory damages, $2 million for causing emotional distress and $6 million in punitive damages. Named in the suit was Phelps and his two daughters, both are attorneys.
Jonathan Katz, attorney for the church, stated that “….the burial was a public event and that even abhorrent points of view are protected by the First Amendment.”
Should this demonstration have been protected under the first amendment? What does protected speech mean? Does the Constitution protect speech without consequences? Was it speech as defined common sense or was it just malicious conduct and expression?
http://jimbyrd.wordpress.com/2007/11/08/the-westboro-baptist-church-and-the-freedom-of-speech-myth/Freedom of speech is a problematic area. There are people who believe that everyone should have the right to say absolutely anything, but then there are people who want some kind of changes to be made to prevent cases like those in these three articles.
I picked these articles because they cover racism, Islamic terrorism, and Christian homophobia.
Topic: Free Speech and its Limitations