Ever heard the saying, "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend you to the death your right to say it?"
What do people like Jesse Jackson and organizations like ACLU have to gain from supporting such a cause?
Does this foster negative repercussions and encourage moral and ethical treason against the government?
Answers:
Your two examples, Jackson (liberal) and ACLU (leftist organization) have nothing to gain from freedom of speech for everyone. They both have their own agendas that certainly don't include free speech for all of us.
And free speech does not encourage moral and ethical treason against a government, however individual lack of integrity, lack of individual morality, a news media with an agenda and poor education foster negative repercussions and encourage undeserved moral and ethical treason against a government
I look at it this way.
If the ACLU protects someones rights, do they not violate another?
I don't think you are old enough to understand the ramifications of limiting the First Amendment to only those things YOU want to hear. That is the problem with Political Correctness... once you silence people from expressing their opinion because someone feels it is not Politically Correct... you are silencing their right to speak out for injustice, infractions against civil rights and questionable actions by the Government.
I seriously doubt you have EVER lived in a country with a dictator... where you could be picked up and put in jail for saying that the President was wrong. I've lived in dictatorial regimes and I've learned how to speak only in whispers when the servants couldn't hear it.
Unfortunately, since AmeriKans are so stupid and arrogant that they don't know or care about history... their own or anyone elses... this country is headed down that slippery slope to the trashing of the first amendment and the lack of free speech in this country.
All because of people like you who don't think anyone should be able to say anything that YOU don't want to hear.
I'm a tad hazy on the question here, gb...what "cause"? Freedom of Speech? Jesse Jackson likes it because he can call people "hymies" and get away with it...the ACLU likes it for groups like NAMBLA...but I'm not sure what you're getting at.
are you saying your against the First Amendment ?
Well, the ACLU gains from it because it's their job -- their purpose is to defend the Bill of Rights, and the First Amendment guarantees the right of every American to say what they please.
As far as fostering any negative repurcussions, I suppose any time someone says something you disagree with, it could be construed as fostering negativity. But whether it's in a freedom march on Washington or on freelawanswer.com , we have to put up with the hurt feelings and realise that that's what America is -- people can say something that offends me, but I can respond or even choose to stop reading. Every American has that right to speak out, that's what makes it equal.
I don't really know what you mean by "moral and ethical treason against the government," but to me, I think that dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Blind faith to the failed policies of an administration that doesn't accept any responsibility or answer to even its own people doesn't do anything but harm.
I have no idea where you are going by mentioning Jesse Jackson and the ACLU. I guess because he's black they are so how in league.
As to the First Amendment, your question seems to revolve around inflammatory seditious speech, in other words speech which may advocate the over throw of the political system that guarantees free speech. Well, there are two considerations. One, it is clear that the framers (AKA the founding fathers) intended the First Amendment be a protection against what most of "Us" might be thinking. In other words, Freedom of Speech is not there to protect speech that is acceptable to the majority, its there for the rest (obviously). However, the Supreme Court has ruled over time that certain speech falls outside the protection of the First Amendment, when the speech creates a "clear and present danger" to the safety of others. So its ok to scream, "down with W and all his warmongering chimps!", but you can't say, "down with W and lets start by looting these stores." Provided of course that there are stores to loot. The trouble with free speech is everyone thinks it only applies to speech that they approve of, when in fact the opposite is true. As for the assertion that the exercise of free speech might hurt someone else's rights; well sticks and stones...
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."
-Thomas Paine
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment