To Have Free Speech In A Democracy You Are Going To Be Offended By Some Speech --Guaranteed!

[Blackhatjack]

But it is the price we all must pay in order to preserve our right to exercise free speech in this country.

If we allow the speech of the politically unpopular to be preemptively suppressed 'because we don't agree with it, or we don't like it' then we are a few steps away from suppressing all political speech in this country.

Every time we protest against the right of others to speak, we lend credence to those who would take away our rights as well.

We do not have to agree with the 'content' of speech in order to stand up for the right of individuals to speak. Some of the most racist and hate-filled organizations in this country have the opportunity to march, protest, hold rallies and speak out --all of which has been upheld by our SCOTUS time and again. That is the price we all pay for living with the constitutional right to engage in 'free speech' in this country.

[bryant69]

1. Totally agree- but there many who will strongly disagree

ANd will argue that censorship only applies if the Government does it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[BOSSHOG]

2. And thats the way it should be

To so many in South Mississippi my thoughts and viewpoints are incredibly offensive (and vice versa.) Its all about the land of the free which christians just don't seem to understand.

[democrat_06]

4. Agree we have free speech but

that doesn't require giving the megaphone to a mad man. When one of the most prestigious universities in the world allows a man like Ahmadinejad to speak it gives him credibility that he does not deserve. Many of us would like to have such a megaphone handed to us but it doesn't happen. Free speech means you can say what you want without being arrested, it doesn't mean we have to give the stage to a nut. Sorry, but the enemy of my enemy is not my friend in this case. If Ahmadinejad wanted to stand on a street corner to profess how they don't have any gays in Iran...well fine, but to give him the stage at Columbia was ridiculous.

[Blackhatjack]

5. What you raise as a concern is not a free speech problem, but rather...

a problem with the officials in charge of the forum exercising good judgment in deciding who gets to address the forum audience.

You can address this problem by using MORE FREE SPEECH rather than less. You have the right to speak out on the inappropriateness of forum officials giving Ahmadinejad a platform from which he can speak.

However, any group in the US can invite any individual or group to speak as long as the individual or group is not subject to criminal prosecution and/or court order.

The SCOTUS decisions which allow groups like the KKK to speak publicly, march publicly and distribute information publicly have long upheld the right of abhorrent groups to be heard. But nothing they say is condoned by the government or the people just because we allow them to speak.

[BOSSHOG]

17. I thought allowing him to speak in such a public forum

with all the attending attention was similar to taking the mask off a Klansmen. I agree with your description of the first amendment but allowing a lunatic to reinforce the fact that he is a lunatic by giving him a microphone does have an upside.

[Blackhatjack]

19. I agree! I think some of the ridiculous positions he espoused 'took him down a notch'...

When people hold ridiculous positions there is nothing like the glare of public scrutiny to expose their lack of credibility, which affects how much trust people place in their other positions and ideas.

[BOSSHOG]

20. limbaugh and hannity prove our point five days a week

[hobbit709]

3. Everyone has the right to open their mouth and insert foot.

As much as I disagree with the philosophies of many groups, they have the right. I have the right to not listen if I choose.

[Blackhatjack]

9. Public rejection of idiotic philosophies does more to destroy them than suppressing their speech...

I remember reading a psychological profile of hate groups, and the opinion of the writer was that these groups respond well and build support when they are able to make the argument that their message is being unlawfully and unjustly suppressed --but that where these groups are allowed to make their arguments publicly and the public laughs at them or otherwise rejects their argument, these groups lose the power to build support based on the injustice of being suppressed.

More public rejection and derision of idiotic hate groups may do more to destroy them than efforts to suppress their speech.

In cities where the KKK has marched with a permit, and people refused to show up, and the news media gave scant attention, usually are not targeted again for future marches.

[hobbit709]

10. A few years ago the klan marched here in Austin

And of course everyone showed up to hurl invective and vegetables at them. My comment at the time was that this was giving them what they wanted. My proposal was to show up and stand there quietly, when they marched past, point your finger and snicker. This would cause them to lose their cool instead of the other way around. Did anybody listen to me-nah. And it turned into a melee that gave the idiots what they wanted.

[Blackhatjack]

12. Exactly! They embrace those who oppose them, but they cannot stand being laughed at...

If they held a parade and no one showed up, that would say more than showing up and yelling in opposition to them, and throwing things at them.

[Beelzebud]

6. If you are never offended, you aren't living in a free society.

I say that subject line a lot, because it's true.

[Fierce]

7. Right to free speech doesn't mean right to be heard.

And right to free speech doesn't mean you don't have the right to not have 10,000 others stand up and say you're wrong. Especially when you are.

And I'm tired with the cotton-batting word "agree." It's amazing to me that people say "I don't agree with Ahmadinejad about the Holocaust, but...". There's no room for disagree. He's fucking wrong.

[porphyrian]

8. That's how you know it's working.

If you're never offended, a bunch of people aren't talking.

[Blackhatjack]

11. Many dangerous people in history could have been stopped if people had just listened to them...

While we have the right to ignore what is being said by obviously wacko groups, we would be wise to listen carefully to those who think they are being unjustly suppressed in their ability to be heard. Many terrorist attacks are designed to attract attention to 'a cause' the groups believes they are not allowed to make publicly.

Also, if we listen to to the leaders of countries that oppose us, it is always an opportunity to learn more about their possible actions and motivations. It has nothing to do with condoning what is being said because we agree to listen.

[zbdent]

13. When do you hear a Repuke defending free speech that is not

a noose in a tree, a campaign contribution, a racial slur, a homophobic slur, or a confederate flag?

[Blackhatjack]

14. It has been a long time since I heard a Repub stand up for 'free speech'...

... the last time I recall was when Repubs opposed McCain/Feingold as an unconstitutional infringement on the right to contribute $ to candidates as 'free speech.'

[Igel]

21. Larry Sumner was recently defended by repubs.

This link isn't to a repub source per se, but they can be found easily enough.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=519573

The pundits in the RW press have had a bit of fun with the asymmetry in reactions.

[ljm2002]

15. Yes, that is the real issue...

...but it is truly amazing how many people fail to grasp this essential fact about what it means to have the right to free speech.

The ones I love are the ones who say, Yes, we have free speech, but... we need to watch what we say anyway lest we offend someone. IOW we have free speech but we should not exercise it. Totally missing the point that, if you are constrained from exercising your rights, well then logically you don't actually have them.

Glad to have contributed to Moveon after this ridiculous flap. At least they got people's attention, and that is not a bad thing, not at all.

[Blackhatjack]

18. MoveOn.org had every right to run the 'betrayus' ad. It could have been more effective if...

they had found a way to communicate the message without the use of the inflammatory word 'betrayus.'

That is exactly the interplay between exercising free speech rights and the appropriateness of the method in which you exercise free speech rights.

Just because you have the right to say something a certain way does not mean that there are not more effective ways to deliver the same message, and accomplish the purpose you set out to achieve.

[wildhorses]

16. #5 off to the greatest page with ya

:hi: