The Constitution does NOT grant anyone Free Speech!

[bvar22]

This post has been prompted by the numerous posts here that claim that Constitutional Free Speech was an issue in the Imus debachle. Many DUers are under the impression that "Free Speech" has been granted to Americans by the Constitution. They are wrong.


The Constitution does NOT "grant" RIGHTS to anyone.

The Constitution PLACES RESTRICTIONS ON GOVERNMENT.

This is the exact wording of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As you can see, this is a restriction on government, not a guarantee of RIGHTS granted to citizens.
This may seem trivial to some, but this difference is of EXTREME importance. The writers of the Constitution stated that our INALIENABLE RIGHTS were bestowed by a power greater than any government, and wrote the Constitution to PREVENT GOVERNMENT from usurping our inalienable rights. If one assumes that our rights are granted by the GOVERNMENT or a document, then GOVERNMENT has the power to take those rights away.


Once again, the 1st amendment does NOT grant Free Speech.
The 1st Amendment FORBIDS GOVERNMENT (Congress) from passing any law that abridges Free Speech.

CONGRESS had NOTHING to do with IMUS getting shit canned.

[uppityperson]

1. Thank you.

[JeffR]

2. Good point

K&R!

:kick:

[NormanYorkstein]

3. thank you

excellent point

[ddeclue]

4. Actually the Constitution DOES grant free speech..and many other unenumerated rights...

like privacy...in the TENTH Amendment...

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[SlipperySlope]

12. Not a grant...

The right is not GRANTED to the people, it is RESERVED to the people.

Granting would be giving the people something they did not already have.
Reserving is keeping what is already theirs.

[bvar22]

13. This simply restates what I posted in the OP.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


The People grant the government some powers in the Constitution.
Specific powers NOT given to the government are reserved (as in always had) by the people.




This is a profound difference, not semantics.

[SlipperySlope]

15. "Endowed by their creator"

That was language I always liked. Not "granted by god", but "endowed by their creator". Your rights are inherent in what you are, in the act of your creation (be it by God, evolution, or whatever you believe).

[ddeclue]

19. While beautiful rhetoric, the Declaration is not the law of the land.

The Constitution is.

[ddeclue]

17. Yes but the 10th Amendment is an explicit statement of what you were saying.

It was specifically included to remove any doubt.

Doug D.

[KingFlorez]

5. That's a good point

Some people don't seem to get that the first amendment doesn't apply to this.

[Ignacio Upton]

6. Private companies are free to do what they want

There are also other narrow restrictions on total free speech, such as national security, label/slander, and to a lesser extent, intellectual property (although Fair Use makes this less of an issue, copyright has been abused in the past by copyright holders for the purpose of quelling free speech. For Diebold's threat of suit against whistle-blowers as an example.)

[adarling]

7. exactly

i agree. He got fired- lets move on. He worked for a private company and they fired him because the sponsors were leaving. It was probably more of a business decision than a moral one sadly. I don't think this is an infringment on free speech. He worked for a private company and he has to answer to the big guys.

[Ignacio Upton]

9. It's like Skinner having the same right to decide what is appropriate to post here

Because DU is a private company/website, it has the right to include and exclude whomever it wants. Notice that conservatives aren't allowed to post here, just as we aren't allowed to post at Free Republic for the same reason.

[adarling]

16. yep, thats why i am those arguments need not be mentioned :)

we need to focus on the fact that the Emerald city of the green zone is officially breached and no longer safe. we need to get outta Iraq now!!

[Berry Cool]

22. We're allowed to post there and they are allowed to post here.

However, neither of us is allowed to deliberately cause a disruption and agitation on the other's site. Do that and you get the can, tombstone, whatever you want to call it. That simple.

[Ignacio Upton]

28. Yeah, but most times that people of the opposite ideology post

It usually involves some type of debate or another. To date, I have not seen a single conservative poster who has not been banned. Likewise, out of threads on FR I have seen, I have not seen a single liberal poster stay after being banned.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Absolutely right.

The government did not restrict Imus' right to say what he said; and he does, in fact, still have that right. He (and we) can say pretty much anything (with a few narrow exceptions, like libel and slander) without government restriction. If Imus wants to stand on a street corner and rant about nappy-headed 'hos, he won't be arrested -- but he runs the risk of consequences from other individuals and private entities, which is exactly what happened.

The government stayed out of it, as it must. Imus properly got his butt kicked by his employers (who had no obligation to continue to employ him) because they and their audience concluded Imus had crossed a line and had violated some norm of civilized discourse. But his constitutional rights were never violated.

How ya doing, bvar?

[bvar22]

48. HI.

Doing fine.
:hi:
Good to hear from you.
Is it Spring in the frozen North yet?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

50. Spring? Not so much. Though most of the snow finally melted today.

:hi:

Come back and see us some time!

[Igel]

10. True.

The Constitution gives negative rights: It forbids Congress from interfering, at least not without a damned good reason.

On the other hand, it's still possible for rights to be infringed by others than government. I disagree with the Columbia students that shouted down the Minuteman guy--if it had been RWers shutting down a talk by a progressive, we'd have been beside ourselves. I've seen people pissed that a liberal invited speaker was merely heckled, while whole-heartedly supporting those who completely shut down a speaker in his opening comments, a speaker who apparently hadn't received the divine revelation and speak the one revealed truth and thereby deserved having the protesters' edition of the Way imposed on him.

The entire idea of some sorts of civil right suits involve precisely this kind of thing: Groups acting in such a way to deny somebody or some class an inalienable right or their inherent human dignity. Sporadic instances are fine; they're part of life. Long-term and organized campaigns sometimes cross the line. Of course, we only care about certain inalienable rights, justified by removing the philosophical underpinnings of natural law.

In any event, I don't think getting Imus fired rises to that level, however.

[SlipperySlope]

11. It's just like the Second

The second amendment RECOGNIZES the right to bear arms, it does not GRANT it. It restricts congress from interfering with that right.

[ms liberty]

14. Very good point. K&R n/t

[Berry Cool]

20. It is a good point.

But I'd still rather see a thousand posts from people who misphrase the part about the Constitution's "giving" or "granting" us rights vs. "reserving" our rights, but understand that it doesn't apply to speech people are allowed by their employers to use, than a single one more from someone whining that Imus's "right to free speech" has been unfairly destroyed.

I don't just mean DU...I mean anywhere.

[Neshanic]

18. There are limits to free speech.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. Yes, but they are very narrowly construed.

Pretty much limited to libel, slander, speech that could incite violence, "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre," some pornography (subject to time, place and manner restrictions). Apart from those kinds of things, the Constitution prohibits the government from limiting speech.

[Neshanic]

34. The Supreme Court. You know it when you see it, or hear it now.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uppityperson]

24. "No offense but your post is nonsense, are you a rw extremist?"???

No offense? :rofl:
edited to add quote marks so others would know I was quoting you.

[Berry Cool]

26. What?!?

It is not nonsense. It's true!

Just because right wingers also use it to defend their beliefs doesn't make it untrue.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. That's ridiculous.

It's basically the same opinion of the First Amendment that's been held by the Supreme Court for years, including that free speech absolutist Hugo Black and all the law professors I had in law school. It derives from the natural law theories of the 18th century Enlightenment, which hold that certain rights are inherent.

John Yoo and his ilk would say there are no inherent rights at all, and the government has the power to grant or restrict rights because there aren't any other than what the government chooses to bestow.

You got it all backwards.

[Neshanic]

33. In a world rife with hate speech, there are limits. The world changes, so

do our rights.

You do not have the right to use hate speech. Also many are under the illusion they have free speech so it is not really needed actually.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

37. "Hate speech" is narrowly construed.

And the issue is always a very difficult one. How do you balance the right to free speech and the right of others not to be subject to hateful, bigoted words? Justice Blackmun's dissent in Smith v. Collin states this dilemma very well: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=439&invol=916

[Neshanic]

39. Maybe in the court of law, but we do not live in a courtroom. The rules are different now.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

41. The rules are not different now.

And the courtroom supplies the only remedy the people have against an oppressive government. If the government restricts your speech and throws you in the pokey because they don't like what you say, what will you do if you have no remedy in a court of law? That's what we call a totalitarian state, and we're close enough to that already. The minute we concede the government can restrict speech because some government lackey doesn't care for it, we are well and truly screwed.

[Neshanic]

45. The government has little to do with it. We have many here gladly that will support the

view that hate speech should be restricted. PCism is now officially here to stay for our society.

[bvar22]

35. Hi. I'm the OP.

Here are the EXACT words:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
(my bold)

Now, please point out the nonsense.
I take this very seriously.
If I'm wrong, and this ammendment grants me rights, please point it out.

[Neshanic]

36. It may be written, but it is not so. In a PC world, for the good of the community,

speech that is hate speech or offensive should be restricted.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. Who defines what's hate speech or offensive speech?

Therein lies the problem. Once you accept the premise that "offensive" speech should be suppressed, you leave the door wide open for restrictions on your speech because some government hack who doesn't approve of you or what you believe in -- and calls your speech "offensive" just because they don't like it. Long ago, the Supreme Court adopted the position that the remedy for bad or offensive speech was more speech, not suppression of speech.

You advocate a position that leads to a very slippery slope most of us don't want to slide down.

[Neshanic]

42. Hate and offensive speech dengrates or makes fun of certain groups, by race,

gender, sexual orientation, religion and other items important to that group.

Now that Imus has been let go, the new PC world order is here. Like it or not, you will be judged, and free speech is a fantasy that has rightly expired for the good of all.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

44. OK, I have to conclude you're being sarcastic.

Sorry I didn't pick up on the joke earlier.

[Neshanic]

46. It's no joke.

[bvar22]

43. The restrictions you mention....

...are covered by other laws and regulations.

The current flap over IMUS has NOTHING to do with Constitutional rights of Free Speech.
The OP was about the common misperception that the 1st Amendment of the Constitution GRANTS us the right of Free Speech, when it actually does nothing of the sort. The 1st Amendment FORBIDS Congress from passing any law that inhibits our Natural Right of Free Speech.

[Neshanic]

49. As said earlier, the government has little to do with it. Your neighbor

could be the person that does not like your joke, or your description of a female.

That's the way it is now. It really is a better way, and more precise.

Happy thoughts to you...

[Lint Head]

23. Free Speech is inalienable right. It needs not definition.

The Constitution recognizes the existence of free speech and addresses the fact that it shall not be abridged. it does not grant us free speech. Even the US Supreme Cowards have upheld the existence of free speech. You do not have the right ot cause a stampede of people with your speech, the old crying fire in a theater bit. You do not have a right to lie. Free speech can be a lie but under oath has jail time attached.:dem:

[unblock]

25. constitutionally, you are 100% correct. however, there is another interpretation

people use the term "free speech" to describe (at least) two different concepts. one is the specific concept that government ought not restrict speech. you addressed this well in your post.

the second is the concept that people, society, companies, etc. ought not restrict speech, having nothing to do with the first case.

i don't know what posts you were referring to, but it's possible that they were thinking of the second concept. people VERY often conflate these.

[Berry Cool]

29. Well, they shouldn't conflate them

and then say that "Imus's First Amendment right to free speech is being violated." Because it just isn't true.

And it is my experience that when people talk about someone's "right to free speech" being infringed, that is usually what they mean. And they usually say something else like "This is America!" Or "We are not a dictatorship!" Which only underlines that they are misunderstanding the meaning of Americans' Constitutional rights.

[uppityperson]

32. Yup. It is a sad fact that in many places employers can restrict employees

They can fire them for varied reasons that may not seem acceptable to many of us, they can restrict what they say and do AT work and NOT AT work. It is another thing we need to be working for, but as of now, this is how it is.

[Canuckistanian]

30. Freedom of speech is a "natural right"

What the First Amendment does is to make sure that the natural right can not be impeded by the American government. The point is, that everything you do is protected behavior. UNLESS it is prohibited by law, which is passed by the people's representatives in Congress.

And I said Congress. NOT the Executive branch.

Good point.

[depakid]

38. Actually, when you read the law

it's the rights of listeners and viewers that is paramount- NOT the rights (the licenses) of broadcasters. That's the basis for what used to be a very workable set of regulations that kept lies and hatrespeech from running rampant all over the airwaves.

Congress and the FCC are in fact empowered- and I think have a duty to reinstate those regulations.

See: Red Lion Broadcatsing v. FCC, http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html

[Eric J in MN]

47. A country in which the shock jocks are afraid to say anything shocking...

...is less free (even if it isn't a legal issue.)

[dem.smasher]

51. False

The government did not give those rights to people. Just as Thomas Jefferson said that freedom of speech is a right that no man or government can ever take away.And if they try to the government, king, etc. breaks the "contract" binding his subjects to him.

P.S
Next time don't try to say that man is more powerful than god.

[Worst Username Ever]

58. Wow. You completely ingnored the OP.

"The government did not give those rights to people." That is what he just said. "Next time don't try to say that man is more powerful than god." He didn't, he said the rights were given by a higher power. Amazing.

[WinkyDink]

52. If the government cannot abridge free speech, then, ipso facto, free speech is a right.

You are making the same argument as Gonzo did about Habeas corpus.

[Major Hogwash]

53. Hear, hear! And that's why I support the I-man.

Because Mr. Imus used his radio program to blast Bush for the Iraq War.
Imus called Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld war criminals for starting the Iraq War.
Imus bashed Bush for his poor mishandling of the relief effort for Hurricane Katrina.
Imus also lambasted the Bush administration for the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Hospital.
Imus also was instrumental in getting active soldiers higher benefits.
Imus was the catalyst for getting a new hospital built in Texas for amputees of the Iraq War - a world class facility.
Imus also has his "Imus Ranch" for kids with cancer and SIDS.
And Imus has been turned green by his lovely wife Diedre, who just wrote another book about being more "green" and less dependent on harmful cleaning chemicals around the house and office.

Plus, Imus is a Marine.
Semper fi.

What we witnessed this week was a classic case of group think.
Within 1 week - over the Easter weekend, mind you - Imus went from being a pretty good radio personality to being called the biggest, most vile, racist, sexist, bigot to ever hit the airwaves.

I forgive Imus because he said he was sorry.
For 5 straight days.
That's enough for me.
It should've been enough for anyone else.

May gawd hide me from the harsh glare of the spotlights of tv when all the hypocrites have their magnifying glasses out, for I will fare no better fate than the I-man, when no man will stand with me, while the buzzards peck my eyes out.

[Tom Joad]

56. He was spreading hate, for many years. time for him to go.

Let him post youtube videos.

[Major Hogwash]

57. The uproar over Imus' comments happened over the Easter weekend.

The time of the year for contrition, redemption, and salvation for Christians around the world.

Imus said he was sorry for 5 straight days for "a stupid comment."
5 straight days.

The irony of 2 fake reverends calling for his ouster over this religious holiday is not lost on me.

[1monster]

54. Of course it does. Just not in the First Amendment. So many people

forget

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Under Amendment IX, we have tons of rights; we just have to make sure we claim and exercise them.

[Tom Joad]

55. Certainly it does not say anything that Networks must hire stupid white men

or that networks must keep them forever.

[deadcenter]

59. well said

Personally, I've always preferred my first amendment served up with a heaping helping of the right to be offended. For me it's easy, someone says something I don't like I stop associating with that person, turn the channel, listen to a CD, watch a DVD, or pick up a book. Some restrictions are necessary, fire in a crowded theatre, no right to lie on the witness stand, etc., however the problem with restricting speech someone disagrees with, is, where does it end?