Does anyone really believe that the founders and the authors of the first amendment to the US constitution really intended the interpretation we have given it. They were concerned with political speech guaranteeing the right to oppose government with various forms of expression. If they could know how we have twisted their words, they would die again.
Those who believe that all "speech" and all its forms are protected have to know that there are restrictions on speech. Libel and slander, where you can say certain things and to whom. You can't tell a judge in a courtroom to go bump himself but you can say that to a neighbor whose dog just left a surprise on your lawn. You can use the foulest of language anywhere, make pornographic movies, insult white people and Christians but you can't say Muslim terrorist or the dreaded N-word. If it's OK to lie, it shouldn't matter where you lie but in a court room under oath it's a crime. If you don't like someone, you aren't required to like anyone, you can't call him certain names. Do we really want unrestrained free speech which allows the lowest life forms to do and say the most insulting, disgusting things your imagination can conjure.
Those who believe that placing any restrictions on speech would lead to speech censorship need only to look at existing restrictions to see models of "acceptable" regulation such as the courtroom example. We do it for special situations now. I can't believe any normal person would condone some of the insulting art work aimed at Christianity and say "Oh well, they have the right to free speech.". Unfortunately, my free speech expression of urinating on the artist would not be acceptable although appropriate.
Those who believe that all "speech" and all its forms are protected have to know that there are restrictions on speech. Libel and slander, where you can say certain things and to whom. You can't tell a judge in a courtroom to go bump himself but you can say that to a neighbor whose dog just left a surprise on your lawn. You can use the foulest of language anywhere, make pornographic movies, insult white people and Christians but you can't say Muslim terrorist or the dreaded N-word. If it's OK to lie, it shouldn't matter where you lie but in a court room under oath it's a crime. If you don't like someone, you aren't required to like anyone, you can't call him certain names. Do we really want unrestrained free speech which allows the lowest life forms to do and say the most insulting, disgusting things your imagination can conjure.
Those who believe that placing any restrictions on speech would lead to speech censorship need only to look at existing restrictions to see models of "acceptable" regulation such as the courtroom example. We do it for special situations now. I can't believe any normal person would condone some of the insulting art work aimed at Christianity and say "Oh well, they have the right to free speech.". Unfortunately, my free speech expression of urinating on the artist would not be acceptable although appropriate.
No comments:
Post a Comment