Hey guys, this is Lee. I was just thinking about what my topic should be, and I think this question may spark a lot of debate. Many people have started blaming the Tea Party for "encouraging" Jared Loughner and others like him to act out violently against those that disagree with them.
While these comments may or may not have basis in fact, it raises some interesting questions about the very rights we as Americans hold near and dear. What should be the limits, if any, of freedom of speech? Is there a point where questioning authority is not healthy for society and/or the individual?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. :) Enjoy!
While these comments may or may not have basis in fact, it raises some interesting questions about the very rights we as Americans hold near and dear. What should be the limits, if any, of freedom of speech? Is there a point where questioning authority is not healthy for society and/or the individual?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. :) Enjoy!
14 comments:
I don't think there should be any limits to freedom of speech, unless it will exploit or harm another individual. People should be able to say and write what they want as long as no gets hurt. It may sound cliche, but if you're voicing an opinion that will not bring harm to another individual, then you should have the freedom to say and write what you please. Censorship occurs for various reasons, from religious to personal to political. Censorship does not allow for the full story or issue to be uncovered. If certain parts of a story are covered up, the whole thing seems irrelevant or insufficient without the full details.
Though I don't really know a whole lot about the topic (Yay for google!) I definitely agree with Bridget that there shouldn't really be any restrictions to freedom of speech unless that speech puts another person or group of people at a reasonable risk of harm. This view has also been upheld by the government (I think mainly in a couple court cases, but I'm not sure what the names of the cases are). From what I've seen nothing was said that would have caused such an endangerment of another's safety, though some things may not have been thought out as thoroughly as they could (or maybe should) have been. However, the articles etc that I saw relating the incident to the Tea Party seemed to simply be trying to exploit the event to further their political cause and demonize the other side (don't they always).
I think that freedom of speech is a very important right, particularly when it comes to questioning authority because without being able to have a voice and be heard somehow, it would be difficult to do anything at all about thoughts or beliefs that questioned authority. I think that the questioning of authority (particularly within the context of politics) is important because it helps to maintain a balance of viewpoints and it can keep any one side from gaining too much power.
Freedom of speech is one of the sacred foundations on which this nation was founded on. Without it, it would be hard to see where this country would be. If you look at the world as a whole, the places where freedom of speech is permitted are far more advanced socially and morally.
That being said, there are limits that have to be placed on Freedom of Speech. Once an individual or any institution is physically threatened, a form of peaceful intervention (discourse) needs to take place. This will insure that no violent outbursts send the country into a tailspin. The French Revolution comes to mind.
I think it's really difficult to discuss healthiness for a society. What one person sees as advancement can be seen as a step backward to another. I believe that questioning authority comes with a certain amount of suffering and hardship because people initially resist change.
Freedom of speech is definitely an interesting topic. As far as I'm aware, complete freedom of speech does not exist since the rights of others must be respected. People have a right to safety, thus threats and acts of violence are not tolerated; people have a right to raise their children in whichever way they see fit, thus language is censored in a large portion of the media. I'm honestly not sure what the limits to free speech should be. Yes, I believe that everyone has his or her own opinion and should be allowed to stand by that opinion, but at the same time, how can someone be allowed to interfere with the rights of another? There is no answer that will solve everything because you simply cannot please everyone.
As far as questioning authority goes, I think it is necessary in order to keep government in check and to show which areas of society people are in disagreement over. However, the line needs to be drawn when people start losing their lives over a protest. I don't think that people have the right to judge whether or not another person deserves to live.
Freedom of Speech is called 'freedom' for a reason. No one should have to be restricted in speaking their mind, but I agree with Bridget to a degree in that I believe that people should have tact and common courtesy when it comes to attacking other people. There are some lines you just don't cross, and of course these lines vary from situation to situation and from person to person. As Carly said, you simply cannot please everyone.
I also agree with Ben when he said that questioning authority is a big part of keeping the balance. Without it, some people might just get too much power and tip the balance too far one way.
I personally do not think that the Tea Party movement is "encouraging" this type of behavior in the least bit. Different people interpret information in completely different ways. I do not feel that the Tea Party movement would advocate revolt to such an extreme degree.
I agree with Carly about the fact that there truly is no such thing as complete freedom of speech because of all of the restrictions that fall within its guidelines. I would love to say that freedom of speech or people's opinions are all welcome. However, I feel that with complete freedom comes even greater responsibility. If everyone was given permission to speak their minds without any consideration or censorship, even more serious problems would transpire.
I think questioning authority is generally a healthy activity to keep a check on the world around us. However, it becomes unhealthy when it leads to any form of violence to others or to oneself. There is sadly a limit to questioning authority just as there is one to freedom of speech as well.
I agree with Carly, there isn't really such a thing as complete freedom of speech. I think that people should have the freedom to form and voice their own opinions, but I think that with that freedom comes a certain level of responsibility. Rhetoric that threatens the freedoms of others shouldn't be allowed. Also, our society continually censors itself. On an individual level, our society expects us to censor what we say to some extent, which shows that even if we are not aware of them, there are some restrictions to our freedom of speech.
In regards to questioning authority, I think it is healthy for both the individual and the society. It is societies job to question the leaders it has given power to in order to keep the balance of power and to ensure that the leaders represent the best interests of the people. But, it is important to question authority in the right way. People should question authority by voting and keeping themselves informed, not through guns and violence.
Like everyone so far has said, the only reason that freedom of speech should be limited is if a person is physically hurt. Protesting something through violence is not a reasonable means to an end because people will listen even when less drastic measures are taken. People like Jared Loughner who think that killing people is the only way to get heard are usually mentally deranged in some way, anyway.
Freedom of speech is an important ideal that our country was founded on, and it should definitely be preserved at all costs. Historically, we can see the effects that crushing the ideal of free speech has throughout society as demonstrated by dictatorships and monarchies. A particularly good example of freedom of speech being squashed and discouraged is found in the book 1984 by George Orwell (which we will actually be reading this semester! :D)
Everybody seems to agree that freedom of speech should only be limited to a certain point. You guys are pointing out that as long as no one gets hurt, you can say whatever you want. However, the constitution does include statutes or limitations to the first amendment. I guess to some extent it has to do with what you define as "hurting" an individual. There are ways to repress a whole race with only words. Racial remarks for example are protected to some extent by the constitution as long as they are not said in certain contexts. So lets say that a person is constantly expressing their disgust for a certain other individual. This is only done verbally, therefore it is protected by the first amendment. What if the person who is verbally abused commits suicide? Would you guys hold the person who spoke his/her mind responsible?
I think that is the reason why censorship exists. Whether it is imposed by others or by ourselves, it tries to draw the line between what is harmless and what is not. In my opinion it has more to do with common sense than anything. Glenn Beck was appalled when democrats started mentioning his name in relation to the Tucson shooting. That should not have been pinned on him but at the same time he should realize the power he has over people. I bet there are several people out there who believe that everything he says is true. We have seen this happen again and again, books, speeches, paintings that are someone's thoughts and that have created a dramatic change in history. Glenn Beck is just exercising his first amendment rights, but to some he might be a leader or a mistake waiting to happen. Sometimes perhaps it is wiser to have some limit to the powerful weapon that free speech can be.
I would love to say that freedom of speech should be unlimited, but as with all other constitutional rights there have to be limits. Freedom of speech is amazing, don't get me wrong but once your right to freedom of speech begins to intrude upon your neighbor's rights or well being, that is where the limitation needs to come in. Just because we have the right to bear arms doesn't mean that we need to stockpile AK-47s or something. The same goes for speech, just because we have that freedom, we don't need to abuse it.
I don't believe freedom of speech should be limited at any point. The reasoning behind my thought process is this: where should the line be drawn? There are obviously some heinous things to be said, but what is, too heinous and what is appropriate. It really comes down to being a case of "All or Nothing".
@Briget
What is harmful to a person and what is not? If you publish an article explaining why abortion should be legal, that could severely trample on another's moral beliefs, causing them anguish inside. Granted, slander is highly wrong, but what some people consider slander, others consider education about someones business practices. I'm just saying that it is really difficult to decide what is hurtful and what is not, and that it would be easier to allow all or nothing. And if "all" is allowed, people can just accept what is being said, or publish a counter arguement.
i spelt argument* wrong. Just wanted to amend it.
I was reading through everyone's posts, and I noticed that just about everyone said that freedom of speech should be limited when it starts causing harm to another person. I agree, but I was wondering what people's thoughts are when it comes to speech that spurs on some sort of violence with the goal of achieving a shift of power (like, say, the American Revolution). When should the line be drawn there, and is this a justifiable reason to encourage violence if the authority truly is corrupt in some significant way?
Freedom of speech is our ability to express our feelings of discontent with our government. The only reason our elected officials are in office is due to our consent through our freedom to speak out. When we go quietly, we give up that right, the right to defend ourselves from somebody we gave power in the first place. Our ability to question authority comes from our freedom of speech, and without this freedom chaos can ensue. Nations where freedom is limited undergo revolutions, battles for the ability to speak out against tyranny, oppression and an authority they find unjust. That is how this nation was founded- we were at one point unable to speak out, and therefore we fought for our independence. I therefore don't think there should be a limit to freedom of speech because its limitation is where people actually get hurt.
Post a Comment