How do you feel about Free Speech?

[DuctapeFatwa]

Poll question: How do you feel about Free Speech?

This poll is not about DU rules. DU is a private business, does not receive public funds, and is therefore not bound by the First Amendment.

What I am interested in is how people feel about free speech in general: in the media, in the workplace, in schools, town hall meetings, places or organizations that do receive public funds or in the case of the media, are on some level publicly accountable.

Do minors have the right to free speech?

What speech restrictions would you like to see added or removed from the Constitution and/or its implementation.

How about "Free Speech Zones?" Do you think they are in the public interest or a violation of the Constitution (on the argument that the First Amendment makes the entire country a "Free Speech Zone?"

For those interested and unaware, I am an incorrigible free speech hardliner. I don't believe anyone should be forced to keep their ignorance and stupidity secret.

Someone, maybe Dr. King, the better informed can help me out here, once said that Freedom isn't just about being able to say what you want, but to listen to what you want. Whoever said it, what do you think?

[onebigbadwulf]

1. I'm sorry

freedom of speech zone?

the right to get your ass beat when you peacably assemble?

sorry, america = fascist

[Selwynn]

2. The reason why I can't say the FA is too restrictive....

..is because I do not believe that corporations have a right of free speech, I believe rights appliy to indiviual people individually, not institutions.

I think the first ammendment would be just right, if it were applied properly.

[DuctapeFatwa]

15. I knew somebody would do this.

corporate personhood. bad.

The other side of the argument - each person within a corporation has the same right to free speech that you or I have.

So, how can we say that if they all agree they can't issue a statement as a corporation?

And let's say they don't. They say "the board of directors" or the "executive panel" or "your friends at --"

Should we restrict the corporations free speech to extolling the virtues of its product, or wishing you and your family the warmest season's greetings?

If we try to, they can just pool their money and act as individuals who all just coincidentally support Senator Pondscum's breakthrough bill to kill your puppies.

Or should we stealthily require that all corporations be 51% publicly owned, S-word squishing in our shoes as we tiptoe past Mr Greenspan's neighborhood?

This one deserves its own thread too! I hope you will start one :)

[Selwynn]

16. I don't believe in group rights

I know that deserves explaination, and I know this deserves another thread /sigh...

But I'm going to be out all weekend. Counter-protesting Fred Phelp's rallys in my hometown this weekend.

If you start one, PM me the link.

[Selwynn]

3. Free speech should also carry with it the implict personal requirement...

...for responsible speech.

No, you can't legislate responsible speech, but as individuals we should pursue it. Rather than act is though it is our god-given right to speak without knowing that the hell we're talking about, we ought to inwardly feel an "with rights comes responsibility" sort of feeling in governing our own speech choices...

But the government can't legislate that kind of judgment, and the government must protect individual free speech, even when that individual probably ought to keep his/her mouth shut.

[baldguy]

4. the 1st amendment is fine.

It's the way it's interpreted & ignored by the crypto-facist corporate ologarcy that we live in. Individual free speech is a thing of the past.

[Democrats unite]

5. It has worked up intil Chimp stole the office

Instead of redoing the 1st Amendment, lets do away with the chimp!

[knight_of_the_star]

7. HELL YEAH BROTHER!

First Amendment is FINE as it is!

[many a good man]

6. Free Speech is supposed to be about...

...POLITICAL SPEECH. It should be allowed in ANY public area.

But its not about self-expression (exotic dancing?) or campaign finance ($$$) or dirty tee shirts. Corporations aren't people and shouldn't get the same free speech (and other) rights. These bogus distortions devalue the importance of free political expression and the exchange of ideas.

[Kremer]

8. When we get it; we'll talk then!

[Muddleoftheroad]

11. Campaign finance IS political speech

If a group of friends of mine decide that we want to oppose a bill or a congressman, we should have the right to get together and do so. The campaign finance laws as they are inhibit free political speech.

And, yes, freedom of speech IS also about T-Shirts.

[DuctapeFatwa]

13. oh you mischievous Muddles, it is and it isn't but it is meaty

and deserves its own thread or twelve.

I am not really a fan of campaign finance at all. I think it can best be reformed by eliminating it altogether.

The airways are public, and I have no problem with requiring them to allocate a certain amount of time, free of charge, to you and your friends as well as the group of friends who support your guy's opponent.

What I think the tough question on this is, how can you both get a fair and equal chance to get your message out to the voters in a society where Crest has been shown to be an effective decay preventive dentifrice when used in a conscientiously applied program of oral hygiene and regular professional care, if you get my drift.

[Muddleoftheroad]

14. What I would support

Is much higher level of funding if you can grab a set percentage of voters.

You could do that by winning a primary or by petition. I would say at least 3%, maybe 5%.

With the rise of cable in this country, why not create an election station that is bipartisan. It could show debates, speeches, etc.

[DuctapeFatwa]

17. My problem with that is that I want to get off the hamster wheel

that says percentage of voters gets more money, voters only know Crest, only Crest gets money, and we never know how many people might like Aqua-Fresh better if they tasted it.

Until we have a true multi-party system, with all the mess and noise and trash all over the floor that that implies, we cannot really claim to be a Democracy.

What we have now is essentially a one-party system made to look like two so that people have an illusion of choice.

Listen to the mainstream Democrats, so nervous that they might be perceived as being too far from bush - and with reason - the voters are so conditioned to EXPECT only minor, mostly cosmetic differences in their candidate choices. Anyone who proposes CHANGE, regime change, changing government, the very power that, when in the hands of the people, is supposed to define a democracy, is automatically dismissed as "unelectable."

If you haven't read it yet, click over to Asia Times and read Henry Liu's latest little symphony. He has some very chewy reflections on just how "democratic" the infamous founding fathers intended the country to be. I posted it on here a while ago, it is long, Henry loves his words, but it is worth the time to read, as is the rest of his stuff.

[Bronco69]

9. What is this "Free Speech" thing you're talking about?

It seems like a pretty good concept, I would like to try it sometime.

[JohnLocke]

10. Other: The 1st Amendment is too vague.

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. kick for the East Coast