Thread: Freedom of Speech

Okay, I didn't read all of the posts so far, don't have my glasses and working on my laptop made it too difficult when it got more on topic of Jews v. Palestinians.

First on issue of first ammendment. I belive it is the right to say, or print anything a person believes. Now I think that it should be applied to persons not media entities and respected members of the media and government, since they have undue sway and for some reason billions of people automatically give them the status of truth sayers.

Let me give you a couple of i.e. to show my thoughts. Howard Stern, I dislike much of what he says, find him abbrasive and often the essence of stupidity. But I not only support his right to say these things but am grateful that he keeps pushing the boundary of accepted first ammendments right. if nobody presses on the edges of the bubble it'll contract and there'll be no expanding it again.

next one, recently we had a vote on a proposition here in Kalifornia, to allow or disallow gay marriage. Now whatever your beliefs on this subject, and whether they are factually based or emotionally based, I like to think that everybody should make their decisions based on facts and the truth rather than propoganda and blatant lies. The reason it lost? Not because so many people believed that it was wrong, but because they had a campaign in the media saying that if it was legalized then schools would teach kids about gay marriage. PATENTLY UNTRUE. I belive that the media outlets should have disallowed broadcast of the commercials. I work for the schools, my wife is a teacher, we know they don't teach MARRIAGE in school. the state superintendent of schools said it wasn't true. but every person I know that didn't make a religious decision on the issue but voted against it did so because they believed this propoganda.

and by the way, I don't remember the part in the Bible where it says that if you get the result you want and it is in line with Biblical principles it doesn't matter how you got it.

I also agree with the statement that you should have freedom of persecution for what you say from the government, but not personally (from other people). i.e. slander, liable etc.

On the holocaust. I too have heard that the numbers are lower than stated, I don't believe this changes the evil of the act. I really HATE that Jewish people, and their most ardent supporters, get angry every time somebody uses the term holocaust comparitively. As if that specific attempt at genocide is the only one deserving of the title. In my mind it is an attempt to wipe out a single race from the face of the earth. If there are 2000 people and another ethnic group is trying to wipe them all out, that's genocide and fully deserving of a comparison to the holocaust. Why should Jewish people have exclusivity? and what is the point of bringing it up all the time to remind people that it shouldn't happen again. unless it is to say "look, look at what is happening, remember what happened before? it si starting again and it needs to be stopped".

last thing, I don't think freedom of speech extends to anything that directly infringes upon another person's person or property. i.e. graffiti, I don't care if people think it is a form of expression, if it ain't yours, don't express yourself on it.

Oh, just had another memory. I had a friend that broiught up the fact that Adolph Hitler was a charismatic and moving orator. he couldn't even make his supporting arguments before the other people at dinner with us freaked out and started in on him. His point was entirely valid, but the issue brought up such emotional response that nobody could see past it (excepting me who agreed that only somebody that charismatic could have moved a nation to support those policies).

that'll be my final point, emotion should be kept out of discussion as much as humanly possible, at least if you want anybody to take you seriously or you want to sway their opinion.

Red