but do most here who came to be liberal even know what there saying.
i think not
the ones here dont seem to have much clue or credability imo
technically though most everyone here has a little liberalism in them
for me it would be the right to bear arms which they are suppose to protect and freedom of speech ,
to others it maybe the right to grow their own dope(weed)
there's alittle lib in all ,but most dont get it.
i think not
the ones here dont seem to have much clue or credability imo
technically though most everyone here has a little liberalism in them
for me it would be the right to bear arms which they are suppose to protect and freedom of speech ,
to others it maybe the right to grow their own dope(weed)
there's alittle lib in all ,but most dont get it.
Most who call themselves conservatives and liberals have taken plays right out of the media playbook and just cut the other down. If people would just sit back and think about how they are categorizing themselves they would be ashamed. How can so many believe the exact same things the exact same way. It is sad.
I agree that most don't have credibility.
I agree that most don't have credibility.
Who told you to say that? Seriously, it's so cliche to say something's cool when someone else says it, such an act of puppetry.
The funny thing about it is that I agreed with what you said and was simply responding to fivedoorsdown, but you apparently are a person that's not comfortable in your beliefs if you saw that as an attack on you.
Restrictions on free speech<TABLE class="metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-content"><TBODY><TR><TD class=ambox-image>
</TD><TD class=ambox-text>This article needs additional citations for verification.
<SMALL>Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)</SMALL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Socialists have historically been denied freedom of speech in a number of countries. This poster promotes Eugene V. Debs' (left) 1912 bid for President of the United States. In 1920 Debs ran again but while incarcerated for speaking out against American involvement in World War I.
Ever since the first consideration of the idea of 'free speech' it has been argued that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions. A well-known example is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow falsely "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" (Schenck v. United States - a case relating to the distribution of anti-draft fliers during the World War I). Other limiting doctrines, including those of libel and obscenity, can also restrict freedom of speech. The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was "likely to incite imminent lawless action". To the extent speech may be regulated, it ordinarily must be regulated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. In the United States, when a government proscribes certain speech based on the content, the regulation is presumptively unconstitutional.<SUP>[1]</SUP>
Various governing, controlling, or otherwise powerful bodies in many places around the world, have attempted to change the opinion of the public or others by taking action that allegedly disadvantages one side of the argument. This attempt to assert some form of control through control of discourse has a long history and has been theorized extensively by philosophers like Michel Foucault. Many consider these attempts at controlling debate to be attacks on free speech, even if no direct government censorship of ideas is involved.
Restrictions on speech that are sometimes characterized as assaults on freedom of speech include the following:
There is often a fine line defining what speech may or may not be censored. Members of Westboro Baptist Church frequently challenge this line and have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.
<SUP>%^_</SUP>
</TD><TD class=ambox-text>This article needs additional citations for verification.
<SMALL>Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2007)</SMALL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Socialists have historically been denied freedom of speech in a number of countries. This poster promotes Eugene V. Debs' (left) 1912 bid for President of the United States. In 1920 Debs ran again but while incarcerated for speaking out against American involvement in World War I.
Ever since the first consideration of the idea of 'free speech' it has been argued that the right to free speech is subject to restrictions and exceptions. A well-known example is typified by the statement that free speech does not allow falsely "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" (Schenck v. United States - a case relating to the distribution of anti-draft fliers during the World War I). Other limiting doctrines, including those of libel and obscenity, can also restrict freedom of speech. The case Brandenburg v. Ohio found that the US government could restrict free speech only if it was "likely to incite imminent lawless action". To the extent speech may be regulated, it ordinarily must be regulated in a viewpoint-neutral manner. In the United States, when a government proscribes certain speech based on the content, the regulation is presumptively unconstitutional.<SUP>[1]</SUP>
Various governing, controlling, or otherwise powerful bodies in many places around the world, have attempted to change the opinion of the public or others by taking action that allegedly disadvantages one side of the argument. This attempt to assert some form of control through control of discourse has a long history and has been theorized extensively by philosophers like Michel Foucault. Many consider these attempts at controlling debate to be attacks on free speech, even if no direct government censorship of ideas is involved.
Restrictions on speech that are sometimes characterized as assaults on freedom of speech include the following:
- Defamation (slander and libel)
- Product defamation (criticism of commercial products; sometimes called product libel or product disparagement; for example, the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act)
- Obscenity
- Lying in court (perjury)
- Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court
- Speaking about a trial outside the court room after the judge forbids it (subjudicy).
- Speaking publicly without a permit
- Speaking publicly outside of a free speech zone
- Limits on the size of public demonstrations
- Profanity
- Hate speech that is defamatory or causes incitement to violence
- Noise pollution
- Speech that contains a copyright infringement
- Company secrets (trade secrets), such as how a product is made or company strategy (Example: Seven herbs and spices of KFC chicken)
- Political secrets: campaign strategies, dirty past/deeds of a politician, etc.
- Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest.<SUP>[2]</SUP>
- Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater
- Fighting words doctrine
U.S. 1942) "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" - Sedition: speech or organization (vs Freedom of Assembly) that is deemed as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws.
- Treason: to talk publicly of the death of all countrymen or the overthrow of the government
- Blasphemy is illegal in several Western and Muslim countries (freedom of religion as well as speech could be given here)
- The first clause of UK's Terrorism Act 2006 punishes "Encouragement of terrorism" with up to seven years in jail.
- In Sweden a law called "Hets mot folkgrupp" ("Agitation against an ethnic group"), usually translated to hate speech, denies promotion of racism and homophobia.
- In Finland, a new copyright law was enacted in October 2005, which prohibited "services making possible or facilitating the circumvention of effective technical [copy prevention] measures". (See 2005 amendment to the Finnish Copyright Act and Penal Code)
- Article 301 of the Turkish Penal code, makes it illegal to insult 'Turkishness'.
- Virginia Law - § 18.2-416. Punishment for using abusive language to another.
There is often a fine line defining what speech may or may not be censored. Members of Westboro Baptist Church frequently challenge this line and have been specifically banned from entering Canada for hate speech.
- Gunns Limited, a Timber and woodchip product company in Australia (Gunns Website) is suing 17 individual activists, including Federal Greens Senator Bob Brown, as well as three non-profit environmental groups, for over 7.8 million dollars. Gunns claims that the defendants have sullied their reputation and caused them to lose profits, the defendants claim that they are simply protecting the environment. The defendants have become collectively known as the Gunns 20 (Friends of the Gunns 20). Although this example involves a private law suit, not government censorship, some claim that it is an abuse of defamation law, since it ties up the environmental activists in court proceedings, during which time Gunns may build a pulp mill in northern Tasmania. According to this view, the plaintiffs are not genuinely seeking to vindicate their reputations and they are seeking to scare off other activists with the prospect of ruinous legal expense. Such cases raise interesting questions about the extent to which powerful corporate interests should have access to defamation law.
- In the UK Parliament passed the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act in 2005 banning protest without permit within 1km of Parliament. The first conviction under the Act was in December 2005, when Maya Evans was convicted for reading the names of British soldiers and Iraqi civilians killed in the Iraq War, under the Cenotaph in October, without police permission.<SUP>[3]</SUP>
- In Italy, media Tycoon Silvio Berlusconi censored the satirical Raiot series by Sabina Guzzanti after the first broadcast on RAI (the state TV), arguing that it was plain vulgarity and disrespectful to the government. As his company Mediaset threatened a lawsuit for €21,000,000, the RAI board of directors, appointed by Berlusconi's political majority, closed the series effective immediately, claiming that such a lawsuit was an economic liability for the company. Ms. Guzzanti went to court and won the case, but the Italian government and RAI refused to follow the court order and the show never went on air again. Berlusconi had previously had two highly esteemed journalists (Michele Santoro and Enzo Biagi) and a comedy actor (Daniele Luttazzi) removed from RAI by saying explicitly, in a press conference in Bulgaria, that the new board of directors, which his majority had just appointed, should not allow their "criminal usage" of television.<SUP>[4]</SUP>
- In some European countries, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence. A prominent proponent of this view, David Irving, was sentenced for 3 years in Austria for denying the Holocaust in February, 2006.
- In many countries, public school teachers have limited freedom of speech, both on and off the job, regarding certain issues (e.g., homosexuality). Canadian Chris Kempling was suspended without pay for writing letters, on his own time, to a local newspaper to object to LGBT-related material being introduced into public schools. Kempling pursued the freedom of speech issue all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada without success.
- Some consider the deportation of a foreign peace activist Scott Parkin from Australia in September 2005 to have been an attack on free speech, claimed by the federal government to be a risk to national security.
- Prominent South African journalist and media personality, Jani Allan, has criticized freedom of speech in South Africa. In October 2000, when her contract with Cape Talk Radio was terminated, she claimed that the owners had found her show too controversial and "politically incorrect". [5]
- In 2008 the Electoral Finance Act was voted into law by the New Zealand Government. This Act severely limits political expression during election year. [6]
- On January 27th, 2008, The Hong Kong Police Force arrested suspects who were accused of uploading pornographic images after a multi-billion entertainment company filed a complaint about these photos available on the internet having been fabricated and might charge the offender for defamation. [7] [8] [9]
- In the United States, there is no freedom of speech whatsoever in the private sector. For example, per the terms of at-will employment, an employee can be fired for stating an opinion that the employer disagrees with.
<SUP>%^_</SUP>
