The most basic liberties guaranteed to Americans – embodied in the 45 words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – is designed to assure Americans a government that is responsible to its citizens and responsive to their wishes.
Here’s how it has been twisted though, in modern times…
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-The First Amendment to the Constitution.
The first ten Amendments collectively are commonly known as the Bill of Rights.
These liberties are neither liberal nor conservative, Democratic nor Republican.
Here is one problem as I see it today…
UNCOMFORTABLE SPEECH
The 1st Amendment was meant to protect OFFENSIVE speech.
Don’t ever, ever forget that. Polite speech does not need protection…
For decades it has infiltrated our psyche that if we feel ‘uncomfortable’ with or ‘offended’ by something that someone else has said, that the other person is being bad, unreasonable, extreme, or non-social in his or her speech.
In our schools, in our jobs, in the news, in our conversations… people have been taught (brainwashed) that it is improper and offensive to say certain things, certain words, or to discuss certain topics, or to express certain views…
Instead (they say), we should be more sensitive and/or ‘politically correct’ or ‘PC’…
The First Amendment was meant to protect PRECISELY those things, those views, those words, those opinions… no matter how harsh they may seem to the ‘establishment’. We have the right as Americans to free speech – regardless of what others may think.
Don’t ever forget that.
That was today’s lesson from history…
All true, but the First Amendment only covers the Governments involvement (or lack of) in citizen’s discourse. It doesn’t cover citizens reactions to each other’s speech.
A lot of people I know seem to get that confused and think that they are free from repercussions regarding the things they say. I’ve seen people say things stupid enough to get themselves fired, punched, etc and then cry “don’t we have freedom of speech in this country?”
You have freedom of speech true. But we have a right not to listen to it. This is not a government site. So you can say your opinion all you want but the one in charge can delete it because it’s a free world. You can make your own website that presents your views. Nobody is stopping you from that.
Thanks for clarifying that, Tg. It is a common mistake that some people make while visiting/commenting on a website — assuming that if a comment becomes moderated or deleted, that it is a violation of their free speech or 1st Amendment rights. The First Amendment (and the rest of our rights) have to do with a ‘contract’ between the people and the GOV’T.
I purposely did not delete the comment from ‘KaK’ so as to point out how some people mistakenly react…
With regards to MSB, it’s pretty simple…
All one has to do is follow the Comment Policy & Community Standards.
(mostly common-sense stuff)
As a Veteran of the United States Military, I have put my life on the line for everyone to be able to say their views what way they seem fit to express them but there are two forms of speech I still think are not protected despite the Supreme Court saying otherwise. Flag Burning and So-Called Hate Speech. I can say this if I see anyone “improperly” Burning the US Flag I am going to put the flag out and give them a proper class on burning the flag at the end of my fist. As to Hate Speech, I wish there was a proper definition of that term because it has been left up to a personal interpretation as to what hate speech is. And is all I have to say
I came across this site today because I’m confused about the actions taken by the University of Ohio against the SAE fraternity. A video of them saying and singing all kinds of vile and racist things on a private charter bus was released, and the president of the school, a government organization, immediately announced that they would be kicked out of their frat house and that the SAE fraternity would not be allowed back on campus as long as he was president.
Because they are a government institution, are they allowed to punish people based on their speech, no matter how offensive? They could have accomplished the same thing by siting the closing of the house based on the national SAE fraternity, a private organization, dissolving the U of O chapter. I really don’t know if they have the legal right to close the frat house based on the speech alone because of the First Amendment. My first reaction is, good, screw them, but I agree that the amendment is there to protect offensive speech, and this seems like the kind of speech that fits the bill.