Commonly Misunderstood.............

[Dinarhead]

Our freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, is one of our most basic constitutional rights. Yet the precise nature of what is protected by the First Amendment is often misunderstood.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution says that Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of "speech." Close attention to these few important words reveals several issues demanding interpretation and clarification.

The language is a prohibition on Congressional action. The First Amendment applies only when Congress passes a law abridging speech. Suppressions of speech are not violations of the First Amendment unless the State does the suppressing. The State could be either the Federal government or (now) a State government. Many mistakenly think that any suppression of speech, including suppression by private citizens, violates the First Amendment. Such a private action might be objectionable for ethical or social reasons, but it does not present a constitutional issue.

Why it is that one might still object to these private suppressions of speech, even when the government is not involved. Are these ethical concerns? If so, what ethical principles are at stake? Should all citizens be urged on moral grounds to allow freedom of expression by all of their fellow citizens and not attempt to suppress that speech as private citizens?

Would the First Amendment be improved if it prohibited abridgement of speech by anyone, not just Congress? Should every citizen have a right to say anything at all with no suppression by fellow citizens? Are there times when private citizens not only could but should suppress the speech of their fellow citizens?

Controversies about speech protected by the First Amendment seem to arise because the speech at issue is unpopular or controversial or highly offensive for various reasons. Yet a hallmark of the Bill of Rights is protection of minority views. If the First Amendment only protected popular speech, supported by the majority of citizens, then the constitutional protection would not be needed. Instead we could simply have a referendum with the majority deciding which speech should be allowed. In a sense, of course, Congressional representation constitutes a majority referendum. If the majority of citizens is presumed to speak through Congress, and if a majority of Congress votes to ban certain speech, then the First Amendment intervenes to prohibit that

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

I do not know what the issue actually was with the Mods leaving/getting banned or whatever. But I do know that Bang titled his exit post "Freedom Of Speech". Then there were a few replies..................................

I apologize in advance to anyone who has read this before in a earlier post of mine. I felt that it was warranted, to post this again, because of recent events.

I am not going anywhere as I feel at home here and I do not like to run from my problems. Learned behaviour I guess.

I will TERRIBLY miss Riley and I hope she will come back someday. She is a "classy Texas lady" and I miss her already.

RV ON!!!!! Dinarhead out!

[umbertino]

Thanks.Appreciated.

[BlueJeanBaby]

That was exactly my point in the other thread, where I used the Don Imus debacle from a few years ago as an example of where freedom of speech was NOT the issue.

When Imus said what he said, he DID have the right to say it. However, as his employer, CBS had the right to deem his views and statements while on the clock and as an employee of CBS as inappropriate, and so they fired him ... as is THEIR right as employer. That kerfuffle was not a freedom of speech issue; it was an employer-dissatisfied-with-employee issue.

Yes, we have freedom of speech here in the U S of A. This means that I can walk up to any elected official and tell them that I think they're doing a bad job without fear of being thrown in jail and having my tongue cut out. Freedom of speech does, however, operate within boundaries, parameters, rules and other things we call 'laws', which is why it's illegal to stand up in a crowded theater and shout "FIRE!!!"

There's a gray area of misunderstanding, and what happened here isn't censorship. It's the management making an executive decision, as is their right.

GO RV !!!!

Edited June 22, 2011 by BlueJeanBaby

[Dinarhead]

That kerfuffle was not a freedom of speech issue; it was an employer-dissatisfied-with-employee issue.

World English Dictionary

kerfuffle , carfuffle or kurfuffle (kəˈfʌf ə l)

— n

1. informal chiefly ( Brit ) commotion; disorder; agitation

— vb

2. ( Scot ) ( tr ) to put into disorder or disarray; ruffle or disarrange

[from Scottish curfuffle, carfuffle, from Scottish Gaelic car twist, turn + fuffle to disarrange]

Very nice verbage!

[BlueJeanBaby]

I thank you for the kind words. It seems properly fitting, seeing as how I've always had a fondness and a wee small soft spot for all things Gaelic or Scots in nature.

Ye will have a verra blessed day, won't ye, then luv?