Free speech

From: Steve Chew (schew@interzone.com)
Date: Thu Mar 25 2004 - 15:12:24 EST

  • Next message: ytsejam@torchsong.com: "YTSEJAM digest 6826"

    >
    >>1) Oppose Infringement on the First Amendment (via ACLU)
    >>Instead of letting each of us choose what we want to watch and hear,
    >>Congress is moving quickly to require large fines on indecent
    >>content. This economic censorship would dramatically infringe on the
    >>First Amendment and would hinder the diversity of programming available
    >>to consumers.
    >
    >oh baloney. The first ammendment was designed to protect political speech,
    >not the broadcasting over public airways of detailed descriptions and
    >depictions of expliclty sexual acts by morning radio personalities. If you
    >want access to public debauchery on the public airways, then just say so.
    >Don't mask it behind some fallacious claiim of first ammendment rights.
    >

            The first amendment was most certainly not designed to *only*
    protect political speech. Read it. It is directly concerned with
    freedom of expression through religion, the media ("the press"), and
    speech in general. The supreme court has affirmed the idea that the
    first amendment applies to all kinds of speech over and over again --
    look up examples like the overturning of the ban of "The Catcher in
    the Rye," allowing the sale of magazines like Playboy, overturning
    the Communications Decency Act, and so on.
            Read the Federalist Papers for some really interesting insights
    into how much thought went into the founding principles of the
    US government.

    >If you were that concerned about the first ammendment, you'd be out their
    >pinching a fit about the advertising restrictions in the McCain-Feingold
    >campaing finance bill.
    >
            The courts have allowed some impositions on speech (e.g. can't
    yell "fire" in a crowded theater, obscenity with no artistic or other
    merit is not permitted), though it's not yet clear that they will allow
    this particular one.
            The first amendment is particularly important when protecting
    speech that is not liked by everybody (e.g. indecent speech). There is
    no need to protect speech which everyone likes after all.

                                    Steve

    P.S. In case you can't find it here is the text of the first amendment:

    "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."



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 19:14:47 EST