On Freedom of Speech

[fire_of_avalon]

And if they were?

If they were funded through grant money, then whatever she does with her art is legal, unless it breaks stipulations of the grant contract. If she was contracted by the local government to create something for the public, then her work is technically no longer her own and if the greater amount of that public finds it offensive, then there are legal actions that can be taken to remove it.

If tax dollars were spent to create something for public benefit that the public finds offensive, that is a valid reason for removal. If the artist is awarded a government grant and then exhibits offensive artwork in a public exhibit, there is no valid reason for removal. That's what I meant.

The ACLU ensures that anyone who must have dealings with US law will have those dealings carried out in a reasonable manner similar to that of a US Citizen.

[AkiraMakie]

I wish freedom of speech was limited, people cant say anti-american comments.

you must be part of that 50 percent of high schoolers who think that we have to much freedom of speach. not to be offensive but... ARE YOU CRAZY!?

The very reason you are able to make the comments you make on this message board is because you have free speach. If you didnt, and the government didnt like what you said, they could kick down your door and lock you away for voicing your opinion.

Geez, wahts wrong with our generation. Or maybe you like just being told that America is great, and, maybe you dont want to have an opinion of your own.

[LH]

Just a question in passing, was Maher serious or making a joke? He is a comedian, and oftentimes, comedians make statements such as these to provoke or to stimulate, not really to be taken seriously.

He was serious when he said it. What he said was that all the buzz going around that the hijackers were nothing but cowards was wrong. Hijacking a plane and sacrificing your life for what you believe in is not cowardly, so what he said was totally correct. In fact, it takes a lot of courage to sacrifice yourself for your cause, even if it is misguided. In a typical display of ignorance and stupidity that large groups of people are known for, Maher's show was cancelled and his character was torn apart by the media.

OOC:

This paraphrasing people as saying "AMERIKKKA DESRVED 911 LOL!!1" is getting a bit silly. You will have a hard time finding someone who believes that the terrorists were 100% justified in killing a few thousand innocent citizens. I think what you mean is that people believe that America provoked an attack on itself by interjecting into the business of other sovereign nations.

[Raistlin]

IMO I hate the ACLU, but its why we have our first-amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly. ACLU defends what people say, like what Neo Nazis say, KKK, and what left wing nuts like what Ward Churchill says about 'America deserved 9/11' and etc. I wish freedom of speech was limited, people cant say anti-american comments.

Everything you say there scares me, quite literally. Everybody, absolutely everybody, has a right to say what they think in a reasonable manner.

The ACLU even filed a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional. They're a terrorist group, everything they say, and as much as the U.S. government does to protect us. They're not helping at all

Did you just call the ACLU a terrorist group? You've got to be kidding.

Enemy combatants deserve lawyers, its unconstitutional to be imprisoned without trial, when they're enemies of war! POWs.

Ever heard of the Geneva convention?

I'll have a more well thought-out response when I'm not at work.

[DocFrance]

Thanks for all the great responses, guys, even though I don't agree with some of them.

I should not that I also posed this question at a more conservative board that I visit, and, surprisingly, the responses I got were pretty similar.

I'm not trying to say that freedom of speech should be limited (except for unprotected speech, like I already said). Perhaps I came across as saying differently. My beef is that the people of this city didn't want their tax dollars going towards displaying that message, so they petitioned to have it removed. But now the ACLU is forcing the people to continue paying for it. I could really care less about what the message was, now. Idiots have every right in the world to spout of nonense and tripe.

And yes, taking the Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to it would be pretty immature and unlawful. Instead, I should erect a monument right next to it to Capt Lance Sijan, a pilot in Vietnam who died in a POW camp.

[Raistlin]

Even conservatives have some modicum of sense. Which makes it astounding to consider that they passed the Patriot Act.

[Skogs]

49% of Americans are paying taxes towards an administration that they didn't want and don't support.

Welcome to democracy.

[Big D]

[q=noname]I wish freedom of speech was limited, people cant say anti-american comments.
... for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional. They're a terrorist group[/q]So basically... people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with their government? Anyone who doesn't like US foreign policy is a terrorist, and thus deserves to be imprisoned without trial or representation?
Liberal democracy at its finest:rolleyes2

There are many Western countries with less freedom of speech than the US. The United States, to its credit, has had a strong history of promoting individual freedoms. In other countries, however, the tort of defamation prevents people from saying things that portray others in a bad way, unless those things are true or based on a reasonably-held belief. Freedom of speech is limited, insofar as you're not allowed to defame others without risking a lawsuit. The only people with unrestricted freedom of speech are members of parliament speaking under parliamentary privilege, but even then they're open to criticism if they abuse that privilege in order to slander others.

[Casey]

Jesus you guys, your quoting me off the hezzy, when Ive stated after Ive said that,

" but its why we have our first-amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly" ... "But that signifys what a great country we live in today."

People can say anything they want after all its their ''freedom''.

you must be part of that 50 percent of high schoolers who think that we have to much freedom of speach. not to be offensive but... ARE YOU CRAZY!?

The very reason you are able to make the comments you make on this message board is because you have free speach. If you didnt, and the government didnt like what you said, they could kick down your door and lock you away for voicing your opinion.

Geez, wahts wrong with our generation. Or maybe you like just being told that America is great, and, maybe you dont want to have an opinion of your own.

Yes, maybe you should read my post again, rather then making that assumption. I stated a opinion, and then I said that's why we have are first amendment rights, and anyone can say any damn thing they want these days. And now Im just repeating myself, and this is getting petty.

My beef is that the people of this city didn't want their tax dollars going towards displaying that message, so they petitioned to have it removed. But now the ACLU is forcing the people to continue paying for it. I could really care less about what the message was, now. Idiots have every right in the world to spout of nonense and tripe.

And yes, taking the Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to it would be pretty immature and unlawful. Instead, I should erect a monument right next to it to Capt Lance Sijan, a pilot in Vietnam who died in a POW camp.

I agree. Sounds like a good plan.

[fire_of_avalon]

I just don't see what they're paying for. The exhibit was public, and publically funded, and as far as I can tell, there were no "rules" on what could or could not be exhibited. People aren't paying for the creation of her work, and they're not paying for the exhibition of her work specifically. Should they completely remove her work, it would be basically the same thing as banning her from a public forum or town meeting. A place where tax payers dollars go to work, but everyone is allowed to say what they want.

As I said before, if tax dollars were going directly to the creation of her work for the public good, then there is reason for it to be removed. If she is displaying her work at a public exhibition, which I assume has already been fully funded, then there is no reason whatsoever for it to be removed.

That would be like this. In UNC Chapel Hill, there is an art museum. In this art museum, there are paintings (obviously). A student decides she doesn't like a painting because she feels it portrays women in a negative light. She complains. Do you honestly think the painting should be removed?

This is the same as book burning to me. Even if you don't like art, you've really no right to try and move it aside. Stuff like that makes you think. People don't like to think, even though it's good for them.

And your statue is a marvelous idea. I say go for it.

[DarkLadyNyara]

IMO I hate the ACLU, but its why we have our first-amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly. ACLU defends what people say, like what Neo Nazis say, KKK, and what left wing nuts like what Ward Churchill says about 'America deserved 9/11' and etc.

The ACLU even filed a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional. They're a terrorist group, everything they say, and as much as the U.S. government does to protect us. They're not helping at all. They dont even have a plan for fighting the war on terror, so I dont even see how they can say somthing like that.

Excuse me while I fall out of my chair laughing.

EDIT: Okay. I'm done. BTW, one of the founding principals of this country is that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW! That includes the president. And, besides, they also defend speech that they dont agree with, which I respect. Free speech is just that. Deal.

Please use the edit/delete button instead of double posting. ~ShlupQuack

[CloudSquallandZidane]

The only speech that should not be protected is the speech that tells people to hurt/discriminate others because of race, sexuality, creed, sexual and religious orientation. Did i miss anything?

[Doomgaze]

The only speech that should not be protected is the speech that tells people to hurt/discriminate others because of race, sexuality, creed, sexual and religious orientation.

I believe this is protected...

The only speech that should not be protected is the speech that tells people to hurt/discriminate others because of race, sexuality, creed, sexual and religious orientation. Did i miss anything?

...but this is not. I may be mistaken.

[Raistlin]

It's not. You can tell someone to discriminate. Once they do, however, it's a crime, and you could be a considered an accomplice.

[nik0tine]

It's not. You can tell someone to discriminate. Once they do, however, it's a crime, and you could be a considered an accomplice.

What? That's just not right. If I told someone that they should descriminate against blacks, and they did it, it would be a crime?

What if I told someone to descriminate against skin heads? If they did that, would it be a crime? And would I also be considered an accomplice? Please... A double standard like that should NOT exist.

(I, personally would never descriminate against blacks, or tell someone to. However, I WOULD descriminate against skin heads, and I would tell people to do it also, without thinking twice. That should not be a crime.)