1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Freedom of Speech

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by vyo476, May 15, 2007.

  1. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    How do you feel about the recent rash of firings of radio "shock jocks" like Don Imus who use racial slurs on air? Is this a violation of their First Amendment rights or is it a perfectly justified move on the part of their employers?

    Personally I think the firings have been justified. The First Amendment is meant to protect people from government prosecution; it doesn't say anything about when your employer can and can't fire you, and if we start referring to First Amendment troubles over things like this, soon it won't be possible for employers to fire their employees at all - and that wouldn't be productive.
     
  2. Kelly

    Kelly New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    183
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    I pretty much agree with you about the firings being justified, but I definitely think that big corporations should NOT be able to deprive employees of the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. It doesn't upset me that Imus was fired for his stupid, tasteless comment, but he (along with everyone else on the radio) should be able to say whatever they want on air. So, that's a tough one to have a definitive opinion on. Also, companies obviously take total advantage of their employees for the cheapest price possible. I don't think it would be unproductive to keep them from firing people at will. Screw the companies! They work people like slaves and fire them before they're fully vested in their pensions all too often. It's debatable, but I think big companies are actually counter-productive when it comes to things like the economy, innovation, and the general well-being of the population.
     
  3. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,513
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The 2nd amendment is simply a promise that the government won't come after you if you speak out against it. It should not be construed as a licence to say whatever you like without consequence. Private individuals are not prevented from taking action against you when you say stupid stuff.
     
  4. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Exactly, and I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you meant "first" and not "2nd."
     
  5. top gun

    top gun New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Messages:
    4,940
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Ohio, USA
    You're absolutely right and you hit the nail right on the head. You can say anything you want (except to slander or induce panic) that's protected. The government can't come after you for speaking your mind.

    However your conduct in the work place is a whole different set of rules. You can't cuss out clients or co-workers and call that free speech. You can't say things that are against your company's code of conduct or that cost the company money and say... it's a "free speech" issue you can't fire me over it. Some jobs even have morality clauses which bind you even off the job.

    None of these are Constitutional issues. Seems from the posts I've read we have a reasonable and intelligent board on this.
     
  6. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    No corporations deprived Don Imus of any of his rights. He can still say whatever the hell he wants - he just doesn't have access to their multi-billion dollar broadcasting studio to subject other people to what he has to say over a radio anymore. His rights have not been infringed upon.

    Can't have your cake and eat it too. Sorry. I love cake too.

    Without threat of retribution for poor performance, workers become lax. They don't have anything to lose by being lazy as hell since they can't be fired...so they lounge around being lazy as hell rather than doing their jobs.

    Tell you what. Go to McDonald's. Order your food. While you're eating it, ask yourself how you'd feel if you walked into McDonald's, ordered your food, and they just flipped you off and started throwing french fries at each other. You'd be pretty mad, right? Well, without firing ability, the people above them wouldn't have any real way to discipline them for such behavior.

    I'm not a fan of big business either, but its here to stay. Piss off big business too much and big business will go elsewhere - and leave our economy in ruins.
     
  7. TVoffBrainOn

    TVoffBrainOn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    imagine if you really looked at the 2nd amendment that way....

    because last time i checked the 2nd amendment had nothing to do with free speech.

    the way conservatives can be so vague and flimsy on the 1st amendment and look at the 2nd amendment as ironclad humors me to no end.
     
  8. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    That is partially how the founding fathers looked at the 2nd Amendment. Think about what the American Revolution was - a group of English subjects rising up and throwing the British out of North America. Up until then the British government had been perfectly legal in America, but when the Americans declared it to be unjust the British lost the consent of the governed; in the eyes of the people they were then tyrannical oppressors.

    The same could well happen with our own federal government; if it became too corrupt, too backwardly fascistic and oppressive, the founding fathers intended for the people to be able to rise up and ouster the government by force of arms. Of course, that was a helluva lot more plausible in the eighteenth century than it is now, but...well, that was the intent.

    I'm pretty sure he meant "1st" but I could be wrong.
     
  9. TVoffBrainOn

    TVoffBrainOn Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2007
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    i know he meant first, i just found the irony in it.

    how much more corrupt and backwardly fascistic can it get without openly calling itself a defacto fascist state?
     
  10. Cheshire Cat

    Cheshire Cat New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Wonderland
    What recent rash?
    1 idiot got fired.
    I'd be happy if they fired 90% of the talking heads on the TV to, they are just as stupid.
     
  11. Fred

    Fred New Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    why do any of you OWN TVS? 1984 man 1984


    I cover my monitor in foil when im not using it

    all my windows are foiled too the Elf gets ya man they are tracking you
     
  12. Justinian

    Justinian New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    What's left of Long Island
    Thought this might make you think and help you

    You know, freedom is a funny thing. It's definition, use and ideology has changed over the years in America with many people caught in a current without the understanding of what Liberty is and how the practice of liberty works. My discussion I'm bringing you today my associates and colleagues more specifically has to do with how the political environment affects Freedom and its opposite, control. I'm going to start with an observation which I think most of you will agree with, Leftist or Hawk. Today, the definition of freedom by consensus is becoming more and more simply the opposite or protagonist of any form of adherence. A simple, understanding example off the top of my head is the fight against religion. There are many "Freedom-Lovers" in America that believe Religion is so absolute and instructive; it acts as a form of mind-control. On the right side, there are people that believe the media is a form of control. Both are subjects that have the power to influence and motivate but they both have nothing to do with the other and are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. How can this be? So many people will tell you how controlling the left side of the spectrum is with its anti-majority laws, its lies and agendas when the conservative side is just as controlling but in different, more conventional ways. A lot of people will say the left side is the absence of elimination of almost any form of control (this is a big part of their base too) which is really a mythical lie.

    What I'm leading to here folks is pure freedom in ANY form is a complete myth. And I'm not talking about the understood truth people have to abide by the law, the truth is in one way or another in every facet of life, people are subjects of control. So lets look at how freedom is affected and changed going from one side of the spectrum to the other. I would start from left to right to be fair even though I'm a conservative but I think explaining it from right to left would make it far easier to explain my argument.

    Now, don't get me wrong folks. I'm definitely a Christian. I go to church, pay my dues, read the bible, etc. But when I'm discussing politics, I look at religion as a gear in the country's essential inner-workings. Since practically the beginning, there has always been religion. Religion is always useful to the government in that it keeps country's crime down, and unites its countrymen to more easily serve if war should be declared. Religion, whether you are a follower of one or not (I strongly urge you to be) works for the government as a form of control. Religion motivates groups of people to do things unanimously. But it is also a thread of beliefs and religious people frown on individual thinking and individual beliefs. Obviously, Religion is a powerful form of control. Every Empire and country that ever was had an official religion in one form or another on top of its laws. This has always been only up until recently. There are many people today that will look at history and argue that religious fervor has made people do things that were unfair or unjustified such as the Spanish inquisitions or the Muslim and Christian conversion campaigns. This in my argument represents the voice of my above definition of modern day freedom.
    This voice is the yearning of the human spirit to break free of its mold that has essentially 'imprisoned and chained us' since the beginning. This is also the same voice that blurs the face of the country's citizen as well as enemy. "If we could all realize religion is an evil that drives all mankind apart, perhaps then we can finally understand the obvious truth that we're all humans and no different than each other". Another platform these new breeds have taken is "The Planet not just belongs to us but it belongs to all the living creatures which, we're fortunate for their survival. We have a responsibility to share this world and keep it habitable for all living things, and not be misled by our only being responsible for our selfish selves." Now that's freedom, right? As you can plainly see, both sides are built on control with the Right taking the biggest hit in the western world today. But to argue against this logic for a second (because I am a strong believer in the conservative philosophy), I believe a conservative society although slightly fascist lives with just as much freedom as a liberal society. It's no secret that much of freedom is based on the fragile enactment of...trust. Society today is like a big prison. When someone really goes to jail, they are stripped of most of their rights. It's the same outside when a small number of outcasts break that trust except the rights stripped aren't as severe BUT encompass (most of the time) everybody. So leftist society is not as free as people think or think it should be.

    So now we come down to the question. Since both extremes lead to control, should the ideal society be
    A. A society and government of enlightened moderation,
    B. A society and government governed by either extreme,
    C. A society of moderation backed by a government of an extreme, or
    D. A society controlled by an understood, common, extreme view backed by a moderate operating government? In this question that should make you think for a while, I think I'm between B and C leaning more towards C. I didn't put down as a choice a country where the government and people both conduct on extremes but the opposite because you really can't have such a country. It just isn't possible unless the country's people are oppressed or moving towards a civil war.

    So basically, [without going into causes, consequences or any specifics which I've avoided here but write about frequently in the other threads] once you've gotten up to this point and understand there is no such thing as real freedom in a Republic or Democracy and control is a part of human nature, which extreme is the best and holds the most freedom? What it looks like is you start from the right seeing a rigid, but unified, like-minded, homogenous society that have an understood code of morality and values; whom detest foreigners and foreign ways. The people are proud nationalists with a strong sense of identity as well as endurance. Foreigners, if they exist at all in the country are oppressed and not welcome to immigrate. From here you move towards more women in the workplace, the change of the man being the essential leader of the household, the adoption of more or numerous religions and people (especially the favor of the immigration of intelligent, educated people from any background), the emergence of the belief in racial and sexual equality, etc. America basically wrote the book on this. This would be the middle drifting a little to the left. From here it moves to freedom of expression, the promotion of multiculturalism, the breakdown of censorship, laws protecting or favoring subgroups to combat oppression, grander political compromise, foreign groups dominating or running industries, etc. Now you move to the far-far left. Oh, boy. In a country that's evolved to the far-far left, you have attacks and cover-ups on national history, the expansion of followers in the idea of a war-ridden Global Economy and Government with uniform laws and Acts, the endorsement of the elimination of national choice and decision-making, constant civil unrest, public indoctrination, pronounced territorialism including possible racial and religious slaughter, etc.
     
Loading...

Share This Page