Freedom of Speech

[Cherub]

Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship). The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights) and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights), although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country, although the degree of freedom varies greatly. Industrialized countries also have varying approaches to balance freedom with order. For instance, the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. In almost all liberal democracies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy), it is generally recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule; nevertheless, compliance with this principle is often lacking.

[Cherub]

What does this mean to you personally?

[EMUJeff]

:slider_yourock:Wow, here's a can of worms. So let me dig in to that pile of yummy, squiggly buggers.
Of the 26 Amendments to the Consititution few matter more than the first.
In there are our rights to peaceably assemble, petition the Government for redress of issues, freedom from and yet to free exercise of religion, AND primary to them all, ther right to fee speech.
Down through the 22 or so decades that have passed since this document was enacted, there have been ebbs and neap tides in the battle to keep our speech free. And there are certain restrictions on it, according to where one is and how one expresses ones self. It is a right that has been preverted to mean the expression of anything even though the framers clearly meant it for political and social speech not so Madonna can print a book where she gets neked (spelling intentional).
Leaving all that to a side, I feel that unless we are able to speak up freely, most especially in the areas of politics and social issues, tyranny can't be far behind. I'm not all up for some of the ideas that are espoused in the public forum, but I have to, like Voltaire, stand up and support the right to express even drivel when it is suppressed. I think that some things just don't have any solution if we don't take the time to try to relate our differences in a respectful enviroment. I honestly feel that if people felt they were being heard and if they saw movement to try and compromise where possible, we would live in a more reasonable, well mannered, and satisfied society. Everyone can't win every argument and sometimes the solution doesn't lie in the middle ground.
Henry Hyde, a southern Senator was the perfect example of this idea. He had a rather strident view on the issue of abortion. He felt absolutly one way regarding that issue. But when a bill came before him that conceided some but not all points in his direction he voted for it. He knew that getting some of the way down the road was better than getting nowhere. He also knew that this country is never finished with any issue. At most a stand on many issues abides for twenty years or so. Ultimately, almost all the battles are refought over and over. So you take your wins where you can and keep offering the logic of your position in the hope that, at some point, your position will be seen in the eye of the majority.
Today Senator Hyde would have grave difficulties. Where proposals are made in areas like immigration or the war there is no consideration of the compromises because the airwaves are blasted with vitreole that discounts the opinions of others. There is little give and take. And the offering of ideas instead of cute phrases is all but absent. Even the idea that there can be more than two ways of doing something seems to have vanished from the so-called "dialogue" we have as a country.
Ultimately, I don't feel the founders of this nation didn't ratify the Bill of Rights so people could vote for "American Idol" or watch slasher-porn at the local theatre. I guess that's just a "happy" residual. They worked out this system that has bumps and bruises so we could deal with the real issues of the day and do so in an enviroment of mutual respect and ideas. They did this so the debate wouldn't be controled by talking heads, but the minds of the people and their leaders in a give and take. So there would be a forum where we could finally come to solutions instead of positions.
I recommend for the general populace Penguin books copies of "The Federalist Paper" and, not surprisingly, "The Anti-Federalist Papers" that can be found in abundance at most used paperback bookstores.
Just my two cents.
EMUJeff

:slider_usaflag1:
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.

[Harrison]

I really like this:


Henry Hyde knew that getting some of the way down the road was better than getting nowhere.

[Harrison]

And there are certain restrictions on it, according to where one is and how one expresses one's self.


And I especially agree with this.