"Freedom of Speech in America"? A Conflicted Collection of Anomalies and Contradictions!
Consider the following anomalies, ambiguities and/or self-contradictory aspects of the so-called "freedom of speech" in America.
Exceptions to the First Amendment arose from litigation based ultimately on common sense as it applies to the potential dangers of unlimited free speech.
Speech, etc. that constitutes libel, slander, terroristic threats, dangers to public safety and welfare, and, "fighting words," for obvious reasons need to be restricted.
But under everyday circumstances, these restrictions are generally not only NOT IMPOSED, instead, for mostly partisan-political agenda reasons, the willful violation of these restrictions are defended and praised!
Consider restrictions imposed in judicial/legal venues where speech can be critical to outcomes … even outcomes that may involve life and death issues.
For instance, lying under oath is perjury for which there are strong sanctions. Statements made in trials or arbitrations that cannot be substantiated as being absolutely true or false, will be challenged by the prosecution or defense with "OBJECTION … SPECULATIVE" … which will more often than not be sustained unless clarified and verified.
And yet, THERE ARE NO MANDATORY PENALTIES FOR POLITICIANS WHO MISCHARACTERIZE OR OUTRIGHT LIE … WHO POSIT THE MOST SPECULATIVE BULLSHIT ASSERTIONS, WHO PROMISE WITHOUT SPECIFICATION AS TO LOGISTICS OR PLAN, PIE-IN-THE-SKY WISH LIST ITEMS OF THE WILLING-DUPE VOTER!
And RELIGIOUS DOGMA … albeit, from the inside, subjectively scrutinized, or, not subject to any scrutiny related to reality … promotes exclusivity, moral superiority, arbitrary classification and mischaracterizations, bases for political agendas …
So, while I see no hope for changing my characterization of Freedom of Speech in America … "A Conflicted Collection of Anomalies and Contradictions," I stand by that assertion, and …
Invite members of NT to comment thoughtfully on my assertion … positively, negatively … but intelligently and without acrimony or personal affronts.
A. Mac
Tags
Who is online
92 visitors
I invite members of NT to comment thoughtfully on my assertion … positively, negatively … but intelligently and without acrimony or personal affronts.
A. Mac
And yet, THERE ARE NO MANDATORY PENALTIES FOR POLITICIANS WHO MISCHARACTERIZE OR OUTRIGHT LIE …
Practicing politics essentially involves persuading others or allowing yourself to be persuaded. Often, telling the truth will hinder the ability to persuade. Thus...
Speech in and of itself is not truly free. The First Amendment only provides that the government cannot limit speech. We have all witnessed in the past the result of exercising free speech by the masses. Notwithstanding the recent vilent results, consider the boycotts against shops and businesses for their positions on political issues.
The CEO of Chic-Fil-A, exercising his right to free speech about his beliefs led to an uproar from the left.
There are stories of some who showed up at the WV rallies loosing their jobs after being identified.
The Neo Nazis in Boston were shut down by other protesters (without violence).
The only thing the First Amendment does is prevent the government from defining allowable speech. We as a nation can and do at times regulate speech. Is that a good thing?
The CEO of Chic-Fil-A, exercising his right to free speech about his beliefs led to an uproar from the left.
And those who disagreed with his views were exercising theirs.
There are stories of some who showed up at the WV rallies loosing their jobs after being identified.
And their employers were exercising their rights.
But let's not be myopic; in the same way Chic-fil-A's CEO took a calculated business risk in exercising his rights … willing to live with the possibility of losing more customers than those his comments might have gained …
… employers who fire identifiable proponents of hatred, racism and anti-semitism … also must live with their calculated business risk. Two sides of the same metaphorical coin.
While we can argue endlessly regarding the parameters of "free speech," what is inarguable is the reality that …
“No one believes he is an idiot until the consequences of his actions prove it. Then hindsight rubs it in.”
― Richelle E. Goodrich
In my opinion, it's not necessarily what is said but how people react to what is said. Even our legal definitions have been so diluted that it has contributed to the blurred lines of what is acceptable and what is not.
Perhaps we could enact a reverse Sedition Act, which would put critics of the populace in prison until proven innocent. Of course, this will never happen.
Freedom of speech is no less conflicted and anomalous than human beings. Humans sometimes lie because it is the right thing to do at the time (Kant is rolling over in his grave) or do not speak things (5th Amendment?). As long as the connotation or "feel" is right, it is ok. It is only when we are directly confronted (in the court?) that speech must be absolutely correct.
Good points
08/20/17 07:42:15PM @steve-ott:
. It is only when we are directly confronted (in the court?) that speech must be absolutely correct.
I must ask::
Can not some one in court make an erroneous statement and claim ignorance?
If you mean speaking a falsehood as opposed to a lie (which by definition is done with intent to deceive) ... then there should be impunity.
As in mis-spoke, or simply didn't know what one was talking about?
If I were opposing counsel, it is a point I would certainly question if not outright attack to show the speaker was not a good witness and/or expert.
Being the person I am, I tend to do it a lot in the agora also. And that seems to make many upset. I don't really care.
I was attempting to show how humans try to partition speech into areas of where truth must always be spoken, and areas where it may not be absolutely necessary.
08/20/17 07:48:56PM @eagle-averro:
08/20/17 07:42:15PM @steve-ott:
08/20/17 08:15:54PM @steve-ott:
True no doubt , But I think the article " Infers " and this word would cause CHAOS, that " Freedom of Speech " has its " limitations " and the Obtuse, will see that the " Limitations " are like " Beauty is in the eye of the beholder " Or, even worse " One mans terrorist another mans Hero " just to calm things down a little see any " Civil War " and Or " Formation of a Country "
I don't believe A Mac has inferred much of anything.
As to Civil War and Formation of Nations, I don't follow how that has much to do with the article.
08/20/17 09:05:18PM @steve-ott:
As to Civil War and Formation of Nations, I don't follow how that has much to do with the article.
My Last comment on this ::
In Civil wars " are ALL truth equal "
When a " Terrorist Group " wants to secede, from " Mother/Father Land " what are they called, and what happens to the " Truth they want to voice "
END
08/20/17 08:15:54PM @steve-ott:
As in mis-spoke, or simply didn't know what one was talking about?
I am sure many of us heard/seen/aware of " Legal representatives " Tutoring " witnesses " as to what/how/when to say things in Court, is that not what makes one a great " legal representative " to a Loser in Court
"Tutoring" is not synonymous with coaching a client to lie under oath.
If I were opposing counsel, it is a point I would certainly question if not outright attack to show the speaker was not a good witness and/or expert.
Opposing council could, depending on the nature of an "erroneous" comment, object on the basis of the comment being "speculative," or, again depending … as an example jactitation, that is …
… an unsubstantiated claim, especially one detrimental to the interests of another …
… or challenge the maker of the statement to offer validation, or, to withdraw the comment.
Which ever route is taken, it is still a point that must be challenged, else it will remain in the record as a "truth".
So it must be done with politicians, their speech should be challenged and points verified.
THERE ARE NO MANDATORY PENALTIES FOR POLITICIANS WHO MISCHARACTERIZE OR OUTRIGHT LIE … WHO POSIT THE MOST SPECULATIVE BULLSHIT ASSERTIONS, WHO PROMISE WITHOUT SPECIFICATION AS TO LOGISTICS OR PLAN, PIE-IN-THE-SKY WISH LIST ITEMS OF THE WILLING-DUPE VOTER!
You do have a way with words A-Mac! You just described every politician in the last thousand years or so. All in one sentence!
Hahahahaha - so true!
For Instance, Lying Under Oath Is Perjury For Which There Are Strong Sanction
Unless you are a Democrat. Than the rules don't apply.
THERE ARE NO MANDATORY PENALTIES FOR POLITICIANS WHO MISCHARACTERIZE OR OUTRIGHT LIE
Well, they can be impeached. OF course, Democrats are fine with perjury so I guess that ship sailed long ago.
Sean,
I asked for thoughtful, intelligent commentary ... which is what transpired until your myopic, partisan drivel, turned a decent discussion into a pissing contest.
When one metaphorically pisses on the floor, one then has lost the right to bitch that the place smells like urine.
My objective here is to post a thought-evoking, personal questioning of a distinctly American anomaly and invite objective concurrence, rebuttal or expansion of the basic premise.
Your comment is a dismissive pronouncement , intentionally oblivious to a true quandary for the purpose of making a politically-charged statement.
I gave it the response it deserved.
DO you really need it explained that politicians lie, and even commit perjury, because voters don't really care? A perjurer was left in office and his party rejoiced in it.
So unless you supported Clinton's removal from office for perjuring himself, the answer to your "contradiction" can be found within your own head. Explain why you think politicians should lie with impunity and maybe we can have a discussion.
As to your religious "question" it's too nonsensical to bother with unless you are seriously pining for a government to go full Nazi and control everyone's thoughts and beliefs.
OF course, Democrats are fine with perjury
And Republicans aren't?
Whose committed perjury?
Whose committed perjury?
Since you asked, Sean …
Scooter' Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.
CONVICTED! And in his acceptance of a Presidential Pardon, by definition, Libby was admitting guilt.
But this discussion is not about partisan indiscretions … THE ISSUE IS …
"Freedom Of Speech In America"? A Conflicted Collection Of Anomalies And Contradictions!
Stay on it.
He's not a politician and he was not pardoned.
On a technicality I will correct the term "pardoned" and cite the actual outcome of Libby's conviction … as follows …
The Lewis Libby clemency controversy arose when U.S. President George W. Bush commuted the prison sentence of Scooter Libby , the former Chief of Staff to Bush's vice president, Dick Cheney , on July 2, 2007. [1]
It resulted in a hearing , "The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials", held July 11, 2007 by the full Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives .
The hearing was intended to "explore the grave questions that arise when the Presidential clemency power is used to erase criminal penalties for high-ranking executive branch employees whose offenses relate to their work for the President", [2] as well as to assess the consequences of the perjury and obstruction of justice of which vice-presidential Chief of Staff Lewis Libby was convicted March 6, 2007.
As for Libby "not being a "politician," Sean -- too late to split that hair -- YOU MADE PERJURY ABOUT DEMOCRATS …
Democrats are fine with perjury so I guess that ship sailed long ago.
LIBBY WAS A REUBLICAN.
Now, stay on the topic.
Libby quite properly resigned when he was indicted, so his case provides zero evidence that "republicans are fine with perjury:"
there were consequences even before he was convicted.
All actions have consequences. That includes speaking. There is no free speech without good or bad consequences. I would much rather deal with a brutally honest person than one who couches words to hide what they really think. I would much rather speak the truth and face the consequences than lie and face the consequences. Of course it means I'll never run for office:)
People will always spin their words into an image that will present themselves in a better light. Glossing over the warts and bumps. I guess it is human nature. Even in old literature examples of deceit can be found. Remember the Odyssey and Iliad?
My dad was part of that greatest generation. He actually played marbles at recess. He once told me that politicians are like marbles. Dump them on the ground and they are all dirty. Pretty pessimistic for sure but I don't think he missed it much