Watch the Following:
Iranian President Goes to Columbia
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=209042d27fafd29f57de207a287287f1d77ccc83
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=8ed932b2076a93758fabbaa4be8d50946cf2e870
Bush at the UN
http://video.on.nytimes.com/?fr_story=2371722b94f32c33823a72162cf59d25e9d95536
Questions to Consider:
Should the right to free speech be extended to anyone? Why/Why not?
19 comments:
Extra Credit:
The first amendment says that, “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.” I believe that the right to free speech should be extended to all tolerant, righteous people because I feel that all respectable citizens have earned this right. By respectable citizens, I am referring to Americans who do not make sport of attacking other races, religions, ethnicities or the choices of others. In and of itself, my definition of respectable citizens does limit the right to free speech, because this interpretation of a “good” American would exclude people who attack the color of a person’s skin, the religion they practice, their heritage, their culture and their personal beliefs. Therefore, I am basically saying that Americans deserve free speech as long as they do not intend to use it as a weapon to harm others. For example, I believe that Americans should be allowed to disagree with the war in Iraq if they feel that it is not justified. They are not attacking a particular type of person, but are trying to portray their ideals. If others find what is being said to be out of line, then it is their own responsibility to ignore the speaker. Nobody is forcing them to listen. No person has the right to silence those with whom they do not agree. The belief that I am trying to portray is that honest, sincere, people who believe in equality and acceptance of one another deserve to speak their minds. However, I am putting a restriction on free speech by being very specific about who deserves this privilege.
I believe the right to 'free speech' should be extended to everyone but in certain manners.All Amercian people should have the right to say what they want to in a non-racial and respectful way.What i mean is all Amercians should have the right to free speech if they are not harmfull to other from a difrent religion or race which happens much in America.
It is my personal opinion that the right to free speech should be extended to everyone. However, i believe that the right to free speech is a priveledge and it has to be used wisely. As Americans, we can't go around using our free speech as a weapon. The right to free speech was to show that we are entitled to our own opinions and that they can be heard with all due respect. Free speech is a priveledge and we can't go saying racist or terroristic things. People should be allowed to express their feelings about the president and the government without getting disrespectful. Basically, the right of free speech should be extended to everyone with a few obvious guidelines. Free speech is a right and a priveledge so American's have to respect our rights and respect each other.
I definitely believe that the right to freedom of speech should be extended to every person living in the country, illegally or otherwise, and to everyone visiting the country. Considering that we as a country boast how everyone has the freedom of speech, why should there be exceptions? As a foreigner traveling to another country, we have to abhor to their laws, and in some countries that means that you cannot speak freely, so I don’t understand how it could possibly be controversial that we granted the President of Iran freedom of speech, while if we traveled to his country we would be expected to watch our mouths. While laws and rights can be differentiated, it is a known fact that while visiting another country you have to abide by their laws. For example, a 18 year old girl visiting from England who can legally drink there would be unable to buy drinks here if she wasn’t 21. Because laws and rights are interconnected, I think that if laws apply than so should rights, including freedom of speech. If it says in the constitution that every man has the right to freedom of speech, regardless of how they decide to use it, everyone should be able to use it freely.
According to the first amendment we have the freedom of speech. But this is to an extent, for example you can’t just yell bomb in the middle of an airport. I think this idea of the restriction of free speech is appropriate in a situation like I just stated. But when it comes to the Iranian President speaking I believe they should feel free to say whatever they want. First off the Iranian President is not a U.S. citizens so why should he have to follow our rules. Also if we don’t get exposed to what he has to say the Americans will be sheltered. We will never understand other people and the way they think if you don’t even know what they are thinking. The restriction on free speech should not apply in this situation because Americans have to be exposed to other people.
I feel that the right to freedom of speech in our country should not be extended to everyone. The rights to this freedom as well as many others are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Our Constitution applies to those in our country who have American citizenship. If you are not an American, who doesn’t pay taxes or contributes in any other way to our government; I don’t see why you are entitled to what the Constitution provides actual Americans. For example, the President of Iran recently spoke at Columbia University, speaking of wiping Israel off the map and harming America. This man should not be allowed to speak without consequences. He is not an American citizen and does not abide by the interpretations of our laws set forth by the Supreme Court. In addition, extending our freedoms to those who consider the U.S. as enemies will use it to their advantage to bring down our nation from the inside.
I belive the right to free speech should be alloted to everyone that is in our country. Giving free speach to people who are in our country is what we are at war for and have gone to wars for. We fight and die for our right to free speach. I think if you have something to say, you should be able to. There should be no limitations on what you can say. There has recently been an argument about yelling "bomb" in an airport and how that sort of free speach should not be allowed, which is understandable i guess. But we have only decided that as a dangerouse word because of the attacks on 9/11. So the imagine of free speach has been takin away. I however do believe people should not be held quite in our own country and anyone who comes here, should be allowed to speak there minds also.
I believe that everyone has freedom of speech as long as it isn't discriminating against a group of people or putting a group of people in danger. If what the person is saying does any of these two things then they have violated their freedom of speech and should have to face the repercussions of their actions no matter who they are.
The right to free speech is one of the fundamental values our country was founded upon. Hundreds of thousands of good men and women have given of their lives and of their blood to this cause, hoping that future generations of America would have the rights that they lacked. To deny this right to anyone in America today would be dishonoring the sacrifice of those gone before us, and disgrace their memory. Our fine country has a reputation because of the actions of those who created it, and our reputation is one of Freedom for all. When other countries look upon us, they know that we stand for Freedom, and the rights of every human being. The most essential of these is simply the right to free speech. How can we call ourselves free if we deny some the right to say what is on their mind? Indeed, how can one truly be free if one cannot say what needs to be said, because a government has said otherwise? Who is the government to deny its people the rights the government was founded upon? The government attains its power from the people, and for the government to deny the people their rights would go against the government’s foundations. Surely, there will forever be much difference in opinion between all, as it is humanity’s right to choose for themselves what to think or believe in. Therefore, wouldn’t denying the right of free speech to some be in fact denying them the fulfillment of their natural function? This is without a doubt a violation of the humanity let alone freedom of the people on many levels, not just in America. However, it is America who promises free speech to all in the document that governs all legal processes, and yet denies this right to some. This hypocrisy of governmental legislature is both fundamentally and politically erroneous. Our founding fathers designed the Constitution of the United States with much debate and dispute, until they could agree it was the best possible blueprint for the future government of America. They specifically put in the right to free speech, and also put it before the rest, which clearly shows that they held it in the highest of importance. If they could see America now, they would be ashamed at how far we have fallen. Because we are America, we must not deny the right of free speech to any in our country, despite their viewpoints, simply for the fact that our country used to stand for something. Will we get back up and take a stand, or will stay down and give in?
I believe that some kinds of speech regarded as damaging to individual interests (e.g., libel and slander) are limited primarily by the threat of tort action; other forms of speech (e.g., obscenity) are restricted by law because they are regarded as damaging to society as a whole. Speech that is regarded as disruptive of public order has long been beyond protection (e.g., fighting words that cause a breach of the peace or false statements that cause general panic). In general anyone should be allowed the right to free speech regardless of opinion. Who gives anyone the right to supress another human beings right to free speech?
The right to free speech should be extended to any person living inside of or visiting the United States. While in the USA, they must abide by the laws of the country, and thus should be able to enjoy the same freedoms that the citizens of the country do. The right to free speech is essential to our country and its success as a democracy. People must always be able to express their opinion; otherwise new ideas will never surface, and conditions may never improve. Also, when a speaker such as the Iranian President visits the USA, an open forum such as the one which was held is important. We are able to see the way that he thinks, and learn from the mistakes he has made. Doing this will also give us a better idea of his motives, as well as a better idea of what is happening.
The right to free speech should be extended to all individuals in the United States who have not used that right in an unjust manner. That is, everyone in the country is entitled to speak their mind so long as their statements are not purposefully meant to bring harm to others.
The right to free speech does not mean that a person who is a criminal can freely state their opinions in public without being arrested. Sometimes people use the free speech clause to say that, for example, a drug dealer should be able to advertise their illegal activities without fear of prosecution. That is not the case, and anyone who does so should be promptly arrested.
In the case of Ahmadinejad, I feel that he should be allowed to debate his opinions if he asked to, but that he should not have been invited to speak. If he wanted to set up a time where he could talk to people from the United States, I would have no problem with that, but I do not think it right for an establishment in the U.S. to invite a dictator such as Ahmadinehjad to come and speak to its members.
The United States constitution says that Congress shall make no law taking the power of freedom of speech away from the citezens of this country. I firmly believe that anyone has the right to freely speak their mind, as long as they know that not everyone is going to agree with what they say, and there may be complications depending on what they say. The President of Iran was invited to come and speak at the University. He chose to speak, which means he had to realize that when he spoke people were not going to agree with what he was saying, but i believe he had every right to come and speak. Our country is diverse, and i know i was taught to respect everyone and what they believe even if i didn't agree, this situation is no different. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and the right to freely speak is no exception. People just need to realize that no one is the same and thats okay.
Freedom speech should be allowed for every one but with some boundaries. People should be allowed to say anything whenever they want as long as it is nothing too bad. People should not be allowed to say things that can threaten another person's life or harm some one in some sort of way. Screaming bomb on an airplane should still not be allowed. It is putting people in risk if the person actually did have a bomb. Also, we should be trying to stop racism altogether, so people should not be allowed to say racial slurs.
I believe that freedom of speech should be extended to all people that behave in a responsible manner. It is good because it gets people to listen to unpopular positions that they may disagree with, but might think more about after hearing it. Hopefully, it will stimulate discussions that would lead to better understanding as long as opposing views are also presented. In the Bill of Rights that we are looking at one of the founding principals is freedom of speech. If we live by and respect the ideas in the Constitution, then we should be willing to extend its benefits to those we don’t agree with.
Some say that absolute free speech is granted to all citizens of the United States, that it is established by the first amendment. Others argue that free speech is more restricted than that, and that the founding fathers were naive to the problems we face today. My personal take on the situation is one that mixes the first amendment with another important document: the Declaration of Independence. While the Declaration of Independence does not govern our society, or have any real jurisdiction, I feel that it embodies the sprit of what America stands for. According to it, all men, “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Declaration of Independence). This idea of certain unalienable rights is the foundation for which the constitution, the amendments, and our whole government is built on.
Now, in reference to the first amendment, the two seem to agree. “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” certainly means the right to free speech. But what happens when one person’s free speech encroaches on another’s “pursuit of Happiness”? This, I feel, is where the line is drawn. Every person is endowed with the right to free speech, as stated in the first amendment. But, I feel the words of the Declaration of Independence should supercede it. When one person’s free speech is violating another person’s “unalienable Rights” there is a problem. Free speech should be granted to all, but restricted when it damages other basic rights.
For example, a crowd shouts racist slurs at a small group, causing the victims severe humiliation. Another person has been rudely made fun of by the local newspaper, and does not feel it is safe to go into town. And another person feels his life in danger when a man shouts “Bomb” at an airport. These are all examples of free speech infringing on the basic rights of man. This is not to say that criticism is bad or wrong. Quite the contrary, I feel that criticism can help people achieve their goals, or correct their problems. But demoralizing or endangering speech with intent to hurt should not be permitted.
good job!
No where in the first amendment does the constution say say the right of free speach is to be limited to citizens. It is my view that by accepcting such an amendment the United States Government accepcts free speach as a civil right. The basis of a democratic society is to protect universal civil rights, be it with in it's own borders or in the case of organizations such as the united nations, in the entire world. The right to free speach is a universal civil right.
There, however is a difference between a college inviting a speaker and him not being allowed to speak due to federal law, and denying him to speak at the college uninvited. If you are invited to speak somewhere, there is no reason why you should not be allowed to speak there of anyone's accord but your own. THe simple matter is that to punish someone for speaking really does seem like a 17th century punishment.
I think that not everyone should be allowed to have free speech because would you let are enemies speak. Would you let Bin Laden speak free at a college? If the person does not have any crimes against him or her then they should be allowed to speak. The Iranian president should of not spoken because he of his actions. He is allowing his army to have nuclear weapons. So any person who is not doing anything wrong who is not wanted for jail or has did any harmful actions should have the freedom of speech.
Post a Comment