darkhaze wrote:
You are obvious soooo knowledgable about Asian cultures to post a statement like this
Well, my fiance is Korean. ~.^
igotmyedukashunatapublikskool wrote:
The right to free speech is a recent concept in time. Look it up in our constitution please. I hate how people like you throw out this concept of "free speech". It is not even free speech.
Actually, the concept of free speech was pretty effectively codified about 220 years ago. And for Americans, it is not a "recent concept"; we are indoctrinated with the First Amendment at a very young age. However, my point is that it *is* a new concept for many other cultures, particularly those that have historically remained insular. As a result, they bristle more at dealing with the bad that by necessity comes along with the good.
As for how you "hate how people like (me) throw out this concept of 'free speech'" you would seem not to be familiar with American history. (To be expected if you are a) not American; or, b) American, but educated in a public school. Particularly if you are under 30.)
Let's take a quick look at the Constitutional concept first:
"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." Pretty simple and straightforward there. Congress can't make a law telling us what we can and can't say. But wait! There's another branch that isn't prohibited from doing so!
Now, as many people understand, we have long lived in a society with judicial activism, in which case law is not merely observed as black and white, but "interpreted." Accepting this fact as affecting the state of free speech (among numerous other issues in the current media) in modern society, let's look at the most famous example of judicial activism regarding the topic:
SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
The famous "fire in a crowded theater" ruling. Writing the unanimous majority opinion for the court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. wrote:
"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 439 , 31 S. Sup. Ct. 492, 55 L. ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 874. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right." Okay, translation for you public school types: you can't say things that will cause the imminent harm of another, and you'd better watch your [Rear] if you decide to start saying nasty things about the government when it's waging war.
Now, that said...everthing that occurs on these forums and in many other venues that does not a) cause imminent harm to another; or, b) hinder the efforts of the government during time of war, is effectively protected and "free" speech.
834postsandstillnotevenaScholar wrote:
Speaking out your mind about trivial things at someone else's expense or pain is bordering selfishness.
Where was my commentary at someone else's expense? Or pain for that matter? The only thing I can think of is that you got peeved at my anti-U.N. comment at the end.
I should point out, strictly speaking, that you were "speaking out your mind about trivial things." So learn to practice what you preach, kiddo, and stfu.
Oh, and if it's not too late, get into a private, charter or home school program. It does wonders for reading comprehension.
