(Delete if necessary) I don't live in the US, nor do I know what's in the constitution. But, as a n00b, I wonder: Does it really exist? For the internet it does, but what about america itself? I don't have much spare time,(Researching j-rock for music teacher mr.evil) so I couldn't research much. Personally, I don't think it can. Not even in the internet, with all the cencoring and e-mail blockage(What's it called when you can't e-mail someone? Like Jack Thompson?) and stuff. :(

for the most part i believe it will can u cant control it .........but u just cant say any dam thing and think its ok.....i belive to an exstent u can speak ur mind so it will servive

Now that I think about it, the media encourages in a way to surpress your thoughts an feelings. And also following the croud - Let's say that you're an unsure highschool student. You follow what the majority does, but are afraid to stand up to what's right because you want to fit in and have friend. Now let's say the majority have turned to drugs. You don't want to do drugs, but you still want to fit in. You are too scared to tell anyone else. See? There's my evidence.

seee............ drugs / sex / money .........now ur thinking amarican :D

Neither do I, until I got reputation. Now, I only ever speak my mind if I feel it's the right place or time. Only when I'm asked to in any way.

I don't believe in Freedom of Speech, because it doesn't exist. According to the phrase "Freedom of Speech," you have the right to express yourself verbally in any way that you want. Unfortunately, you can not. Supposedly I could tell a police officer to "F*ck off." Now if I did that, he would probably pepper spray me, kick me in the abdomen, and stone cold stun me, and than say it was self defense and I would be sent to Juvenile Prison.

It definatly doesn't exist here, a kid got fined £80 for using the work fuck in a private conversation and a police woman overheard it.

Our Freedoms are slowly daminishing.

Gays can't have their freedom of marriage which is Article 19 in the HUMAN RIGHTS.

We are starting to have obesity more often and I think it is like 1/3 of americans are overweight.

Still, though. Arrested? For saying Fuck in a private conversation? Goddammit, that's just stupid. You're right, it can't exist. And what's even worse is the fact that w can't do anything about it unless we get a vast majority to bother someone important about it. And by vast, I mean most of america. At least 75%.

Freedom of Speech isn't a term to be used loosely or irresponsibly.

how do i put this... with every Freedom you are entitled to. you also have a responsibility to use it appropriately. with every inappropriate use of your freedom, you must be prepared for a certain degree of consequence. e.g. saying "F**k off" to a member of the national police force, = fine/arrest/ . i don't think a police officer has the right to pepper spray a person for saying "f**k off" but thats not the law or the governments fault, thats a fault of the police officer, and the police officer alone.

However. i do agree to a certain extent, that america and alot of other countries, are really pushing the limit on infringement of our "rights".

But in most cases, its because of a greater need to protect the nation.

Instead of pondering on the inevitable flaws and imperfections that our government, being a human system, has. i think we should just be grateful of the fact that you live in a democratic state, not a communist one. (believe me, people in China have it much worse.)


Think about it, if you were allowed to say and do EVERYTHING you wanted the world would probably be in total anarchy. (i mean if you have the freedom to speak. murderers must also have the freedom to act)

like i said.. no freedom without responsibility, and rarely any irresponsibility with out consequence.

But hey thats my opinion. :)


oh and NaruRin

Still, though. Arrested? For saying Fuck in a private conversation? Goddammit, that's just stupid. You're right, it can't exist. And what's even worse is the fact that w can't do anything about it unless we get a vast majority to bother someone important about it. And by vast, I mean most of america. At least 75%.

he said that his friend was FINED. not arrested.

It definatly doesn't exist here, a kid got fined £80 for using the work fuck in a private conversation and a police woman overheard it.

Freedom of Speech is a term to be used irresponsibly.

how do i put this... with every Freedom you are entitled to. you also have a responsibility to say "F**k off" to a member of the national police force. a police officer has the right to pepper spray a person but thats the law .

But hey thats my opinion. :)


oh and NaruRin



is FINE. (int)rested.

Wow ero ur views are the smartest thing i have every herd anywere :D

dizzy pls don't manip my post like that :/. its really disrespecting this debate

ero have a sense of humor........ but fine sence we go back ill chill

Ero's right. People seem to think that freedom of speech in their countries entitles them to do whatever they want. Not true. Like Ero said, that would be anarchy. Their are limitations to it. Although, if a police officer pepper-sprayed you for swearing in public, you could probably make a lawsuit against him and win it quite easily. I will admit that a fine for a swear word overheard in a conversation is fairly harsh, but it makes sense. If everyone went around swearing their heads off, what would happen to the kids? Wait a second... oh... that explains a lot...

Yes, and democracies aren't anarchies. Sure, I think that people should say whatever they want in private conversations. But when everyone starts insulting other people in newspapers and other media... well... we get burning Danish embassies and huge protests in the streets. It's in the media's best intrest to not push the boundaries of the law.

there is freedom of speech, but that just gives people freedom to kick ur ass if u say something really retarded

there is freedom of speech, but that just gives people freedom to kick ur ass if u say something really retarded

hehe... i totally agree with you!!

it exists in our eyes, but in reality, it is more like an illusion of freedom in western countries. Either the government controls you in some forms of government, or Businesses control you in other forms of government, for example, a right wing democracy.

I agree that the U.S. has, as of late, become less than glamorous, being run by the (opinion warning) fools that so many idiots put in the White House. To a certain extent, the "right wing democracy" is as much the people's fault as it is the government's. Although, there is the whole electoral college business and... well... the system could use refining. However, to have TOTAL freedom of speech, you couldn't have a real government. You'd have an anarchy.

freedom os speech is a previledge (i forgot the spelling. nyahh!!!!) given by a nation to it's citezen, esp in a democratic country. before, the philippines was deprived by that by it's invader mother, the spain. so for us, we are very grateful for having that freedom. but of course, we should be responsible in using that freedom.
freedom of speech can survive as long as the citizens are responsible enough to use that.

We pretty much have a nice bit of freedom when walking around in the streets. The real question is in the media. If we have freedom of speech, why are some things allowed to be censored on TV? (other than the pr0n)

because, little did you know, there are lots of young audiences that could probably be watching violent scenes in the tv. that's why there's censorship.

We'll, by me saying "besides the pr0n," I meant things that aren't suitable for children. I think I remember some political views being censored on TV.

and you do know how impressional kids are, a friend of mine was stupid one day when he was a kid and stuck his finger in a light socket just because "tom and jerry did it", yea its just what happens to kids nowadays.

yeah... kids imitate what they see on tv.
they always do.

you guys are kinda leading off into freedom of the press lol
freedom does exist, but always to a certain extent, then it comes into contact with other freedoms, and comes into conflict of other's freedom of religion like the cartoons. THerefore freedom does exist but to a limited extent only. If you live in a communist country, you do have this right, but you are persuaded to not exercise this right

I live in the UK, so I don't know much about my so-called 'Homeland'. (Personally, Japan would've been better) But, yeah. Think about it! They took out a sign that was in Kanji for the Dub Naruto! That was pointless! But, I think I'm straying off of my own topic. I don't imitate what I see on TV, but compare my life to those of Naruto's and Edward Elric's. And follow their way of thinking, mixed with my twisted sense of humor. But, yeah. Kids are easily influenced by things like favourite characters. (Example: My lil sis acts like sailor Moon. I'm like Naruto and Ed Elric. Not exactly mixed together, tho'.)

he said that his friend was FINED. not arrested.
That's what Imeant. But, still! It was PRIVATE!

I live in america. they say freedom of spech but we all know it's bull crap. if it truly existed I could tell president Bush to go screw himself and not go to jail!

well I'm from America so I think I should give my input on this, the fact of the matter is there is no real "free" speach per say, even here in America, there's censorship. and expesially right now, if you say the worng thing about the wrong person (I.E. Bush) you could end up being investigated by the FBI. I mean you can say whatever you want, but there's bound to be repecusions if say something offensive to someone else, but we do have it pretty good most of the time, and censorship just looses more and more control every year, so do I think free spech will survive? sorry to say, but it never really existed in the first place, every country has some level of censorship, it's unavoidable, but that being said, I think for the most part, at least here in the U.S.A. it'l stay about as good as is has been.

um,. you can tell bush to go fuck em self without going to jail, people do it al the time, send em letters and shit..

um,. you can tell bush to go fuck em self without going to jail, people do it al the time, send em letters and shit..

trust me, it's not that easy, the fact is, Bush doesn't have the time/and or money to invetigate everyone who protests againts him, bu there have been reports of people speaking out against him, and then having police/FBI interactions against them.

I live in america. they say freedom of spech but we all know it's bull crap. if it truly existed I could tell president Bush to go screw himself and not go to jail!

actually i think u can do that. people are always holding up signs saying "go to hell bush" so i dont see why not....but thats not a good idea

actually i think u can do that. people are always holding up signs saying "go to hell bush" so i dont see why not....but thats not a good idea
I know I was just giving an example. I dont have anything against bush.:D

But showing signs that say 'To hell with bush' and stuff like that, It's not really that much.(Until they burn stuff down...) But thosewith the nerve to send letters and sh!t...I think they would send FBI and stuff...

freedom of speech.....it's not total freedom....its limited to what "speech" is defined as.....

No, it isn't. The only limitations on Freedom of Speech is that it cannot cause harm to people. For example, there is a reason that we do not allow the Neo Nazi groups to go to give their rallies and protests in a place that is predominantly Jewish (especially with Holocaust survivors). We do not allow people to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre. Etc.

Any other limitation of the freedom of speech is a terrible blow against our human (and American) rights.

If monarchy is used in America at some point the future for whatever reason, then freedom of speech will cease to exist in the U.S.

freedom of speech.....it's not total freedom....its limited to what "speech" is defined as.....
ditto, i agree w/ wat she says

nah, it wont eventually, i guess so...

i am living in a democratic country and yet i still cant understand why it's called freedom. . .

maybe in the next lifetime, it can survive. . .:(

Freedom of Speech should have a limit.

No mocking religion or other that is sensitive.

Bad Speech will lead to bad things.

If you limit my freedom of speech in any way, shape, or form, you limit my very personality. Who says what is obscene and what is wrong? Morality, as I have explained multiple times on NL, is not universal in any way. If I choose to mock a religion, then it is my right to express my feelings. To limit speech is also to limit thought.

If you limit my freedom of speech in any way, shape, or form, you limit my very personality. Who says what is obscene and what is wrong? Morality, as I have explained multiple times on NL, is not universal in any way. If I choose to mock a religion, then it is my right to express my feelings. To limit speech is also to limit thought.


To limit speech doesn't always mean to limit your thought. It's just that you must have to examine well the substance of your speech. That is the time to blunt it if thats what your critical thinking is leading you!

But mocking religion, races will cause people go angry. Freedom of speech should considerated other people feelings and things that are sensitive to them .

To limit speech doesn't always mean to limit your thought. It's just that you must have to examine well the substance of your speech. That is the time to blunt it if thats what your critical thinking is leading you!

Oh no? When a person cannot speak aloud or express themselves fully, there exists a control over us. In many places of the world, certain topics cannot be discussed in an attempt by the government to change public opinion on these matters. If you control speech, you have a form of control of thought.

Don't believe me? Watch what happens to NL if we ban people if they say that Naruto is bad. We'd be left with only people who like it here. Now let us pretend that NL is actually a country. We execute people for speaking ill of Naruto. We do not allow outside commentry on Naruto (if it is of the opinion that the show is bad). Public opinion will always be that Naruto is wonderful.

Are you offended if I decide to call all women bitches? Too bad. That's my personal opinion. To penalize me for saying that is to control my thoughts. Get it?

Hence why I am against ANY form of speech control.

But mocking religion, races will cause people go angry. Freedom of speech should considerated other people feelings and things that are sensitive to them .

And? So WHAT if people get offended if I make fun of them? They get angry and do shit? Too bad. It is my RIGHT to THINK and FEEL as I so choose. If I want to announce to the public that I think that Jews are all dickheads, then it is my right.

(Note: I don't think ill of Jews. I am Jewish. ...That's why I used it as an example.)

I agree that if you limit someone's ability to speak freely, however even if you allow free speech people can still abuse it. I mean look at the religous right who argue that Homosexuality is a disease, when it has been proven not to be. Therefore freedom of speech is nessisary, but it was created so that it would not impede (I can't spell) on other people's personal rights. Also truthfully i would right now be more afraid of wire tappings, because i fear that our country it going down a dark road that I fear will look something like the third reich (this is my oppinnion and i know i cannot spell).

P.S. they have not created a cure for AIDS, they have created a vacine that stops cirvical cancer...sorry that just needed to be said :D

You cannot abuse free speech. Just because you disagree with what someone is saying does not mean that they are "abusing" their rights. I could gather together about 50 people and protest at Washington that the science books aren't teaching that the moon is made of green cheese. It doesn't matter if I'm right or not, offensive or not, or just plain stupid or not; I still have the right to say it.

Wire tappings are a totally different subject...

How so? Wire tappings are in many ways connect to the very same issue because they prove that the goverment is limiting freedom of speech. If the goverment wishes to stop protests (ect) then they can use the guise of "waging the war on terror" to find people and silence them. Abusing a person's rights is not because you disagree with them, it is when you attack them. I mean look at the racism, it was once socially acceptable to be racist, however that is no longer true. That is because the law stopped it, because racism violated the rights of other people.

P.S. the reason why i used racism as an example is that racism and freedom of speech both connect to constitution and the bill of rights.

Having a wire tapping is not a limitation on free speech. It's an invasion of privacy. Come on man. If the Bush administration hears me tell my parents that I'm afraid of turning into them, then hurray for them. It sucks that they know that, but it doesn't stop me from saying it. However, legislation against complaining about turning into your parents WOULD limit my freedom of speech. Get it?

I don't believe in Freedom of Speech, because it doesn't exist. According to the phrase "Freedom of Speech," you have the right to express yourself verbally in any way that you want. Unfortunately, you can not. Supposedly I could tell a police officer to "F*ck off." Now if I did that, he would probably pepper spray me, kick me in the abdomen, and stone cold stun me, and than say it was self defense and I would be sent to Juvenile Prison.

I said this months ago...just figured I'd point it out once more.

Oh no? When a person cannot speak aloud or express themselves fully, there exists a control over us. In many places of the world, certain topics cannot be discussed in an attempt by the government to change public opinion on these matters. If you control speech, you have a form of control of thought.

Don't believe me? Watch what happens to NL if we ban people if they say that Naruto is bad. We'd be left with only people who like it here. Now let us pretend that NL is actually a country. We execute people for speaking ill of Naruto. We do not allow outside commentry on Naruto (if it is of the opinion that the show is bad). Public opinion will always be that Naruto is wonderful.

Are you offended if I decide to call all women bitches? Too bad. That's my personal opinion. To penalize me for saying that is to control my thoughts. Get it?

Hence why I am against ANY form of speech control.
This is Naruto Lounge. Emphasis on Naruto. Narutolounge does not care about outright "I HATE NARUTO!!!', if someone were to post that 4 times rapidly, why would people not recieve a ban? Nobody here cares if anyone hates Naruto, but if they say it like that, of course they are going to get banned.

Ok, let me put it this way. If someone here challanges your decision on modding someone, and does it insultingly, what the hell would you want? In fact, you modded me for insulting someone. Where was your "FREE THOUGHT" then? This is at your "women are bitches" example.

There is an abuse to free speech, its called being disrespectful. Having free speech does not mean saying everything on your mind. It means you can state your opinion if you can show that you understand it. Get it?

There is an abuse to free speech, its called being disrespectful. Having free speech does not mean saying everything on your mind. It means you can state your opinion if you can show that you understand it. Get it?

I disagree. I don't see a problem with calling someone a moron or showing any kind of disrespect. As long as you respect the fundamental rights all people are entitled, anyway. For example: If you feel that someone is conceited in your opinion, I feel you should have every right to say it no matter how wrong or disrespectful it is. It's just your opinion on the matter.

The only time speech should be limited is if it can cause a negative effect towards someone. Example: Calling up someone's work and slandering them or screaming "Fire!" in a movie theater.

MrPwnzerz: Please go to Wikipedia and look up "fighting words." And additionally, you can walk up to a police officer and say that to him. He can't do shit to you except to check you out to see why you're being so hostile, which is completely legal.


flareofdragon: NL is not the United States. It's a private web forum that withholds the right to do what we please. That's our freedom of speech. If I go into a gay bar and say things constantly like, "God hates fags!" they can kick me out. Why? Because it is a private establishment. However, they wouldn't stop me from saying "God hates fags!" at a radical conservative convention.

I can walk around New York City and say "NARUTO SUX COCK!" all day if I wanted to do so. I can be as disrespectful as I want so long as it does not break the "Fighting Words" piece placed by the Supreme Court.

Get it?

Nope, not with are congress how it is.
Though it's mostly are faults.
We have become so spoiled with Freedom of Speech that we have went too far with it.
Soon (10-30 years) we could possibly not even have Freedom of Speech anymore.

Nope, not with are congress how it is.
Though it's mostly are faults.
We have become so spoiled with Freedom of Speech that we have went too far with it.
Soon (10-30 years) we could possibly not even have Freedom of Speech anymore.

Sorry, what? When did we go "too far" with freedom of speech? When we spoke out against the rampage of Nazi Germany? When we verbally challenged Apartheid? Or, maybe it was in 2002, when we condemned a war we saw as immoral and unjust? Oh yes, that moment was when we became no longer just, but spoiled.

Yata, how the hell can we be "spoiled" with free speech? I hope to God you were being sarcastic.

the only country that have freedom to speach is the country with mass destruction weapon..!and we know..as long as they have the weapon..and veto power..!their word is obeyed..other country is only the sound of winds..!

What the fuck are you saying? The only country that has freedom of speech is one that has the power to blow up the rest of the world? While it may be true that the US has that power, it didn't always. However, it has ALWAYS had a freedom of speech since the Bill of Rights was created.

of course. u just have to be aware of the consequences of it. like if u go up to the president and cuss, it probably wouldn't be a good idea, but hey, no one's stopping u.

Yeah freedom of speech exist to a certain point like government facilitys you can't say what ever you want or you can't say certain things well you can but people will look at you funny and stuff like that.

freedom of speech hah bye bye if you look in this place even internet don't have freedom.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

What is this about?

This is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.
But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful network neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.

What is network neutrality?

Network Neutrality — or "Net Neutrality" for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service.
Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.

Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?

The nation's largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.
These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.

What's at stake?

Decisions being made now will shape the future of the Internet for a generation. Before long, all media — TV, phone and the Web — will come to your home via the same broadband connection. The dispute over Net Neutrality is about who'll control access to new and emerging technologies.
On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control — deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.
The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.

What's happening in Congress?

Congress is now considering a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act. The telephone and cable companies are filling up congressional campaign coffers and hiring high-priced lobbyists. They've set up "Astroturf" groups like "Hands Off the Internet" to confuse the issue and give the appearance of grassroots support.
On June 8, the House of Representatives passed the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006," or COPE Act (H.R. 5252) -- a bill that offers no meaningful protections for Net Neutrality. An amendment offered by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which would have instituted real Net Neutrality requirements, was defeated by intense industry lobbying.
It now falls to the Senate to save the free and open Internet. Fortunately, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) have introduced a bipartisan measure, the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006" (S. 2917), that would provide meaningful protection for Net Neutrality. This excellent bill may be introduced as an amendment when the Senate takes up its own rewrite of the Telecommunications Act later this summer. The next key hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled for June 20.
Call Congress today: No senator can in good conscience vote against Internet freedom and with the telecom cartel.

Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations?

No. Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly — not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web.
But Net Neutrality doesn't just matter to business owners. If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes.
Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the "fast lane."

Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical?

No. So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like.
In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.
Shaw, a big Canadian cable TV company, is charging an extra $10 a month to subscribers in order to "enhance" competing Internet telephone services.
In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com — an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good.

Won't more regulations harm the free Internet? Shouldn't we just let the market decide?

Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.
Either we make rules that ensure an even playing field for everyone, or we have rules that hold the Internet captive to the whims of a few big companies. The Internet has thrived because revolutionary ideas like blogs, Wikipedia or Google could start on a shoestring and attract huge audiences. Without Net Neutrality, the pipeline owners will choose the winners and losers on the Web.
And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there's nowhere else for consumers to turn. The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband market. Only 53 percent of Americans have a choice between cable and DSL at home. Everyone else has only one choice or no broadband options at all. That's not what a truly free market looks like.

if you care you can call this senate
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/

or write this to your senate.
https://secure.npsite.org/cu/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1161

...Wow..I just saw Margerat Cho(Sp?) on my mom's DVD, and I've realised that America is getting corrupt. America doesnt make the BEST country, if it weren't for freedom of speech. To others, like my frinds in England, the only reason they want to live there is because it's a big tourist attraction. If freedom of speech and whatnot goes away, then all you hve left is a giant disneyland, without micheal jackson trying to get little kids into his limo.

of course. u just have to be aware of the consequences of it. like if u go up to the president and cuss, it probably wouldn't be a good idea, but hey, no one's stopping u.Even if it is your right to say that to him, he has the right to a personal opinion to you. With that personal opinion he can do many things.

Even if it is your right to say that to him, he has the right to a personal opinion to you. With that personal opinion he can do many things.

Not really. Although he has the power, he doesn't have the RIGHT to do all that much. He can get you removed away from him, but not much else. He can say what he wants, but not much else. If he throws someone in jail or hurts them in any way because they told the President he was a giant blistering vagina, then he would be violating that person's Constitutional right to their Freedom of Speech.

Well, he IS a blistering vagina! (jk.) ^^,

(Delete if necessary) I don't live in the US, nor do I know what's in the constitution. But, as a n00b, I wonder: Does it really exist? For the internet it does, but what about america itself? I don't have much spare time,(Researching j-rock for music teacher mr.evil) so I couldn't research much. Personally, I don't think it can. Not even in the internet, with all the cencoring and e-mail blockage(What's it called when you can't e-mail someone? Like Jack Thompson?) and stuff. :(

freedom of speech is awesome. it will survive. i mean, i can say, "i hate Bush, i hate Republicans, i don't like super Christians, i hate EVERYTHING IN THIS FORSAKEN ROCK FLOATING AROUND IN THE MIDDLE OF A SOLAR COLLECTION OF GAS, ROCKS AND OTHER FORMS OF MATTER!!!" as long as i say that, i'm using free speech. man, i love the Constitution!

I love it too! Although...In England, apparently you can't say bad things about the queen....But you can about Tony Blair! Bwehehehe...
Yeah, but still......Net neutrality....

Freedom of speech is a luxury that most north americans aren't even aware of...most countries use this method in everyday life...the freedom of speech in the case of society (society being the majority of the people on the planet who think what is right, but not infact the whole planet) is a dominant factor in most countries, but they take it for granted and waylay into people who don't feel and think the same as them...people left and right get attacked for their own personal beliefs and viewpoints just because they aren't in the norm, but in the same breath they give everyone the freedom of speech.

the main questions were, does freedom of speach exist and if it does will it continue to, right? i dunno, it's there but if i said somehting about jesus and god in a school class the teacher woudl say i couldn't talk about it. what was it... i'd be.. intolerant of everyone else. Weird how everyone else is intolerant of me... hmmm.

oh and Naru rin, i love your pic, urahara is awsome! ^^

i dont have the time or patients to read all of the posts, but i will say this.


Freedom of speech is very broad area when dealing with the US constitution. See this is a problem that i dont think the forefatehrs thought to much about.. We are not them we do NOT know EXACTLY what THEY meant when they wrote it. but freedom of speech is not restricted to what you say, it in terms of todays world, its how you express yourself.

But lets break it down in both literal and in a broad position.

in this country you CAN say WHATEVER you WANT. BUT it DOES NOT mean you WILL NOT or CAN NOT be punished in PUBLIC esates for what you say. For example it is not illegal for you to say "Fuck You" to your teacher. HOWEVER it is also not illegal for your teacher to punish you for saying it.

Now, looking at this from a broad point of view, as more expression than actual words. This rite is VERY supressed and taken away. Many of you knwo i have a band, ALL of us (aside from myself becouse im homeschooled) were told they had to have there haircut BEFORE coming to school. Becouse we all have long hair. This example brings me to this point, the 'Rules" of many public school systems are disregarding Our Rites as american citizens becouse it states, we cannot wear certain things, we cannot have our hair certain ways and lengths, and we are not allowed to have certain things on our bodies. So in this way, no, it cannot survive, becouse its already been disregarded and the government is not willing to go against it.

Im done. GG to any who disagree. I win.

in this country you CAN say WHATEVER you WANT. BUT it DOES NOT mean you WILL NOT or CAN NOT be punished in PUBLIC esates for what you say. For example it is not illegal for you to say "Fuck You" to your teacher. HOWEVER it is also not illegal for your teacher to punish you for saying it.

Oh, then we can murder people, however we may be subject to punishment afterward. Hell, you CAN do anything you want. (within physical,mental and emotional limits) I think it is fairly obvious that when we say "can we do this" it means "can we do it without punishment.". It does not mean "Is it possible". It is kids like you that truly piss me off. If you seriously could not figure out that by "can" we mean "able to do with out punishment" then I am amazed you know how to read, write and type.

Im done. GG to any who disagree. I win.

Yeh, 'cause, you know, that is how to debate =\:rolleyes:

in this country you CAN say WHATEVER you WANT. BUT it DOES NOT mean you WILL NOT or CAN NOT be punished in PUBLIC esates for what you say. For example it is not illegal for you to say "Fuck You" to your teacher. HOWEVER it is also not illegal for your teacher to punish you for saying it.

Corbenk already covered this pretty well. You can say whatever you want, as long as it doesn't impeed on anyone else's rights. Also, a public school can still have it's own rules in addition to current laws, much like a web forum. That's why I would always get suspended for fighting, even though it was usually in self-defence. The school has a no fighting under any circumstance policy, and I have to obey their rules. I can't get arrested for it though, just as you can't get arrested for saying 'fuck you' to a teacher. You'll only get in trouble with the school, not the law. Don't get the two confused.

Now, looking at this from a broad point of view, as more expression than actual words. This rite is VERY supressed and taken away. Many of you knwo i have a band, ALL of us (aside from myself becouse im homeschooled) were told they had to have there haircut BEFORE coming to school. Becouse we all have long hair. This example brings me to this point, the 'Rules" of many public school systems are disregarding Our Rites as american citizens becouse it states, we cannot wear certain things, we cannot have our hair certain ways and lengths, and we are not allowed to have certain things on our bodies. So in this way, no, it cannot survive, becouse its already been disregarded and the government is not willing to go against it.

Again, that's the school's rule. It's got nothing to do with the law. If you choose not to follow the rules then you can find a private school to go to, or get homeschooled. Don't even bother mentioning something like "but my parents pay taxes that support the school." That just means that your parents have every right to address their concerns with these policys. They can voice their concerns, but that's it. You can't do whatever you want in a place that has a responsibility to look after and take care of children. They've got every right to make whatever rules they want. Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with the law.

Im done. GG to any who disagree. I win.

Lol.

OOoo...I love the broad amounts of viewpoints and intelligence on here.

The sad thing is people are to stuck on their own viewpoints and opinions that they can't see that other peoples viewpoints and opinion matter to them, just as yours do to you. Most people have a vanity factor when it comes to their opinion like that's the way it is and there is no other way. People have to learn to understand that their is freedom of speech, but there is also consiquences that follow that...like, it's ok to have an opinion, but don't go forcing it down people's throats or all you'll get is a bad response...people should learn to accept that everyone is different and if you are talking to someone they might have a viewpoint that is completely opposite from your own, but just like you wouldn't want your opinion to change, don't try and change other peoples beliefs and opinions.

Think of it this way...


Male's in most public schools are not allowed to have hair longer than there shirt colar, past there eybrows in teh front, and over there ears on the sides... there justification for this rule is "its Distracting" so why is it that guys having long hair is distracting while girls having long hair isnt? its the same fucking thing, it's simply elderly people havign the mindset that guys with long hair MUST be gay, beocus ethey want to look like girls.

Same with earings, in most public schools guys cant wear earings, again, ebcouse its "Distracting" while women can wear 10 foot in diameter hoops and be perfectly fine.

heres another one, i have a freind, his name is james, he has extremely curly hair, he grew his hair out and had an afro, he was kicked out of school for it, while i have another freind, named jermaine who is black, who also had an afro, which was several inches largher than jame's, was he told to cut his? no, becouse its perfectly fine for black people to have afros.. he ended up cutting his simply becous eof what they did to james, we all went to the schoolboard about it, they said to leave, "its not our problem"

teh public school systems in this country dont give a flying fuck about the rights of people.

Pride:

Or rather, you didn't appeal to a high enough authority... And schools, both public and private, can institute dress codes. You don't HAVE freedom of speech in schools because it can go against their private charter. You'd have to seriously fight for some kind of right and, most often, you will lose because they can always say that a school is technically private property, even if it is funded by the government.

so, if i own privat eland, i can grow marijuana, and when the police come and try and get me i can so "no, i ow this land and i made a rule that said i can grow pot" and there gonna say "oh, alright, thats cool, mind if we match you a blunt?"


i dont think so.

heres another one, i have a freind, his name is james, he has extremely curly hair, he grew his hair out and had an afro, he was kicked out of school for it, while i have another freind, named jermaine who is black, who also had an afro, which was several inches largher than jame's, was he told to cut his? no, becouse its perfectly fine for black people to have afros.. he ended up cutting his simply becous eof what they did to james, we all went to the schoolboard about it, they said to leave, "its not our problem".

I bet that is because Jermanie could pull the "race" card on the school, and that isn't cool.

Free speach survives and it always has been, but some people take a mile when givin an inch so to speak,

If you go to North Korea and say I hate Kimyong ilei (or spell it that way XD) or say i hate N korea, youll be shot immediatly, but its different in america, as long as your not disturbing anyone else, or makeing trouble it is perfectly legal to say any thing....

Plus i have gotten away with a bunch of shit at my school, I said to this slut bag mcgee that "i thought she was a whore" and she tattled and instead of getting suspended i got a half hour detention because i said "i thought" wich i guess falls under free speak/opinion.

so, if i own privat eland, i can grow marijuana, and when the police come and try and get me i can so "no, i ow this land and i made a rule that said i can grow pot" and there gonna say "oh, alright, thats cool, mind if we match you a blunt?"


i dont think so.

Wow, probably should avoid using analogies in the future. Not your forte, man. ^^;

Let's say I don't like attention whore douche bags who wear face paint in a pathetic attempt to go against the norm, be different, or to just try to hide the fact that they're uninteresting losers, for example. So I don't let these people come over my house. That's not against the law, right? Right. You don't have to let someone on your property if you don't want them there. What law does that break? Hmm?

Now lets say I run a school. I don't want those same kids in there for whatever reason. Dress like a normal person or find a different school, there's other options. Don't like the rules, then go complain about it to the proper authorities or find somewhere else to get an education. Is that against the law? Nope. Will breaking the rules that only apply on school grounds get you arrested? Nope. Again, no contradiction with the law. If they don't want someone on their property for whatever reason then it's within their right to tell you to GTFO. They're not breaking any law.

You growing pot at your house does break the law though, so your analogy isn't very relevant. Schools don't break the law when they issue a fricken dress code. You're being ridiculous, man.

The fact that a school is a public asstablishment means that if something is defined "distracting" to other students let it be fair or not, it is the schools JOB to get rid of so called "distraction" and institute a safe place to learn,

Although a schools policy can be changed it is not set in stone, if someone at your school dosent like the policy they can summon a hearing at a town meeting, or at the school commety( something along that line) and see if the school could loosen its policies on the dress code

Its always been freedom of speech with limits. Your taking the term freedom of speech way to literal. The goverment made that so that people could PROTEST not say what ever they want. That can be done everywhere. Freedom of speech is only about protest. It allows you to disagree in a civial matter about something you feel that is not righteous. The freedom of speech your thinking is the freedom to do whatever the hell you want. That would be a lawless place. We made the constitution so that we could allow more things than the British did and thats all it is. After the constitution comes law. IF you don't know a country is absolute chaos without law. Don't try to say no either. To many psychos that like killing for the sport. Please look at freedoms with a governmental standpoint because that is how they were made. They were not made by ordinary people.

Its always been freedom of speech with limits. Your taking the term freedom of speech way to literal. The goverment made that so that people could PROTEST not say what ever they want.

Thats true but the limits are in afect for a good reason to protect other rights of the people, You can say what ever you want no matter what you want, ASLONG as it doesn't offend another person, so tell me one thing you can't say that is not offencive......... i'll be waiting

Actually, it can even be offensive. You can tell someone they're a moron or a dipshit and you're not going to get arrested. Tell them that they're horrible people and you hope they die, totally fine. No one has the right to not be offended. : )

The only things you're not allowed to say is if it negatively effects someone or can put someone in danger. If I call up your work and tell everyone you're a thief then I can get into trouble for slander, you could lose your job over stuff like that. Or if you scream 'fire' in a crowded place where it could cause a panic. You can say pretty much whatever you want as long as it doesn't impeed on someone else's rights or harm another person.

Actually, it can even be offensive. You can tell someone they're a moron or a dipshit and you're not going to get arrested. Tell them that they're horrible people and you hope they die, totally fine. No one has the right to not be offended. : )

The only things you're not allowed to say is if it negatively effects someone or can put someone in danger. If I call up your work and tell everyone you're a thief then I can get into trouble for slander, you could lose your job over stuff like that. Or if you scream 'fire' in a crowded place where it could cause a panic. You can say pretty much whatever you want as long as it doesn't impeed on someone else's rights or harm another person.

so does that meen instead of screaming 'fire' and causing histeria i could go and pull the fire alarm bell and cause panic? :confused: . i haven't said a word and i COULD lay the blame on someone else [if i weren't a christian] but considering the fact that i am a christian i wouldn't do that kind of thing it's just an example

so does that meen instead of screaming 'fire' and causing histeria i could go and pull the fire alarm bell and cause panic? :confused: . i haven't said a word and i COULD lay the blame on someone else [if i weren't a christian] but considering the fact that i am a christian i wouldn't do that kind of thing it's just an example

Nope, for the same reason screaming fire isn't allowed. I was just using that as an example as to something free speech doesn't protect due to the obvious negative impact it would cause. Your way just wouldn't involve the right of free speech, that's all. Also, lol. ^^;;;;

You are right miboru, i should have worded it correctly, i should have said harm but where i was going at is like, N***er, C**t, and other slurrs

Actually, it can even be offensive. You can tell someone they're a moron or a dipshit and you're not going to get arrested. Tell them that they're horrible people and you hope they die, totally fine. No one has the right to not be offended. : )

The only things you're not allowed to say is if it negatively effects someone or can put someone in danger. If I call up your work and tell everyone you're a thief then I can get into trouble for slander, you could lose your job over stuff like that. Or if you scream 'fire' in a crowded place where it could cause a panic. You can say pretty much whatever you want as long as it doesn't impeed on someone else's rights or harm another person.

Your half right. Sadly if you say something offensive in a cops hearing distance if he feels like calling you on it, slander that is, you can go to jail. When you say something harmful that is also slander true. Just like you can get in trouble for Jay walking. Just like it though saying something offensive is usually not called on. Once again its really not freedom of "speech", it is freedom of protest.

Your half right. Sadly if you say something offensive in a cops hearing distance if he feels like calling you on it, slander that is, you can go to jail. When you say something harmful that is also slander true. Just like you can get in trouble for Jay walking. Just like it though saying something offensive is usually not called on. Once again its really not freedom of "speech", it is freedom of protest.

That's just not true. A police officer won't arrest me if I call the guy next door a douche bag. It has to be untrue, and it has to harm the person's reputation in such a way that it has the possibility of negatively affecting them. Like calling up your work and telling them you stole money from them, or something along those lines. There's no possible way you'd actually get into trouble for saying something that doesn't actually harm the guy you're insulting. (Assuming you're not harassing people or crap like that, then again they wouldn't get you on slander)

yeah in america freedom of speech is allowed unless someone threathning someone then they going to jail someone could call the president a bitch,slut they wont go to jail , but people take it too far like kanye west dunno if ya heared of him he said he's name should be in bible thats just stupid it makes me laugh