How does, Freedom of Speech, work?

[lizard81288]

I am ignorant on this subject.

Ok, so how come the FCC, block "bad words" on tv? Isn't that going against the 1st amendment? This is where I'm confused. It is ok to go stand in front of a stadium packed with people and say, "GOD hates faggots", but they can't say it on tv. Freedom of Speech even protects bad speech. So, by blocking out words, isn't that going against the 1st amendment? Or if i said that in school, shouldn't I go unpunished, due to FoS?

[deadlegion]

[Knightshade]

^ rep added
personal opinion is all of the amendments are a joke not just the 1st what about the 2nd right to bear arms if you are a convicted felon no you do not have that right you also can't carry your gun into an airline/bus terminal etc. freedom of the press that's also a joke do you have any idea how many times the press has had a story and not ran it because of government pressure.

what it all boils down to is here in the U.S. we are lucky because we do have more freedom than in some other countries, but again in my opinion only we have no more or no less freedom than our government chooses to let us have.

[crimsonedge]

People don't have any freedoms they aren't willing to fight for to maintain.

[Drageuth]

Actually, people fight quite hard for their freedom of speech in the United States.

Basically, just because (in the United States at least) people have freedom of speech, that doesn't mean that television networks have to air it if they don't want to. They are still a business, and maintain the right to air what they want.

As for the school part: on a technicality, you might be able to get away with it if you fought really, really hard. However, schools are institutions. And by being a student at a school, you are expected to abide by their code of conduct, which usually prohibits things like racism and hate speech and whatnot and says that "if you say these things, we will punish you to some extent." It is then in their rights to suspend you or expel you from school, because again -- while you have freedom of speech, that doesn't mean a platform for everything you have to say has to be given.

[Aeolus Aeneas]

You have freedom of speech in public and in the privacy of your own home. However, when you entire a privately owned business, or any manner of educational institution, you are abiding by their rules when it comes to speech. So while you can spew all the hate filled garbage you want on the street (just good luck not getting punched), you cannot do so in those areas.

It's similar as to how you cannot run into a movie theater and scream "FIRE! RUN!" when it's not true. Freedoms ARE NOT absolute, and there are limits placed upon them both by society at large and places of business/learning in general.

[crimsonedge]

Actually, people fight quite hard for their freedom of speech in the United States.

Which is the only reason we still have some freedom of speech. You could say the same for gun ownership rights. If the ones with guns say you can have them when you pry them from my cold dead hands, then the government is gonna back down.

Since you brought up the media, yeah they have the right to air whatever they want, but ultimately they choose the content to air, and what they choose effects public opinion one way or another. But the internet broke this wide open where the typical media sources no longer dominate the information the public gets.

One of the main ways people are convinced to give up their rights is for security. I got news for people, if you forfeit your rights for the sake of security then you will just lose both. Both the government and the media have the power to play fear mongering on the people to convince them to forfeit some rights. When I hear it being done, /facepalm, so many idiots.

[Mistral]

I am ignorant on this subject.

Ok, so how come the FCC, block "bad words" on tv? Isn't that going against the 1st amendment? This is where I'm confused. It is ok to go stand in front of a stadium packed with people and say, "GOD hates faggots", but they can't say it on tv. Freedom of Speech even protects bad speech. So, by blocking out words, isn't that going against the 1st amendment? Or if i said that in school, shouldn't I go unpunished, due to FoS?

Easy. The First Amendment only protects freedom of speech from direct government interference. Furthermore, the United States operates under a common law system common to almost all Anglosphere nations; it therefore takes into account case precedent and judicial decisions as well as the letter of the law, in an attempt to fulfill the spirit of the law and account for changing times. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which is what you're talking about when you talk about the FCC's censorship regulations, was only recently passed, and that amidst certain worries to precisely this effect. Should a case regarding this case be brought before the United State Supreme Court and it be determined unconstitutional there, this law will be struck down, but that requires the case to exist and follow through the standard judicial appeals process right on up to the top. Media attempts to manage this have met with only limited success, in large part due to a very conservative Supreme Court that is perfectly fine with loose constructionism when it suits them. For instance, take a look in the specific voting in FCC v. Fox (5-4 against), which overturned an appellate decision in favor of Fox; all of the conservative, self-described "strict constructionists" vote in favor of restriction of speech, while all of the liberals vote against. We love you too, Scalia. Well, to their benefit, Thomas at least said he was perfectly willing to overturn the original cases that let the FCC continue censorship and that he only voted with the others on grounds of procedure, while the Court as a whole has accepted the case again for review after the Second Appeals Court reaffirmed their original stance.

As for regulation of school behavior, this is where common law really comes into play. Tinker v. Des Moines ICSD established that First Amendment rights exist in school, except in circumstances where it is prejudicial to schoolwork, discipline, or the rights of others. Hate speech falls under the latter two categories, and hence can be taken as grounds for punishment under school regulations. Bethel School District v. Fraser added that schools have a responsibility to establish shared and civilized patterns of behavior by setting a good example, essentially, which allows schools to curtail offensive, obscene, or vulgar behavior. In essence, because a school has very specific and mandated responsibilities, and because of the unique status of students as legal minors still developing both mentally and physically, school authorities have greater leeway in restricting offensive speech in order to maintain a reasonable educational and societal setting and avoid impairing the progress of learning and educational and social development.

[Corey]

Easy. The First Amendment only protects freedom of speech from direct government interference. Furthermore, the United States operates under a common law system common to almost all Anglosphere nations; it therefore takes into account case precedent and judicial decisions as well as the letter of the law, in an attempt to fulfill the spirit of the law and account for changing times. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which is what you're talking about when you talk about the FCC's censorship regulations, was only recently passed, and that amidst certain worries to precisely this effect. Should a case regarding this case be brought before the United State Supreme Court and it be determined unconstitutional there, this law will be struck down, but that requires the case to exist and follow through the standard judicial appeals process right on up to the top. Media attempts to manage this have met with only limited success, in large part due to a very conservative Supreme Court that is perfectly fine with loose constructionism when it suits them. For instance, take a look in the specific voting in FCC v. Fox (5-4 against), which overturned an appellate decision in favor of Fox; all of the conservative, self-described "strict constructionists" vote in favor of restriction of speech, while all of the liberals vote against. We love you too, Scalia. Well, to their benefit, Thomas at least said he was perfectly willing to overturn the original cases that let the FCC continue censorship and that he only voted with the others on grounds of procedure, while the Court as a whole has accepted the case again for review after the Second Appeals Court reaffirmed their original stance.

As for regulation of school behavior, this is where common law really comes into play. Tinker v. Des Moines ICSD established that First Amendment rights exist in school, except in circumstances where it is prejudicial to schoolwork, discipline, or the rights of others. Hate speech falls under the latter two categories, and hence can be taken as grounds for punishment under school regulations. Bethel School District v. Fraser added that schools have a responsibility to establish shared and civilized patterns of behavior by setting a good example, essentially, which allows schools to curtail offensive, obscene, or vulgar behavior. In essence, because a school has very specific and mandated responsibilities, and because of the unique status of students as legal minors still developing both mentally and physically, school authorities have greater leeway in restricting offensive speech in order to maintain a reasonable educational and societal setting and avoid impairing the progress of learning and educational and social development.

I was waiting until you made your way to this thread. <3

[Mistral]

I was waiting until you made your way to this thread. <3

Of course, it's all just Wikipedia and interpolation. Nothing that special.

[crimsonedge]

Personally I think you should be able to say whatever you want on the airways and TV, and ratings can decide who succeeds and who fails. Most people don't want to hear and see vulgarity on TV all of the time, so they will tune into stations that take a more polite, family approach. I don't agree with censorship on the airways.

Of course, it's all just Wikipedia and interpolation. Nothing that special.

Wikipedia can be biased toward one side. Some of their stuff isn't fact, just opinions presented as such. They can list dates of certain things occurring, which are facts by themselves, but turn around and then mix it in with opinionated information. They are subject to the same criticism as any media source that presents facts mixed with opinion.

[Mistral]

Wikipedia can be biased toward one side. Some of their stuff isn't fact, just opinions presented as such. They can list dates of certain things occurring, which are facts by themselves, but turn around and then mix it in with opinionated information. They are subject to the same criticism as any media source that presents facts mixed with opinion.

Hence interpolation and interpretation. Even purely factual information can be shaded or outright manipulated in accordance with various biases. As long as you exercise critical thinking in considering your sources, you can account for these and treat with them accordingly. So, I hate to ask, but since all you're making is a snippy statement with no clear extension on your motivation or conclusion, which suggests a passive-aggressive attack without actually directly addressing a single thing, I have to do so: what's your point here?

[crimsonedge]

Hence interpolation and interpretation. Even purely factual information can be shaded or outright manipulated in accordance with various biases. So, I hate to ask, but what's your point here?

No point, just pointing something out here. I do see a lot of people copy-pasting from Wikipedia in online forums, in an effort to try and make themselves look smarter than they actually are. But at least you admitted to the source you got the information from.

[Mistral]

No point, just pointing something out here. I do see a lot of people copy-pasting from Wikipedia in online forums, in an effort to try and make themselves look smarter than they actually are. But at least you admitted to the source you got the information from.

Well, there is one thing I didn't admit to, but I'm not going to say it, now. I'd hate to see your self-righteous attitude broken so easily.

[Nemkoon]

Well, there is one thing I didn't admit to, but I'm not going to say it, now. I'd hate to see your self-righteous attitude broken so easily.

Do it.