Community | September 10, 2010 | 3 comments

The Worst Kind of Free Speech

Image
Billy_Tarter
Despite the pleas (and in some cases the demands) of world leaders that the American government stop Jones, they're wasting their breath. The authorities won't stop Jones because his actions are protected by the First Amendment, the freedom of speech.

*** Start full article ***
(For links to external sources, please go to original article: http://talkingskull.com/article/worst-kind-of-free-speech)

The latest media reports indicate that pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida has postponed, but not cancelled, his congregation's planned Qu'ran-burning on the anniversary of September 11th, after a phone call from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and condemnation from leaders worldwide.

Unfortunately, Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church (of "God Hates Fags" infamy) have vowed to carry out the burning if Dove World doesn't do it.

In the meantime, Dove World has had its website taken down by their hosting providers, Interpol has issued a global alert, and some clever folks have created a parody ad mocking Jones and Phelps.

President Obama on Thursday urged Jones to listen to "those better angels", saying that the burning was contrary to American values. But is it really? Even a cursory reading of message boards around the web yields a plethora of angry and hate-filled comments by those supporting the Qu'ran-burning. There seem to be an awful lot of Americans who feel that burning the Qu'ran is revenge for acts of violence carried out by Muslim extremists — that a slap in the face of all Muslims worldwide is a fitting atonement for the acts of a few nutjobs.

Despite the pleas (and in some cases the demands) of world leaders that the American government stop Jones, they're wasting their breath. The authorities won't stop Jones because his actions are protected by the First Amendment, the freedom of speech. In the famous (and incorrectly attributed) words of the French philosopher Voltaire:

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

This is the basic tenet of American, and indeed Western civilization. It represents everything we stand for, fight for, and strive for. We might find a particular piece of speech detestable, but the right to say it must be defended or the entire system falls apart. Freedom of speech is seen as one of the foundations underpinning an open and fair society, and selective application would undermine the freedom for everyone. It has to be freedom for all speech, no matter how distasteful.

That said, can you think of a more offensive act of free speech than burning another religion's holy book? Go on, I dare you. You won't find one. This is the ultimate and most extreme example of freedom of speech the world has ever seen. And in the end this becomes not so much about free speech as it is about human decency. Yes, we are free to say anything we want. But should we?

http://talkingskull.com/article/worst-kind-of-free-speech
  1. groups:
    Community,   Culture,   Opinion,   Debate,   2 more
  2. tags:
    Religion Free Speech Freedom of Speech First Amendment 11 more
  3.     
    |

3 comments // The Worst Kind of Free Speech

  • H2O_4U
    • 0
      H2O_4U  
    • If, in order to protect national security (US because I live in a big city with lots of explode-able buildings) we must stop this kind of "free speech" then so be it.
      It's racist anyway.

    • 1 year ago
  • remanns
    • 0
      remanns  
    • Freedom of speech is intended to cover "freedom to pick a fight,....speech" as well.
      Its not "hate-crimey" if the intent is NOT to "intimidate", but to express disgust and opposition.

      p.s. I DONT agree with this particular action,...but I think it is on the permissible side of the " freedom" line.

    • 1 year ago
  • ampersand
    • 0
      ampersand  
    • Free speech is one of the key foundations of our legal and political system.
      It's sadly often abused by the distortions of privately owned media and corporate power. As I. F. Stone put it "you can have freedom of the press as long as you own the printing press."

      But there are also real and established legal constraints on free speech set by law in the United States. Specifically, that is speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is extremely and imminently dangerous.

      The most well-know example of that was enunciated by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919. He found that there is NO legal protection for "Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater."
      His decision highlighted an example of speech which is both dangerous and false; speech which serves no conceivable useful purpose and is so demonstrably extremely and imminently dangerous that resort to the courts or administrative procedures is not practical.

      I'd expect that actions that had NO particular utility in providing greater access to information and are provocative enough to have US government officials AND international government and religious leaders state that a specific unilateral action would directly and immediately put American lives and other human lives in danger, would fit under that reasonable restriction.

    • 1 year ago
more from Community:

top videos