3 ms·

I'm convinced a lot of people do not understand "free speech" as it applies to the First Amendment and as a fundamental principal of democratic systems of gover

by Rapzid 8y ago

I'm convinced a lot of people do not understand "free speech" as it applies to the First Amendment and as a fundamental principal of democratic systems of government. The First Amendment puts limits on congress. It's a check against government oppression, full stop. The Fourteenth Amendment extends that all the way down to local governments. I feel like many people are then trying to bend its scope past the breaking point to fit their worldview.

T-hawk 8y ago
This is true, that the First Amendment only refers to government action. But its underlying spirit is often taken to be that no entity with power should seek to use it to suppress free discourse.
- jshowa3 8y ago
  This would invalidate all speech policies provided by corporations and corporate person hood. The underlying spirit is irrelevant when there's clear reference in the Constitution. It's not ambiguous where "spirit" can come into place, ie. Second Amendments "right to bear arms"
- Rapzid 8y ago
  AFAIK its underlying spirit has pretty much always been in regards to government with origins in ancient Greece as it pertains to democracy(the system of government).
chrisco255 8y ago
It's also a cultural principle, right? The whole idea of freedom of speech precedes its enshrinement in the Constitution. It's very important to put it there. But it would be meaningless words on paper if our society didn't generally tolerate and respect the idea of free speech. Book stores tend to carry both religious and anti-religious material, for example. Nobody tends to boycott the book store and force their hand, because we believe in that sort of discussion and debate about things.
- Rapzid 8y ago
  > But it would be meaningless words on paper if our society didn't generally tolerate and respect the idea Yes, but the idea is that the government shouldn't be able to suppress the spread of information and ideas, or persecute on the basis of ideas. It would only be meaningless words on paper if the courts didn't uphold the rule of law, and the First Amendment specifically, and the executive didn't enforce it..
  - chrisco255 8y ago
    Not if we had a culture that didn't condone it. There's the law and then there's cultural values. And the purpose of freedom of speech is to recognize that a healthy marketplace of ideas and debate is good for our society. That's a cultural value as much as it's a legal value.

by Rapzid 8y ago

T-hawk 8y ago

This is true, that the First Amendment only refers to government action. But its underlying spirit is often taken to be that no entity with power should seek to use it to suppress free discourse.

jshowa3 8y ago
This would invalidate all speech policies provided by corporations and corporate person hood. The underlying spirit is irrelevant when there's clear reference in the Constitution. It's not ambiguous where "spirit" can come into place, ie. Second Amendments "right to bear arms"
Rapzid 8y ago
AFAIK its underlying spirit has pretty much always been in regards to government with origins in ancient Greece as it pertains to democracy(the system of government).

chrisco255 8y ago

It's also a cultural principle, right? The whole idea of freedom of speech precedes its enshrinement in the Constitution. It's very important to put it there. But it would be meaningless words on paper if our society didn't generally tolerate and respect the idea of free speech. Book stores tend to carry both religious and anti-religious material, for example. Nobody tends to boycott the book store and force their hand, because we believe in that sort of discussion and debate about things.

Rapzid 8y ago
> But it would be meaningless words on paper if our society didn't generally tolerate and respect the idea Yes, but the idea is that the government shouldn't be able to suppress the spread of information and ideas, or persecute on the basis of ideas. It would only be meaningless words on paper if the courts didn't uphold the rule of law, and the First Amendment specifically, and the executive didn't enforce it..
- chrisco255 8y ago
  Not if we had a culture that didn't condone it. There's the law and then there's cultural values. And the purpose of freedom of speech is to recognize that a healthy marketplace of ideas and debate is good for our society. That's a cultural value as much as it's a legal value.