Free Speech: IT IS NOT ABSOLUTE

"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."

There has been a consistent interpretation of the concept of the First Amendment to the US Constitution since its inclusion in the Bill of Rights as the FIRST of ten amendments: it is not absolute. A traditional phrase to teach this reality is: "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.". In other words, if it incites harm, it is not constitutional. 

Given the above, it is objectively evidenced that many (? most) statements from every present-day conservative/MAGA Republican are unconstitutional. So, the question is: WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED TO USE MEDIA UNOPPOSED CONTEMPORANEOUSLY?  It is more than time to not only restore the Fairness Doctrine but make it inclusive of ALL media, with the requirement of instant/immediate fact-checking. With the wide knowledge base easily accessed by media today, this is now possible - - - use it!!!

Free Speech: It's Complicated

"Suzanne Nossel is the CEO of PEN America, a non-profit dedicated to protecting free speech at home and abroad. She’s also served at the highest levels of American foreign policy, first as the Deputy to the UN Ambassador under Richard Holbrooke, and later as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Hillary Clinton. Nossel joins Preet to discuss the recent rise of book bans, the Biden administration’s human rights record, and how to balance the value of free speech with other progressive values, like diversity and inclusion."

Click on the link below for an interview with an informed person regarding the nuances of free speech:

Book Bans & Free Speech

Who Should Control Books In Libraries?

Click on the link below for an analysis regarding what organization(s) should be controlling what you can or cannot read in public sources:

Let's talk about the Illinois book ban ban....

Countering False Information

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.^[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine,^[2] prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or congressional legislation.^[3] However, later the FCC removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.^[4](Wikipedia)

With the present poison of "fake news" from conservative political/religious media, it seems reasonable to return to the above in some form. Ideally, I would like to see a contemporaneous rebuttal to any program or advertisement that is counter to facts as understood by science. Included would be religions, alternatives to medicine, unsupported conspiracy theories, and any other pseudo (false) science (knowledge). At a minimum, I would want a verbal (radio/podcast) and/or visual labeling presented as the information is being presented similar to the following:

Obviously, we are a LONG way from this being required. However, with a science-based thinking government and electorate, I see no barrier to it.

The History Of Free Speech In The USA (3d and Final Episode)

"Why are Americans so preoccupied with so-called “cancel culture”? What are the lines between accountability and cancellation? And what drives citizens to stand against objectionable statements?

"On this final episode in a three-part series on free speech, Heather and Joanne discuss the fall from grace of Loyalist politician Thomas Hutchinson during the Revolutionary period, the suppression of the German language during World War I, and the 2003 controversy over The Chicks’ public condemnation of the Iraq War."

Click on the link below:

What is Cancel Culture?

The History Of Free Speech In The USA (Episode 2)

"What have been the gravest threats to a free press over the nation’s history? And how can the past tell us how to safeguard our access to information today?

In this second episode in a three-part series on free speech, Heather and Joanne discuss the 1837 murder of abolitionist journalist Elijah P. Lovejoy, the role of Joseph Pulitzer in the creation of the independent press, and the rise and fall of the Fairness Doctrine."

Click on the link below to continue the podcast series. The section (beginning at the 40:45 mark) on the history of the Fairness Doctrine is incredibly enlightening.

Free Speech: The Power of an Independent Press

The History Of Free Speech In The USA (Episode 1)

"How has the federal government limited and protected free speech rights over the course of American history? How have citizens responded when Washington has limited their speech rights? And what can Elon Musk’s commentary on online free speech tell us about the difficult lines between free speech, disinformation, and political power?

"In this first installment of a three-episode series on free speech, censorship, and so-called cancel culture, Heather Cox Richardson and Joanne Freeman explore the Alien & Sedition Acts, the Palmer Raids, the post-WWI rise of the ACLU, and the 1980s debate over burning the American flag."

Click on the link below for an entertaining and enlightening podcast on a subject with no simple answers:

Free Speech: The Government and Us

Freedom Of Speech

 What "Freedom of Speech" is and is not:

Ben Sasser

ttJianuo2aghry sf8r9,0 gl2902d1  · 

“Freedom of speech”

So, today I’ve been seeing a lot of nonsense about “there’s no ‘freedom of speech’ anymore.” This post addresses misconceptions about the first amendment.

1. “Freedom of speech” refers to the right you have as an American citizen to say whatever you want without fear of GOVERNMENT censure or criminal liability. There are some limitations, but largely you can express any viewpoint you wish, even “hate speech” or the view that certain people or groups should not be allowed to live or that they be executed. You cannot be imprisoned for saying or printing or artistically representing whatever views you wish to express.

2. You may not incite violence or cause laws to be broken by your speech. Charles Manson is in prison for speaking in such a way as to convince others to kill people. You may not yell “fire” in a crowded venue because people will likely come to harm in attempting to move themselves to safety.

3. Private companies like Facebook and Twitter (or Parler) can decide to suspend revoke your membership and not let you use their platforms for ANY REASON THEY WANT. They are private companies, and just like you can decide what language can be used in your home or if you want a guest to leave your home, they can decide they don’t want certain language on their site or they want you off their site. They are not the government. They have every right to exercise their free speech and disallow certain language or users. You are welcome to set up your own website and allow or not allow whatever speech or members you want.

4. “Freedom of speech” does not absolve you from the consequences of your speech/views. Your company may be able to fire you for expressing your views. Your friends and acquaintances can desert you. Your shopping places may ban you from their business. Your dog groomer can decide not to accept your business and you’ll need to find another dog groomer. None of these consequences involve your freedom of speech because none of these consequences are the government doing anything to you.

5. You have as much freedom of speech as you always have had. Your freedom of speech is intact. The government will not fine or imprison you for any opinion you have or share. Other individuals, media companies, communities, acquaintances are NOT the government and they have free speech, too. Their actions are not those of the government. If you are being threatened by a government official or government office with a fine or imprisonment for your opinions, contact a good lawyer and the national news...you’re about to be very rich and the most famous person on the planet.

Cancel Culture: The Hypocrisy Of The Republicans

"Nikole Hannah-Jones, a Pulitzer-winning journalist and developer of the 1619 Project, was appointed to a tenured professorship at UNC-Chapel Hill. This is a position that is funded by the Knight Foundation. However, a board of old white lawyers who happen to be the Trustees of the University, denied Hannah-Jones tenure, against the recommendations of, well... everyone who should matter in the decision-making process. Many people have made bad faith arguments and whataboutisms, but Dr. Lindsey Osterman (tenured professor) is here to give us a real perspective on it."

Click on the link below for how the Republicans' magical thinking harms free speech.

The Hannah-Jones Tenure Denial is Worse Than You Think

An Objective Look At Free Speech

"Over the past few years, a broader conversation around speech has intensified in the United States. It is a conversation about speech, taboo, social justice, power and hierarchy, penalty about what things people can or can't say, should or shouldn't say in what environments, and what censure should attach to that kind of speech.  It’s an incredibly thorny conversation to have, filled with exhaustively overused terms like “cancel culture”, but it is not an unimportant one. This week scholar and linguist, John McWhorter, joins to discuss our discourse around speech and debate where we as a society should set our boundaries."

Click on the link below for a podcast that delves into the topic of Free Speech with depth and the spectrum of opinion:

Who Gets To Say?

Get Thought Police Off College Campuses

If you are an adult and have not changed your mind about something important, you either have not been exposed to opinions counter to yours or are indoctrinated beyond hope.

Free Speech And The Authoritarian Left

"Snowflakes like these must learn to live in a world where they won’t always hear what they like."

A University that really understands free speech (but authoritarian nonsense continues elsewhere)

Why Free Speech Is Fundamental

"Perhaps the greatest discovery in human history — one that is prior to every other discovery — is that our traditional sources of belief are in fact generators of error and should be dismissed as grounds for knowledge. These include faith, revelation, dogma, authority, charisma, augury, prophesy, intuition, clairvoyance, conventional wisdom, and subjective certainty."

Must reading. Wise and powerful words for all who value knowledge.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/01/26/why-free-speech-fundamental/aaAWVYFscrhFCC4ye9FVjN/story.html#

Also, THIS podcast focuses in on the attacks on freedom of the press.