Freedom of Speech

[TWalker]

Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished civil rights in the United States. It is protected by the First Amendment, but not absolutely protected. All together, there are six (6) rights guaranteed by the First Amendment -- religion, speech, press, assembly, association, and petition. As citizens, we owe it to ourselves to know exactly what Free Speech is, and is not.

Not everything anyone says is covered under the First Amendment

1) Treason and Sedition is not covered under the First Amendment. This is obvious.

2) Libel and Slander is not covered under the First Amendment, although opinion is.

When a speech or statement is in itself a crime, it is not protected by Freedom of Speech.

3) Inciting to Crime is not covered under the First Amendment. It is against the law, and like Treason it is easy to see why.

4) Plagarism is theft and is not covered under the First Amendment.

5) Property Rights Certain situations allow for restriction of speech within those situations.  Example: a radio station may limit what announcers say on the air on that radio station. This does not limit what those same people say as private citizens. This is not limitation of Free Speech under the law. Example two: This board limits topics and discussions, disallowing other religious proselytizing and vulgarities. This is not limitation of Free Speech under the law. This is the board owner/moderators exercising their rights as owners. Since no law has been passed preventing us from speaking elsewhere on these subjects, our Freedom of Speech has not been affected.

"Restrictions on the exercise of free speech are censorship and First Amendment violations only when some law or governmental action is involved. When private entities make personal decisions about what to publish and not publish, they are exercising the fundamental rights of private ownership and liberty - the types of rights whose exercise the government is supposed to protect." ¹


Given limitation 5, is it easy to see why the firing of Michael Graham recently does not come under the restriction of free speech. He is not limited to saying whatever he wants as a private citizen. He is not able to trample the property rights of the radio station by saying whatever he wants on the air. An analogy would be if someone were banned from this site for promoting something prohibited in the rules; similar to the radio station's policy statements this falls under property rights.  


------------------
(1) The Bill of Rights: Freedom of Speech, by Jacob G. Hornberger, November 1, 2004

[Soldier4Christ]

While I agree with you on the Radio stations rights according to law it is the reason behind the radio stations decision that I have a problem with. This does not mean that I think they should be sued. They came up with this decision out of fear of being sued by the ACLU and CAIR. The radio station was fully supportive of Michael Graham until a lawsuit was mentioned. As you said that is their right.

It is also the right of the people to know about this incident and to not listen to the radio station if they so chose. I personally would not listen to a radio station that backs down to the likes of CAIR and the ACLU.

As for Libel and Slander. It is only such if it is not true. To make true and factual statements does not fall under the clause of "Libel and Slander"

Statements that CAIR has made does however fall into the category of "Treason and Sedition" and "Inciting to Crime".

[TWalker]

Then I take it by your saying:

While I agree with you on the Radio stations rights according to law it is the reason behind the radio stations decision that I have a problem with. This does not mean that I think they should be sued. They came up with this decision out of fear of being sued by the ACLU and CAIR. The radio station was fully supportive of Michael Graham until a lawsuit was mentioned. As you said that is their right.

That you are reconsidering your earlier statement:

As we can see Michael Graham did not have his civil liberties of "Freedom of Speech" protected.

and correcting your position to one of disagreement with the Radio station, rather than protesting that Graham's civil rights were infringed upon?

[Soldier4Christ]

His freedom of speech was infringed upon. Not by the radio station necessarily but by CAIR. If you will note that statement was in regards to the "vision and mission" of CAIR. Yes the radio station did assist CAIR in this action but as you said it is their legal right. CAIR does all they can to suppress anything about them even if it is the truth.

[TWalker]

I don't think you have thought this through. His freedom of speech, by definition, can not have been infringed upon. CAIR lacks the authority. They are not the government and cannot infringe on his right to free speech.

This is a factual matter of law, not opinion.

Now, CAIR may have influenced the station. It may be terribly unfair that he lost his job. But his first amendment rights of free speech were never in any way limited, infringed upon, or curtailed.

[Soldier4Christ]

Cair did infringe upon his freedom of speech by threatening a lawsuit. They coerced the radio station into suppressing him his speech. Whether this infringement is by the letter of the law or not is moot. They still did what they could to prevent him from his freedom of speech. Bullying tactics. I applaud Michael Graham for not cowtoeing to them and to continue to take his stand. In my personal opinion CAIR is not finished with him. I expect more from them against him.

[TWalker]

Threatening a lawsuit might in some cases be coersion, but it is not infringement of anyone's First Amendment rights. I think perhaps you don't fully understand the First Amendment and what it is and is not. The First Amendment states:

***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.***

So as regards Free Speech, all the First Amendment says is:

Congress cannot pass a law restricting free speech.

That's it. There is no more to it. It does not guarantee a forum for making speeches: Graham cannot demand that the radio station allow him to say whatever he wants any more than an Atheist can come on this board and demand they say whatever they want.

"The first thing to notice here is that, contrary to popular opinion, this amendment does not give people rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, or freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. In fact, the Constitution does not give people any rights whatsoever.

Instead, it operates as a restriction on the interference with rights – rights that preexist both the government and the Constitution. In other words, the reason that the Constitution called the federal government into existence was to protect the exercise of pre-existing, fundamental rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the government didn’t use such power (the power to protect rights) to infringe or even destroy such rights.

The second principle to notice in the First Amendment is that the restriction operates on Congress, the elected representatives of the people. The reason that principle is important is that it recognizes that democratically elected officials are likely to use their powers to violate people’s fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, press, and religion." ¹
NOTE that the First Amendment restricts the government - it does not address anyone else, not CAIR, not this forum, not a newspaper.

"For example, consider a newspaper that publishes an article favoring a certain policy in the community. Imagine that opponents to that policy demand that the newspaper carry an article opposing the policy and that the newspaper refuses to do so.

Some people would undoubtedly cry, “Censorship!” and claim that the First Amendment was being violated. They would be wrong on both counts. Restrictions on the exercise of free speech are censorship and First Amendment violations only when some law or governmental action is involved. When private entities make personal decisions about what to publish and not publish, they are exercising the fundamental rights of private ownership and liberty – the types of rights whose exercise the government is supposed to protect.

Let’s consider a famous example involving the misapplication of the free-speech principle in order to better understand it. In the 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

But Holmes got it wrong. The reason that a man ordinarily cannot scream, “Fire!” in a theater is that the owner of the theater hasn’t permitted it. That is, when a patron enters the theater, he does so on terms established by the owner of the theater, which implicitly include a rule against disturbing the other patrons.

Let’s assume, however, that for some strange reason a theater owner decides to create a rowdy environment and openly declares that anyone who enters his theater can scream, yell, dance, and even issue false warnings of “Fire!” As the owner of the theater, that would be his right, just as it would be the right of people to refrain from patronizing that theater.

Thus, freedom of speech is ultimately grounded in private-property rights. The owner of a newspaper has the right to publish or not publish materials because the newspaper belongs to him. As the owner of the newspaper, he has the right to refuse anyone’s request to communicate through his newspaper. No one has a duty to furnish someone else the means by which he is able to communicate his views. If one person can’t persuade another to publish his views, he is free to open his own newspaper. "¹ (Emphasis added)

CAIR is not the goverment. They are not in violation of the First Amendment, they cannot by definition restrict anyone's civil rights to free speech.



(1) http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger8.html

[JudgeNot]

Yes, ABC has every right to fire someone for “intolerance”.  Oh – except for homosexual activists who may denounce “all republicans” as being equal to the Taliban.  Firing them or punishing them for offensive “generalizations” would be a ‘hate crime’.  

Yes, ABC has every right to fire someone for “intolerance”.  Oh – except for the OTWs (other than whites).  OTWs can safely say anything under the umbrella of ‘race’.  Firing an OTW for any reason is usually due to racism.  OTWs are incapable of ‘intolerance’; anything they say is okay.  

Yes, ABC has every right to fire someone for “intolerance”.  And I have every right not ‘tolerate’ ABC or support their advertisers.  

Michael Graham did nothing wrong.  Oh – except for being Judeo-Christian and having an opinion about certain OTWs.  His firing simply spotlights the fact that standards for ‘tolerance’ are one way, one sided affairs fueled by an extreme hate of Judeo-Christian truths.  

In some western countries (it would be intolerant of me to name them) it is now illegal for Judeo-Christians to quote certain bible passages, and is punishable by stiff fines or worse.  However, ‘Imams’ (or whatever they’re called) can freely speak in public and openly advocate death to westerners – including non-combatants – because their ‘holy book’ says it.  

Please, Lord, save us from ourselves.  The world is up-side-down.  
Amen.

[Shammu]

Please, Lord, save us from ourselves.  The world is up-side-down.  
Amen.

AMEN  

[TWalker]

The point is not whether Graham or ABC or CAIR did anything wrong. That is outside the scope of this thread.

The point is that First Amendment freedom of speech protection was not, and cannot have been, involved in any way.

And there is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" unless you are speaking of Messianic Jews, who are by definition not Christian. I am well aware it is almost as popular a buzz-word as Neo-Nazi or Girly Man, but it is an oxymoron and has no intrinsic logical meaning.

The Myth of a Judeo-Christian Tradition

The Judeo-Christian Oxymoron

Regarding the term Judeo-Christian

[Soldier4Christ]

First off I did not say that CAIR was in violation of any amendments, you are "putting words in mouth" that I did not say. I said they were in violation of their own "vision and mission". As I said whether it is the letter of the law or not is moot, they are violating other peoples rights (suppressing his speech) through coercion (harassment).

CAIR has an objective, they are willing to use any means available to them to turn this country into an Islamic state (by their own admission). What they did to Michael Graham is just one of those things.

That was the point of my post. Not whether it was legally right or not.

You seem to have come here to argue on any such points as you can in support of those that are anti-Christian.

[JudgeNot]

And there is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" unless you are speaking of Messianic Jews, who are by definition not Christian. I am well aware it is almost as popular a buzz-word as Neo-Nazi or Girly Man, but it is an oxymoron and has no intrinsic logical meaning.
The Myth of a Judeo-Christian Tradition

Oh, yes – how completely stupid of me to believe that my family and ancestors have actual ‘tradition’ based on JEWISH and CHRISTIAN values, and how stupid of me to use the term “Judeo-Christian” to describe those traditions and values.

I should be sent to ‘re-education camp’ (mandatory diversity training) for believing I actually have values at all!  I’ll ask Jesse Jackson and the ‘Imam of the hour’ which camp I should report to.  

 

[Soldier4Christ]

And there is no such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" unless you are speaking of Messianic Jews, who are by definition not Christian.

Like those people that wrote those articles you have a lack of understanding of the term "Judeo-Christian". It means that we have our roots in the Jewish beliefs. The old testament. It is the same God whether the Jewish people believe that God came to us in the flesh as Jesus or not. Thus the example given in Romans 11.

[TWalker]

I understand the term perfectly.

I also understand no person is a "Judeo Christian" as you state Graham is, above. He is Christian. There is no "Judeo-Christian" religion. You could say he follows the "Judeo Christian tradition", although there is considerable room for opinion there, but you cannot accurately claim he is Judeo-Christian.

Oh – except for being Judeo-Christian

[TWalker]

You seem to have come here to argue on any such points as you can in support of those that are anti-Christian.

I beg to differ:

I fail to see how inaccuracies in points of law are Christian. I wrote a post on the First Amendment as regards Freedom of Speech. I fail to see how the First Amendment is anti-Christian.

"Violating rights" is a legal term, not a matter of opinion. Ergo, whether it is the law or not is far from moot - it is central.

Do you call everyone with whom you have a dispute about legal terms "anti-Christian"?