FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Taken for granted… or whaaat?

The 1^st Amendment to the US Constitution was passed in 1791 and states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Abridging means:

a·bridge

tr.v. a·bridged, a·bridg·ing, a·bridg·es

1. To reduce the length of (a written text); condense.

2. To cut short; curtail. See Synonyms at shorten.

Curtail means:

The word curtail is defined as to cut short or restrict. To curtail an activity is defined as to place restrictions on or prohibit that occurrence of such a practice.

In other words and according to the First Amendment to the US Constitution (which theoretically is the law of the land) we can say…

• whatever we want,
• whenever we want,
• wherever we want,
• however we want,
• and to whomever we want.

But, do we really have unabridged freedoms in regards to our speech?

• Are we free to speak about our employer in a non-flattering way?
• Are we free to insight riots in the state in which we live or in another state?
• Are we free to talk of conspiracy perpetrated by our government?
• Are we free to construct and post banners derogatory to another religion?

The Washington free speech hearing heats up. Politico's top story here:

 

FREE SPEECH VS. SAFE RIDES: Later this week, a district court in D.C. will take on the same issue that was decided in New York last week: Are Metro’s delay tactics on a “defeat jihad” advertisement a violation of freedom of speech laws — and the Constitution? In New York, the answer was squarely on the side of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, leading to ads in the subway that were soon defaced by protesters. That has Pamela Geller, AFDI’s executive director, heartened that her ads will run soon in D.C., as well.

 

‘Absurd’: “My ads can run anytime,” Geller told MT. “Their argument was absurd to begin with, as well as dangerous — it sets the precedent that anyone who doesn't like some speech can be violent about it and thereby shut it up.” According to court documents Team MT pored over, Metro tasked its police chief, Michael Taborn, to review the submitted ads in light of attacks on U.S. embassies sparked by a shadowy Internet film. “Airing the AFDI ad in the Metrorail system, while many Muslims are agitated as a result of the video, presents a danger to WMATA’s patrons and its employees,” he wrote in court filings, leading to the delay of the ad. 

 

 

So, what's next?