I am taking a course at school about government, and it has opened my eyes to what goes on in the government and what the constitution is about, etc, where before I knew very little of anything. We’ve talked a lot about the bill of rights and the freedoms of Amercian’s, or the freedoms we are supposed to have. To me, freedom should be complete with no rules, but what we have is a very laid back and somewhat open thing we are allowed to do, but it has restrictions. I don’t like to think of it as a freedom, but more as something we have that can be used against us at some point in our lives if we don’t use it the way the government wishes us to. Understand? It’s hard for me to explain. But I read in my text book about slander, obscenity, among other things, that are restricted in the first ammendment, hence we cannot do these things or we will be imprisoned for breaking the law. Should freedom be restricted by a law? I personally think that freedom should be just that, freedom to do anything without punishment. I know that this would cause chaos, so I propose to quit calling it a freedom, and come up with something else. Sorry if this is confusing, it’s hard to write down into words.

...........that our speech ( the general public) is not quite as free as some would like to believe, we still have it pretty good. For the most part if the truth is being spoken there is little any one can do to stop you. In Canada and the US citizens can openly speak against the governments without risking retribution of any great consequence.

Do I believe that some restrictions are neccesary, Yes I do.

Do I believe that there are currently too many restrictions on free speech, yes I do.

I would rather have the situation we are in now than that that exists in many countries around the world right now.

I shall set the premise for this. A teacher named Wade Churchhill, of the state run and funded university of Colorado, recently published a theory that the attack on the World Trade Center had much more implications that originally perceived. He believes that the terrorists were attacking ‘soft power’, or basically American capitalism. For a reference, every McDonalds you see in somewhere outside of the U.S. is American soft power. He claimed that this might be for the better. Of course, he referenced an empathy for the dead, but in general it was a very controversial statement. He even went as far as stating that the people in the trade center were ‘little Eichmanns’.

So he was going to speak at a liberal arts college in NEw York, but New York began receiveing threats. It went as far as the governor, George Pataki, calling Wade, beckoning for him not to speak. It was cancelled, and Wade made his way back to Colorado.

What was waiting for him in Colorado were more threats, and a call for resignation by the board.

Now the key question is, does the state run university have a right to fire him? And under what reason? How far can free speech be taken?

Note… In a similar story, the president of Harvard, Mr. Summers, proposed a controversial theory realtion the anatomy of a women to her lack of success in the scinetific world. People are calling for his resignation as well.

...to understand is that the state pays the salary, and the state employs him. Does that not put it at the states discretion of whether or not to keep him on payroll?

I am just presenting questions for everyone to answer. Inquire.

But if the state is able to fire him, what reason could they list? And it eventually comes down to one man, the governor. If the governor does not agree with what this man said, and feels he shouldn’t be allowed to express opinions contrary to that of the himself, is that not tainting governmental positions? How far can free speech go? Until one acts on the thoughts one has, or supress them before that? Where should the bar be set? Or shall there be no bar and merely a line in the sand? Also, it is important to know that this man is a teacher. So his primary function is to get his students to think. Now was he accomplishing it, or pushing his own agenda, using a place of eminence as his platform?

Those are all good debate questions. I present them to stimulate conversation. I shall remain disinterested.

DOWN THE DRAIN…it makes me sad.

We have two options Free Speech or Fascism. Challenge Free Speech on any level and you encourage Fascism.

It seems that the majority of people who have problems living free in the US are people who consistently push the envelope with poor taste and verbally abusive language. Take for instance the guy that just got arrested at a speech by Ann Coulter at the University of Texas. He just HAD to use swearing to communicate his ideas, even in front of children, and then was arrested. Of course, the usual crowd is up in arms defending his free speech. With a civilized approach, people can successfully communicate any idea they want. Limits imposed by law are not just laws, but the majority social sentiment of our nation. In order to maintain a civil society, these limits should be embraced. I believe these people who cry oppression here are just looking to be some sort of martyr for their cause. Really, it’s not that hard to pass ideas along. If you look at the people that have inspired some of these upstarts to convey their messages, you will most likely find that they were peaceful, respectful, and gentle people who will be remembered in history for those aspects.