Freedom of Speech

Unfortunately too many places of Higher Learning teach a and laws, instead of individual and equal Rights and laws. They do not teach the real meaning of freedom, or the Individualist philosophy from the 18th century Age of Enlightenment and the history of Individualism, that came from of the Reformation, on which this Country was founded. We have too much Political Correctness and not enough Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion; such as the Presses non-printing of Demarks Cartoon and non-defense of the Cartoonist in regards to Muslims, instead we are too easily offended, and wanting of redress for it, and the Fear of being offensive to someone or anyone, is taking over our society and our Freedom of Speech. Giving in to that Fear is never good, it’s called giving in to political Repression, and intolerance, whether it is from the Left Wing or Right Wing. Unfortunately too many places of Higher Learning teach a Collectivist point of view, and a Collectivist philosophy of group Rights and laws, instead of individual and equal Rights and laws. They do not teach the real meaning of freedom, or the Individualist philosophy from the 18th century Age of Enlightenment and the history of Individualism, that came from of the Reformation, on which this Country was founded. We have too much Political Correctness and not enough Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press and Freedom of Religion; such as the Presses non-printing of Demarks Cartoon and non-defense of the Cartoonist in regards to Muslims, instead we are too easily offended, and wanting of redress for it, and the Fear of being offensive to someone or anyone, is taking over our society and our Freedom of Speech. Giving in to that Fear is never good, it’s called giving in to political Repression, and intolerance, whether it is from the Left Wing or Right Wing.

James Madison's [the original writer or author of Bill of Rights, also known as the father of the Constitution], version of the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press Clause, it provided that ["the people shall not be deprived or abridged of the right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."] This version was introduced into the House of Representatives separately on June 8, 1789. It was passed by the House as an amendment to the Constitution with different wording and was later brought together by the Senate with other amendments passed by the House of Representatives, to form the First Amendment to the Constitution,

Nowhere in the United States Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it protect anyone from being offended or offended by speech. Non-offensive speech does not need protection under the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the United States of America. No one would try and stop non-offensive speech. We have to be able to feel, to say, to write, or to create whatever we like to be individual and free. People need to lighten up, and not be offended by everything that people say about them. Words only have the power that we give them. They have no power of their own to hurt, or offend anyone. Only we as individuals can give them that power over us, the power to hurt or offend us. Words have no meaning or purpose, other than what we give them. We have the power to control the effect words have over us, and our lives as human beings. We have the power to control our minds, to control our feelings, to control our lives, to control our destinies, and to control how much power someone else has over us, by the words that they use.

Voltaire said around the time of the Founding of this Country that, "I may disagree with everything that you say, but I shall defend to the death you're right to say it." People should be able to express themselves, any way they so choose as long as they do not harm anyone else's person or property. There are limits to speech; we cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, and we should not be able to insight to riot. That kind of speech can harm other peoples person and property, but being offended does neither. There is some art, or forms of art that I have found offensive, like back in 1988, when Andres Serrano published a photo as art, of a crucifix in a vat of his own urine, and Political Left Wing activists and activist Press got very passionate about defending it, but just because I found it offensive I do not think this art should be outlawed or banned. I find ignorance and racism offensive, but I don't believe that outlawing either will stop either of them from happening. You cannot stop ignorance or racism by passing a law, is not possible. There will still be ignorant people, and they're always be people who will hate other people for their differences, no matter what you do, or what laws you pass.Only individually can we and do we, choose not to hate, or not to be ignorant, or not to be racist, no law or legislation can do that, or choose that, for us. It is too great an infringement on our Liberty, to have to be selective of every word that we choose, just so we do not offend anyone. People do not have to listen to people they find offensive, or read what people have written if they find it offensive, or watch entertainment they find offensive, or look at art they find offensive. They have the power and the right to censor for themselves, but not others or society. We need to get back to the place where we once were in this Country. When people were willing to fight and die to give liberty and freedom to everyone, and not just the people they agreed with.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.