or is the freedom of speech in the U.S seeming to become more and more restricted?
not going to say my resons for thinking this because it will just turn into a flaming rant.

------------------
your curiosity will get the better of YOU one day.
Jon`C:Irony is spelling 'quality' poorly.
Spork:Well I think 'Irony is spelling grammar poorly'

This was chat discussion yesterday.

------------------
Et E'llo Endorenna ut / Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar tenn' / Ambar-metta!
(This IS[/b] SAJN_Master)

It's sad to say, but it's been like that since free speech was allowed.

------------------
*Takes out his blaster and fires shots at the wall, the blastmarks leave the words "S-TROOPER WUZ 'ERE!!!"

i mean that it seems to be getting worse.

i.e not being allowed to express religion at all because it "violates" seperation of church and state (in australia, a owner of a small buisness got in serious trouble for fireing a muslim worker for taking a few minutes off to pray).

you can get sued for libel or slander even thouugh you are stating the facts(i thought that libel and slander needed to ruin someones reputaion, if the police later found out that somthing someone got into trouble for saying was true, what would happen.

not to mention geocities(not even getting into that).

------------------
your curiosity will get the better of YOU one day.
Jon`C:Irony is spelling 'quality' poorly.
Spork:Well I think 'Irony is spelling grammar poorly'

Not being allowed to express religion? ... since when could you not express your religion? And wouldn't that be an issue with "freedom of religion," not "freedom of speech?"

Slander is dealing with other people. There's no reason why they shouldn't restrict your abilities to harm other persons and/or their reputations.

Geocities...

I'm sorry, but your reasons are far too vague to hardly take seriously. Whine and cry all you want, but trust me it's not as bad as you think.

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

[This message has been edited by Correction (edited December 30, 2003).]

Linked





Linked || Comment

Linked

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

Actual speech isn't very resistricted. Even with slander, someone has to have said something about someone that isn't in the media limelight and it has to have seriously hurt their reputation and have been false.

freedom of speech concerning religion: yes, it is becoming less and less. Extremist secularists have gone on a war path to keep anything religious, though Christianity is mostly targeted, from having any place in society at all. It reminds me of a South Park episode where everyone was offended by something concerning Christmas so all the offensive things were taken out and Christmas turned out to be crap.

------------------
You will respect my authoritah!

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited December 30, 2003).]

Hmm, I feel let down. I was expecting some evidence.


-Fox

Um, do any of you have examples of the government restricting the exercise of free speech or religion in the US, which is what the Bill of Rights is actually meant to protect against?

I dont really care for sensoring Religion, if u want to accept it, follow it, otherwise, ignore it.
But as I see it, free speech in America seems to have decreased recently, possible of the B dude, and perhaps in England too, though not as bad. Still, political correctness has a grip on everything now, and its ridiculous.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

The only thing you would disagree with that firefox is that it isn't infringing on freedom of speech and the wording should be difference. And it's not like I've done studies on this or gone through piles of legal documents and such. I do not claim to be some uber-lawyer, politician, philosopher, or claim to know as much as them. It's an opinion from what I've seen and heard from the news and from what I've discussed. An opinion that's just as valid as anyone elses, including yours.

I will say, however, that I do get a good chunk of information from The Factor, and even though O'Reilly thinks the same way as me on some subjects(or I should say I think the same way as him) I'm to a lesser degree then him on this subject. I do know that he is far more experienced and knowledgeable than me and many others, so I'm likely to give his opinion more weight than a lot of other layman opinions.

------------------
You will respect my authoritah!

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited December 30, 2003).]

strange, someone in the newspaper that i get(a local newspaper) made the EXACT same analogy.

------------------
your curiosity will get the better of YOU one day.
Jon`C:Irony is spelling 'quality' poorly.
Spork:Well I think 'Irony is spelling grammar poorly'

You mean with South Park? [starvin_marvin]sweeeeeet..[/starvin_marvin]
(I'm referring to alpha's post)

------------------
You will respect my authoritah!

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited December 30, 2003).]

Indeed, so instead of giving your honest opinion, you make the outstanding claim that religious freedom is being infringed upon in America, without a shred of evidence?



O'Reilly is a biased blowhard. Now I've stated my opinion, and one based on observation, as well.


-Fox


[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited December 30, 2003).]

*shakes head* did you read my post? I told you where I got my information, whither it be biased or otherwise. I don't have the time or dedication to sift through all the news sources and debates I've gone through, verbal or on massassi. I even gave you O'Reilly for a large contributor to my opinion. Whither you think he is a blowhard or not, I don't care. I still his opinion higher thna yours because he actually has more credibility than you(btw, i find it funny that YOU call him a blowhard). But don't try to stir up crap or try to piss me off, or try to pervert my words. I really don't care if you do.

Though now that I think of it, I do remember a story(that was on The Factor) about a boy scout group that was kept from renting uninhabitable land from a city. They only used it once a year and the other times anyone else could use it. Some court(probably the 9th circuit) ruled that that was in violation of seperation of church and state, even though the supreme court(or was it a lesser court?) ruled that the boy scouts were not a religious organization(that very last part I disagree with).

There have also other things I remember such as nativity scenes being taken down in a school, yet the menorrah(sp?) and crecent were allowed to be left off, christmas holiday on the school calendar having to be changed to winte holiday and other things.

------------------
You will respect my authoritah!

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited December 30, 2003).]

I don't watch South Park.


-Fox

I can read quite fine. I was commenting on your South Park reference, and I still fail to see any relevance it has to the topic.


-Fox

If you think that civil liberties are restricted, you probably have something really retarded to say anyway, so good riddance. It's a GOOD thing that libel is illegal.

------------------
He has a powerful weapon
He charges a million a shot
An assassin that's second to none
THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

That's fine. At least you're admitting that what you originally said held no weight whatsoever in debate, and was only an opinion based on an appeal to authority.


-Fox

Wolfy: Your examples are invalid. Public pressure is not restricting free speech.

erm...fox..you weren't commenting on my south park thing.

I said

You quoted me and said:

I said:
I mentioned nothing about South Park in the place you quoted. I hope I cleared that up for you.

------------------
You will respect my authoritah!

But it is the public's pressure that leads to issues with speech and religion.

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)
----@%

[This message has been edited by Echoman (edited December 30, 2003).]

I wouldn't say it holds no weight, but significantly less than someone who is far more experianced and knowledgeable than I. In legal terms, I would have a layman opinion, not an expert opinion. I just wish you would finally admit the same.

------------------
You will respect my authoritah!

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited December 30, 2003).]

Ah, I see you can edit posts, too. Here's what you originally said:



Now you can see the problem.



Now you're trying to trip me up. I made a post. Your post following mine made a reference to South Park. I then commented that I don't watch South Park.

Apparently, I'm not the one who has reading difficulty.

Ok...

But I was wondering, is this "restriction" of freedom of speech and religion based on the public's influence instead of the government?

------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)
----@%

Your quote showed nothing of my South Park comment. So I would assume it would be safe to think you weren't referring to it. However, after my starvinmarvin comment to alpha, you interperted it as a comment towards you. You made a side note on not watching South Park. I quoted you, but NOT on the your South Park comment. You thought I had. Is it any clearer?

------------------
You will respect my authoritah!

My post was immediately after yours, so I saw no reason to quote the statement in mine.


-Fox

what happened is because I didn't quote alpha when he mentioned the newspaper, you thought the quote was meant for you and it got into your argument somehow. How? I don't know. From my side you have clearly quoted what your are arguing and none of what you quoted in response to what I said to you mentions South Park.

------------------
You will respect my authoritah!

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited December 30, 2003).]

As far as I can tell, it's due to public influence. Any "persecution" against religious groups is essentially groundless.


-Fox

I'm referring to this post:



And, considering this has no bearing on the issue of free speech and religion in the US, I see no point in continuing to discuss a South Park reference.


-Fox

I did not bring South Park into the argument. It was a fun little aside thingthat had nothing to do with you.

------------------
You will respect my authoritah!

[This message has been edited by Kieran Horn (edited December 30, 2003).]

Oh for crying out loud

Alpha1's post was at 6:27pm
Firefox responded to Kieran Horn at 6:31pm which is also the time at which Kieran Horn was responding to alpha1.
At 6:33pm Firefox replied to Kieran Horn's post without thinking to consider that it wasn't directed at him.

Whilst it's possible that in the space of one minute Kieran Horn read Firefox's post, wrote a reply and posted, it's far more likely that he is in fact telling the truth.

About the "groundless"...

In Wolfy's post, he mentions the conflict with religion in a fire station. I could see why people would be "offended" by the Christmas decors because the people's tax money is put into that station. Some people might feel that they are contributing money to a place that was supporting religious ideas.

But, let's say, a bookstore is having a bible sale. People probably wouldn't be so offended by that because the bookstore is a private business. A person can choose not to participate in that sale.


------------------
Snail racing: (500 posts per line)
----@%

Indeed. The problem is when the bookstore is government-owned, such as a university bookstore. Private bookstores, such as Barnes & Noble, wouldn't experience such a problem, seeing that they are privately owned.

In the case of the fire station, a city- or county-run facility, I could imagine church-state separation becoming an issue.


-Fox

All praise Det, bringer of sanity.

People seem so afraid of seeing another religion displayed on a government building, afraid that it'll overrun their own in some paranoid belief that everyone else is out to get them.

When I saw that the Qur'an was on display at the New York PD, I didn't think, "My God, that's oppressing my religious beliefs!" I didn't think, "Why don't those crummy Muslims stop trying to shove their religion down my throat?" I thought, "How odd that people were so up in arms over the 10 Commandments, yet seem to be just fine about this."

When a government building has a wreath, menorah, Quran, the 10 Commandments, or some other religious symbol on display, religious beliefs are not being "forced on you." It's simply a display of the holiday, be it Passover, Christmas, Easter, Ramadan, Eid, Chanukah, or whatever. I don't mind if a religion gets a display, as long as everyone gets a fair piece of the pie.

Learn to accept that there are people who live in this country that believe differently than you. You're going to have to share the country with them, frightening as that may be.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited December 30, 2003).]

Another example of de minimis. Saying it does no harm does not support the constitutionality of religious symbols and customs utilized on government-owned property.


-Fox

Nor does it mean that Congress has made any law in regard to religion. Or were you referring to another part of the Constitution?



Hmm?

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited December 30, 2003).]

The 10th and 14th Amendments would apply in this instance, seeing as we're discussing what is ultimately government property. As such, religious displays would be tantamount to government endorsement of religion, and there has been legal precedent for such.


-Fox

10th Amendment

14th Amendment

I'm failing to see what relevenace these two have to separation of church and state or use of government property.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
NMGOH || Jack Chick preaches it || The Link of the Dead

[This message has been edited by Wolfy (edited December 30, 2003).]