[quote=“Chewycorns”]Liberals sometimes fall short defending free speech. Look at the how the IHT (owned by the mouthpieces of the Liberal establishment
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]Yes, liberals sometimes do have trouble standing up for free speech. But conservatives are no different. Recall those who wanted to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning. Or, the famous lawsuit in the 60’s over the guy wearing a t-shirt that read “Fuck the Draft.”
There are few who have the guts to stand up and advocate for free speech no matter how offensive the speech can be. One who has done so is Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz (also the ACLU does, which is why many hate it), who has represented numerous persons and organizations in disputes where Constitutional rights were being challenged, whether the clients were nazis wanting to march through a jewish neighborhood or others who most would find highly offensive. While one might be disgusted by some he has represented, Dershowitz is extremely principled in his defense of Constitutional rights.
For a great book on the subject, read his “The Best Defense.”
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de … 8?v=glance[/quote]
There are only a few areas where MT and I agree (politically)… and I like to note the same when the opportunity arises. I agree that many conservatives have difficulty protecting free speech sometimes too. The examples MT cited above are good ones. While I am offended by both those who would burn the US flag and those who would march in support of Nazism, I think it is vital to our democracy that such people be permitted to express their views freely, subject only to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions.
MT and I also agree on separation of church and state.
After that, you have to get into beer to find things that we argee on… 
Over the years, many posters have demanded a right to free speech in Taiwan or on forumosa as though such a right were god-given and existed universally. Of course such a claim is absurd. Many countries don’t afford broad rights of free speech and even in the US the right is far from absolute. But, in the US the right receives greater protection than probably any other country on earth.
As we all know, in the US the right to free speech derives from the 1st Amendment. When the Constitution was first ratified there was no right to free speech, right to bear arms, right to freedom of religion, etc. The Constitution only described the set-up of the government. It was only a few years later that people said, “hey, what about protecting the rights of the people,” so the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) was then added to the Constitution.
The 1st Amendment reads as follows:
The first thing one should notice is that the amendment only applies to Congress. The 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress from passing laws infringing on people’s rights of free speech, etc. It does not prohibit the states from passing such laws. Fortunately, the 14th Amendment was added, which makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. Part of the 14th Amendment reads:
But, even then the Constitution prevents only certain government actions – it says nothing about private action. Therefore, if I want to open a coffee shop where any mention of George Bush is prohibited and will lead to your eviction, that is my right and it is perfectly legal under US law, just as you could enact a similar “law” in your house.
However, despite the fact that Congress and the states are prohibited from making any law prohibiting free speech, that is not an absolute right. None of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute (something that opponents of gun control often don’t understand). As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously said, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” Some examples of prohibited speech in the US include the following:
- one may not tell the stewardess that you have a bomb in your carryon bag;
- one may not tell a bank teller to hand over the money or you’ll blow her brains out;
- one may not write 100 letters to a movie star telling her she just doesnt’ understand; you love her and you were meant to be together;
- one may not drive a truck around the neighborhood with loud speakers blaring out that you have brooms for sale (unlike Taiwan);
The courts, and most people, usually feel that those types of restrictions are reasonable limitations on the right to free speech. Other restrictions, such as those on pornography and obscenity, for example, are more controversial.
Constitutional law is fascinating because, as noted above with regard to gun owners, the Constitutional provisions are not always fixed, clear-cut, absolute and unambiguous. It would be impossible, and foolish, to try to write a constitution that way. The US Constitution is the oldest living constitution in the world, almost every other constitution in the world has been modeled in part based on it, and it has been amended only 27 times in more than 200 years (which is why those idiots who want to amend it to ban flag burnings or gay marriage are so wrong). The Constitution has lasted so long with so few amendments because it states general principals that are then interpreted and explained by the courts.