All Comments on 'Our Failing Fight for Freedom'

Who is to say that the LOUD, RUDE, CELEBERTY, SELF APPOINTED, ACTIVEST--pick one or more of the preceeding--is any smarter then the majority. Most of the LOUD MOUTHS are so intrenched IN THEMSELVES that they would not know reason if they triped over it. The press and media is so far left they meet themselves comming back. Say what you want, but look out for the Hammer of decent country loving citizens.

I tend to disagree with your specific definition of 'Free Speech'...in particular the caveat of 'not be censored for it', and your further interpretations of that phrase.

To borrow your example, the Dixie Chicks, you ask 'what happened to their right to freedom of speech?'. The answer to that is quite simply this: nothing happened to it. In speaking out on issues and policies on which they felt strongly about, they were in fact exercising it. Yes, many responded by labeling them 'traitors' (and many far more horrid adjectives, burning their CDs, ad nauseam. Did not each and every one of those people have their own right to speak as they chose to? If they were to refuse to speak, assuming the Dixie Chicks had the right to speak 'and not be censored for it', would then those who did not speak in effect be censored themselves? Would their right to speak freely not be abridged?

To use your other example, the 'author of a novel of political intrigue'...does the authors right to 'speak his or her mind and not be censored for it' bind the publication house to printing the novel? Does not the publisher have their own right to chose which novels they do and do not publish (one could say this is penumbra of the First Amendment's freedom of association clause)? Does a single publishing house deciding to pass on a novel (a common ocurrance)? Where does one begin to decide these things?

The largest problem, in my opinion, in discussing the concept of free speech, is actually defining it...especially when those definitions tend to limit it. Unfortunately, many seem to believe that 'freedom of speech' contains such riders as 'without recrimination', when the law itself says no such thing. Everyone has a right to speak...just as everyone else has the right to respond in opposition to said speech. However, when one begins to define the opposition speech as 'censorship'....in trying to protect one freedom of speech they unintentionally violate another.

I would also strongly recommend you do a more in-depth analysis of the PATRIOT ACT. Your contention is actually incorrect...in order to perform any of the actions you list, there must still be judicial oversight (as with a warrant), and probably cause must still be demonstrated to the overseeing judge (as in a warrant). There are plenty of very disturbing issues in the ACT...just not those.

the answer is: www.worldrevolution.info

Closer to home - right here in this site - authors have the site owners permission to take away our rights to free speech - think about it people.

It is interesting that this is a free speech contest and yet this site itself condones - in effect encourages the overt restriction of reader free speech while allowing the authors to have theirs.

As you know, I speak of reader comment restriction or elimination. I credit the site owners foresightedness and most authors to allow "some" comments as it helps drives author skill levels and reader involvement & interest - it's almost fair but flails against the logic of basic free speech by taking away the very rights espoused by the contest.

Then I suppose we need to address the capricious deletion of negative comments by authors - some of which are as offensive as the authors. But theirs are allowed to stay while the free speech espoused to readers is impinged upon by deletion.

How do you really feel about that readers? Have you thought about it?

These exceptances are perplexing and counterproductive in this free speech arena aren't they.

It would be good for the site owners to give consideration to these thoughts - then offer their thoughts, considerations or changes to us.

What do you think authors and readers - use your free speech abilities after some thought please.

One I will read again and again...THANK YOU!

Kudos to Landrious1...I feel this is an extremely intelligent

person who has picked a subject and trotted out some time worn

cliches to get our attention, then sits back to watch us dance.

If anyone with a modicum of intelligence takes one point at

a time and processes it, the answer is very clear.

Dixie-Chicks - expressed their opinion or was it a cheap publicity stunt to get their name on the front page? Like

Madonna saying she wanted to be a tramp or a slut or whatever she said. I plead guilty to not listening too close

but the point is the DC said it. No one shot them. Did they

have a few CDs burned? Probably, but did they sell ten times that many next year? Probably. Yawn.

Books - someone writes a book and the publisher says it is

too controversial? Market Forces will take that publishing

company out within a few years for not buying the hot selling books available. But the writer has exercised their

right to free speech. The writer wrote their book. Now we

have capitalism rearing its ugly head - - the writer wants

to make money on this venture?? Wait, like the Dixie Shits,

the writer wrote this book and complains because it is not

published? Why? IF free speech were the goal, publish it

on the internet? Make it available for free? Wow - there is

a novel idea. Free speech costs money? Huh? Damn that

Thomas Jefferson anyway.

Nazis? Yawn! KKK? Yawn! Only Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson

make money on them. Oh darn, back to capitalism.

Free Speech? Not really. The liberals use the ACLU to beat

us to death from the left and the conservatives use...uh...

boredom to beat us to death from the right. The Politically

Correct movement sucks. Always has, always will. But it is

the sacred cow of some high powered left winger and therefore gets credibility from left wing mainstream media

outlets like ABC, CBS, NBC, Newsweek, CNN, MSNBC, ad nausem.

If you like sex, watch HBO, etc. If you like to hear America bashed, watch HBO. If you like to hear ALL the words

in our language, watch HBO, etc. I don't like to hear some

words in our house and therefore do censor it. If I walked

up to you and your mom - - then called her a fucking whore,

implying your dad was the 7th Fleet - it would be my first

amendment right to say it. You might sue me for defamation

of character or you might beat the crap out of me. BUT I

did exercise MY first amendment rights!! Poorly I might add,

but there are very few of us who would say "Fuck that

cocksucking bitch!" in front of our moms, wives or daughters. I know there are a few, but most of them stay on

their meds.

So, in summary, I have expressed MY first amendment rights

by saying I think Landrious1 is a very intelligent person

who is bored, decided to play with the minds of the masses

and wrote a short piece. Does Landrious1 believe this stuff

he wrote? Maybe, part of it anyway.

I agree with Landrious1 on some points, and would like to

add that I think medical care should be free for all. How

is THAT for a grand statement!! Hard to argue against that

one. No child should do without medical care!! By all that

is Holy, we should take care of our own!!! Great rhetoric,

but what about the people who build the medical equipment?

Will they work for free? Can the doctors and nurses work for

free? Of course not. Great idea, like unlimited free speech, but every theory bumps into reality and is limited

by the real world.

But you have to admit, Landrious1 was pretty successful in

his venture and I admire him/her for that.

Free beer and pretzels at Landrious1's house..if only he would excercise his free speech and tell us where he lives

and when we can be there.

Landrious1 and those who have commented thus far have missed a single point, and it is an important one.

The idea of "freedom of speech" is embodied in the First Amendment to our Constitution. That Amendment prohibits any GOVERNMENTAL prohibitions on a person's ability to express himself or herself, whether such expression is found in speech, religion or association. The First Amendment has no application to private citizens.

I am thus free to restrict speech in any manner I see fit, to the extent that I can exert such control. As such, I can determine whose music may be played through my stereo. I can refuse to read an author's work if I don't like the content of his book.

I can write whatever type of story I want to write on Literotica. I can delete all the comments that readers leave if I don't like them (go look at some of the comments on my stories and you'll see what I mean). By contrast, Literotica, as a private enterprise, can refuse to post my story if it wants to do that. None of that is an unconstitutional restriction on the freedom of speech, because I am not the government, and neither is Literotica.

Our "freedom of speech" is somewhat illusory because we are not necessarily free to say whatever we want with no consequences. While the government cannot restrict our freedoms (absent certain exceptions that have been carved out by the Supreme Court), private citizens can.

Moreover, even though we should be free from governmental intrusions into our exercise of speech, it is somewhat naive to think that there are no consequences to our conduct. No one restricted the Dixie Chicks' freedom of speech. They had a message and they stated it. But for them to think that any backlash inhibits their freedom of speech ignores the simple fact that I, too, have freedom of speech, and if I think the Dixie Chicks are traitors for not supporting our troops, I am absolutely free to express that opinion. The Dixie Chicks cannot be heard to complain about their freedom of speech being restricted because it wasn't. They can only complain that their detractors exercised their freedom of speech in labeling the Dixie Chicks as traitors.

And while I am free to post stories that appeal to my own prurient interests, I am not so naive as to think that every Literotica writer will like my stories. Many of you don't. I have the right to write them, and you have the right to criticize them. Recognizing that, I will keep posting, you will keep commenting, and I will never delete your comments, no matter how harsh, unconstructive or downright nasty they are. But those comments are the consequences to the exercise of my freedom of speech.

Even though some might argue that negative comments on another person's exercise of freedom of speech will have a chilling effect on that freedom, this is a dichotomy that cannot be removed, because the argument itself is chilling: "you may not comment on what I just said." Said another way, "you may not exercise your freedom of speech to criticize my freedom of speech."

In the end, our freedom of speech (a) embodies freedom only from govermental restraints and not private ones and (b) may have consequences when it is it exercised. The very existence of consequence is not, in and of itself, a restriction of that freedom.

I was getting my thoughts organized and ready for typing until I saw the comment by ISawYourMommy. Too few Americans seem to realize that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on GOVERNMENT power and have no application to individuals. The right to free speech does not mean that someone owes you a platfrom to preach from, nor does it imply that you are free from the consequences of your statements any more than freedom of assembly gives you the right to have a party in my house.

As a response to the earlier comment, Literotica, the owner of this site, has the right to restrict speech in any way it likes. You, as a free individual, are able to never come back and obtain your reading pleasure elsewhere if you are offended by their policies, but you have no right to freely speak on someone else's property (the website) beyond what the owner decides to give you. Sereously, as M.I.A. says "Get yourself an education." :-P

About the need for warrants when bugging and so forth:

All they need to do is label the Person as a Suspected terrorist (no proof needed) and they can do whatever they want in the name of "National Security", you have NO rights at all.

Look at the people in Guantanamo Bay:

Suspected "terrorists" who in 5 or so years have been tortured and who knows what else and haven't even been told what they are accused of or got to talk to a lawyer since they don't have that right. All you have to do is talk about a "bad" subject and you'll have 10 members of a Government agency crashing in your door and hauling you away for an undetermined amount of time, i.e. until they torture a conviction out of you.

Q) Hmm torture ain't allowed by the Human rights charter signed by all members in the UN or in your precious Declaration of rights so how do we torture people then?

A) Send them to another country that hasn't signed it...

Just my 5 cents,

Let me see if I have it right. The Dixie chicks decided to speak their mind about their feelings about Iraq and President Bush. Radio stations refused to play their music and fans protested.

I must have missed it, Chicks spoke freely, they are not in jail or their passports cancelled. But their fans do not have the right to boycott the Chicks and the radio stations do not have the right not to play thier music?

It seems like your freedom of speech means is mandating radio stations play Chick music and thir fans cannot get rid of thier records/CDs. Who are you to restrict the radio stations and force the fans to have and play and keep music by any group? I got rid of about 1500 albums a few years ago. Do I have to go back and retreive them or buy replacements?

Who the heck do you think you are anyway? You did not buy my records/CDs nor did you give me money. Did you buy the Chick CDs and give one to each fan with the requirement that the CD be kept forever? That the fans be available to show that they have the CDs you bought?

What we need is freedom from you and any other person/group that will decide what we have to listen to and what property we will keep. My copy of ht eBill of Rights does not give me this power.

I would like to thank you for your succinct and accurate words. Our nation seems to have a number of generations of sheep that follow without reason or thought as to who is leading them and where to.

I too, support the authors that publish here and at other sites, their right to speak (write) with freedom and liberty to express their opinions. I may not agree with them, but it is their right to do so, and I also will defend to the death, their right.

I feel that it is important to remember that this "War on Terrorism" is necessary, because the "Militant Muslims" that have created worldwide terror need to be stopped, or we will be chanting from the Quo ran in a few decades.

Keep up the good word and know that there are those of us who may be quiet, but we are watching and hoping that our "service" will not be needed on the home front!

landrious1 knows what to say and writes the Best stories.

For several years I was a steal worker than one day it all went to china...mexico. within 6 months I lost my farm,everything I owned and eventually the stress took my wife and the mother of my than11 year old daughter. She is 18 now,and we are rebuilding our lives. In two short months I finally saw what this so called great once country cared about us. I still believe in the country my family and forefathers fought for...but I question deeply our leaders and their motives. Thank you for your honesty...jerry

The freedom of speech just prevents the government from restricting the peoples freedom of speech. Along with this freedom comes the responsibility for 'paying the cost' for what we say! Now there are terrorists [those who restrict/attack our 'free exchange of our opinions/speech' in the public arena] who use violence/threat of violence to restrict/control our speech in the public arena! The greatest threat in this country is that 'my right to stout down/prevent your free speech OVERRIDES your right to speak'.

WHAT THEY BELIEVE: "We are all equal but some of us are more equal that others. Animal Farm.

WHAT THEY DO NOT BELIEVE: "I vehemently disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Thomas Jefferson.

Thank you for bringing this issue to this forum.

With every freedom there has to be some restrictions. Such as walking into a crowed Movie Theater screaming Fire Fire Fire may seem funny to you but could cause mass panic and get people injured. The same thing applies to the FCC where they restrict what can be showed on open air TV, do you want a pornographic movie showing on prime time TV that children are watching? The Dixie Chicks used free speech and said what they thought. Does that mean I cannot protest what they said, how they said it, and where they said it? Is it not my right to protest their free speech or what they said? Using your example of the Dixie Chicks again could I not use my free speech and walk into say a bar full of African Americans and say all you lazy no account M@$#% F^#%$@ N*&#( need to get outside now and clean the street and sidewalk. I do not think I walk out of their alive.

Now the Patriot Act is a totally different bag of worms and since I do not really know it or read it I cannot say.

I agree History Books should not be change just to be politically correct, history is history whether we like it or not and the truth is what is needed. Unless you are a Socialist, Fascist, or Communist.

While I disagree with your assessment of the Dixie Chicks abd am not aware of calls for them to lose contracts, the free market did speak and I admire their willingness to lose market share to state their opinion. It's not just freedom. It is liberty; the right of self government. I fear we are too far gone to get it back. And unfortunately, there does not appear to be any place to go to get it back.