[Debate] Freedom of Expression/press

[KingHashirama]

A highly controversial topic it is.

​

Freedom of Expression:​

Freedom of expression is simply the freedom to express yourself without any governmental censorship. However, the problem is that people know their rights, but don't acknowledge their responsibilities. Some will insult someone and say it is their freedom of expression, however fail to realize that the intent of the "freedom" wasn't that Citizens insult citizens but to make sure the truth gets out.


What is your take on freedom expression? Should it be limited? Should people be educated on it? Has it initially corrupted society?


​

Freedom of Press:​

The freedom of press has been argued by many celebs, such as Halle Barry/Ben Affleck and Jenniger Garner/Matt Damon and many others. And now California has passed a law against paparazzi who "harass" the celebs and their kids.

However, paparazzi defended their point by saying it is the freedom of press and expression.

And there are many people who support this, they believe that it is fine for the paparazzi to invade on private lives of the celebs. However, what i find funny is we find it "insulting" or "Dictatorship" when we here that the government will be invading on the lifes of people. But we let other people interrupt the lives of others just because they are "popular". They in the end are citizens of the country they reside in.


Some even told Jennifer Garner and Affleck to move and that its their fault that they live in the place, but last time i checked they are also citizens of the U.S.A. If a citizen can't live their life peaceful despite being famous, what point is it to claim that "freedom makes things perfect".​

Thomas jefferson and founding american fathers:

Many till this day debate that the consitution is final and it cannot be changed. However, the founding fathers such as jefferson believed that the constitution should be changed depending on the society.

"As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times". - Thomas Jefferson

Hence they had something called the "amendments" in the constitution.



YOUR OPINION NOW!



​

 

[Beifong]

*looks at the title*
lol, this thing is against the law here xD

 

[KingHashirama]

*looks at the title*
lol, this thing is against the law here xD

people on here already have too much "Freedom" on NB...

 

[cptenn94]

I mostly agree with you. The founders intended on the first 10 ammendments to be things that should not be changed. To be crucial rights. They made the system, so that additions could be made(such as black people being recognized as people.) They includeing the things crucial to the nation.

I think freedom of speech is the right to be able to say whatever is on your mind, without you haveing legal consequences.

So I can say all day how I hate the usa, and that I want to blow it up. Or that I hate "insert celebrity here".

However If I violate anyones rights, expressing my speech, then I should be subject to that laws.

This right was written, so anyone can publically express their opinion without being jailed or something.(It was written so the government could not choose what one could say or think.)


I agree about the celebrity issue you mentioned(bullying/abuse of people). A person should have the right to privacy.

Freedom of the press however is a whole other story. Freedom of the press was written, so the government could not control the press. Freedom of the press is more of allowing the press to publish what they want. Not go where they want, and harrass people.

It was made so someone could publish a article about how the government sucks, or how a leader sucks, without being persecuted.

Both freedom of speech and freedom of press, are about what you SAY. They do not give you the freedom to DO anything you want.
(such as invadeing someones personal life)


So as soon as you invade someones personal life, you are violateing their rights. By violateing their rights, you are punished, and forced to give up some of your rights.

Nearly everything the founders wrote about was in relation to the government. In the governments control of things.

The rest of things are bestowed upon the people.

So if I own a property, and I dont want you to take anypictures, you have to live in "my law" for my property. I can do anything as long as I dont violate your rights doing it. If you are violateing my rights, and I cant do anything without violateing yours, then that is where a court would made, to legally enforce your rights.


None of our founders thought freedom was perfect. Because its not. They just viewed it better than the alternative as tyranny.

IMO, the federal government being as big as it is, Is tyranical. The federal government should not be able to spread blanket laws such as healthcare and things like that. Those things should be state rights. The only time federal should be involved, is if any of the states violate their peoples rights.(and for other purposes such as military, and things that involve all states.)

If this system was truly kept, then you could have individual communities/cities/regions/states, all be as conservative or liberal as they want.

If you want healthcare? Well if enough people in your state agree with you, then you can have healthcare, without forceing people from other states, who dont want it(or to have to pay for it) to be forced to.

You dont want teachers to be able to have the freedom to carry a gun in a school? If your state city community agrees, then you should be able to.


If your community did not want the same things as you do, then you can just move to another place that shares your viewpoints, or just tolerate it.


IMO This system where the federal government trumps all states rights, is downright unconstitutional.

Also generally just remember. More freedom=Less protection More protection= Less freedom.

Im sorry if i wasnt very coherent. Many times things dont come out as I think of them or intend them to.

 

[KingHashirama]

I mostly agree with you. The founders intended on the first 10 ammendments to be things that should not be changed. To be crucial rights. They made the system, so that additions could be made(such as black people being recognized as people.) They includeing the things crucial to the nation.

I think freedom of speech is the right to be able to say whatever is on your mind, without you haveing legal consequences.

So I can say all day how I hate the usa, and that I want to blow it up. Or that I hate "insert celebrity here".

However If I violate anyones rights, expressing my speech, then I should be subject to that laws.

This right was written, so anyone can publically express their opinion without being jailed or something.(It was written so the government could not choose what one could say or think.)


I agree about the celebrity issue you mentioned(bullying/abuse of people). A person should have the right to privacy.

Freedom of the press however is a whole other story. Freedom of the press was written, so the government could not control the press. Freedom of the press is more of allowing the press to publish what they want. Not go where they want, and harrass people.

It was made so someone could publish a article about how the government sucks, or how a leader sucks, without being persecuted.

Both freedom of speech and freedom of press, are about what you SAY. They do not give you the freedom to DO anything you want.
(such as invadeing someones personal life)


So as soon as you invade someones personal life, you are violateing their rights. By violateing their rights, you are punished, and forced to give up some of your rights.

Nearly everything the founders wrote about was in relation to the government. In the governments control of things.

The rest of things are bestowed upon the people.

So if I own a property, and I dont want you to take anypictures, you have to live in "my law" for my property. I can do anything as long as I dont violate your rights doing it. If you are violateing my rights, and I cant do anything without violateing yours, then that is where a court would made, to legally enforce your rights.


None of our founders thought freedom was perfect. Because its not. They just viewed it better than the alternative as tyranny.

IMO, the federal government being as big as it is, Is tyranical. The federal government should not be able to spread blanket laws such as healthcare and things like that. Those things should be state rights. The only time federal should be involved, is if any of the states violate their peoples rights.(and for other purposes such as military, and things that involve all states.)

If this system was truly kept, then you could have individual communities/cities/regions/states, all be as conservative or liberal as they want.

If you want healthcare? Well if enough people in your state agree with you, then you can have healthcare, without forceing people from other states, who dont want it(or to have to pay for it) to be forced to.

You dont want teachers to be able to have the freedom to carry a gun in a school? If your state city community agrees, then you should be able to.


If your community did not want the same things as you do, then you can just move to another place that shares your viewpoints, or just tolerate it.


IMO This system where the federal government trumps all states rights, is downright unconstitutional.

Also generally just remember. More freedom=Less protection More protection= Less freedom.

Im sorry if i wasnt very coherent. Many times things dont come out as I think of them or intend them to.

I myself actually am a firm believer in a stronger Federal government. However, the matter of the fact is that even though we are the
UNITED STATES of America, we really aren't United at all. This i believe has a whole lot to do with the 2-party system that got started. A 3rd party can't stand up to the big 2 because they don't get enough support....


But hey lets be honest.. if the federal government wasn't en-charge of half of the things they did, we would be a whole lot horrible. The world is getting more united, i believe we americans also need to be more united and get past the whole different state laws.

 

[cptenn94]

I myself actually am a firm believer in a stronger Federal government. However, the matter of the fact is that even though we are the
UNITED STATES of America, we really aren't United at all. This i believe has a whole lot to do with the 2-party system that got started. A 3rd party can't stand up to the big 2 because they don't get enough support....


But hey lets be honest.. if the federal government wasn't en-charge of half of the things they did, we would be a whole lot horrible. The world is getting more united, i believe we americans also need to be more united and get past the whole different state laws.

Ill respond to what you say about unity in my next post.


But im curious. What do you think would be alot more horrible, if the federal government wasnt in charge?

What are the different state laws that you view are in the way of unity?