What is freedom worth to you?

[Skinview]

Hypothetically, just suppose that, say, freedom of speech, caused the random deaths of x number of people each year in your country. How big would x have to be before you would outlaw freedom of speech?

[Naturist Mark]

Forty two

I suppose you can make the argument that ideas are very dangerous, and are at the root of most evil and adversity. But in fact, listening to an idea, no matter how 'dangerous', is not in itself lethal - if it was, I have no doubt that there would be the strongest restrictions on their expression.

[nudkin]

Having spent most of my life since 1983 defending all aspects of the constitution against all of our nations enemies, foreign and domestic, I would have to say that the size of "X" would never be so great as to force me to want to change a thing. Freedom of speech is a fundamental building block of the core rights we all share. Remove that from the constitution, under any circumstances, and you undermine the entire system this nation was founded on. What gets me is how eager so many are to trample on someone's right to make a statement that seems to oppose their opinion...regardless of how misguided it may be. So go ahead and make your personal or political opinion known, even shout it out loud for the world to hear. Unless you espouse anarchy or threaten the founding principles of this nation, you pose no threat to me.

[jon71]

We could get into a semantical argument here. The classic example is yelling fire in a crowded theater. I read a news report once where in another country that literally happened and people were in fact trampled to death. In America though doing that would be considered an "action", not speech at all, even though it's verbal words. Likewise saying "I hate you and I hope you die" is speech whereas "I know where you live and I will kill you" is a prosecutable action. A few months ago someone tweeted something like the former at a basketball player that the fan thought underperformed. Because there was no specific threat just a wish that something horrible happen to him and his family it wasn't a crime. Sometimes words are legally not speech but action and likewise things that aren't words (sign language, interpretive dance, art, flag-burning, etc.) are speech. I think that often throws people.

[Gloria]

Hypothetically, just suppose that, say, freedom of speach, caused the random deaths of x number of people each year in your country. How big would x have to be before you would outlaw freedom of speach?

I really love my freedom. I wish we were freer. I wish I had the freedom to be nude at any beach in the U.S. and not get a citation.

Freedom of speech is pretty ironclad in the Constitution and I would not like to see it infringed for any reason.

[Naturist Mark]

I think you guys are missing the point. He is comparing guns to speech.

I.E. the proposition that gun rights are so fundamental that that the deaths caused by accidental, irresponsible and evil use are irrelevant - the cost in liberty of restricting gun rights in any way is almost always morally greater than the cost in lives.

And that is a very reasonable viewpoint if you agree that gun rights are fully comparable to freedom of speech. Most of us gladly choose to live in a more disorderly society, full of people with views we don't agree with, saying things we don't like, because we value the freedom to do that more than imposed tranquility. The question is do we feel the same about guns?

[Gloria]

I think you guys are missing the point. He is comparing guns to speech.

I.E. the proposition that gun rights are so fundamental that that the deaths caused by accidental, irresponsible and evil use are irrelevant - the cost in liberty of restricting gun rights in any way is almost always morally greater than the cost in lives.

And that is a very reasonable viewpoint if you agree that gun rights are fully comparable to freedom of speech. Most of us gladly choose to live in a more disorderly society, full of people with views we don't agree with, saying things we don't like, because we value the freedom to do that more than imposed tranquility. The question is do we feel the same about guns?

I do.

And I don't own a gun. But I cherish the freedom to buy one someday...if I want.

[jon71]

I think you guys are missing the point. He is comparing guns to speech.

I.E. the proposition that gun rights are so fundamental that that the deaths caused by accidental, irresponsible and evil use are irrelevant - the cost in liberty of restricting gun rights in any way is almost always morally greater than the cost in lives.

And that is a very reasonable viewpoint if you agree that gun rights are fully comparable to freedom of speech. Most of us gladly choose to live in a more disorderly society, full of people with views we don't agree with, saying things we don't like, because we value the freedom to do that more than imposed tranquility. The question is do we feel the same about guns?

The difference of course is that the constitution doesn't provide an individual right to own guns at all. The Heller decision was an ignorant blown call that will eventually be corrected and we'll go back to the constitutional understanding of the second amendment that has stood for 200 years. It's an apples and kumquats comparison. Even if we were to pretend that it's the same the point remains that nothing is absolute. While I believe very strongly in free speech of course I recognize that would not allow yelling fire in a crowded theater, child porn, selling military secrets to a foreign govt., libel, copyright infringement, or any number of other things. In addition to that I would like more restriction on corporate speech, which is not protected like personal free speech is. We shoud also recognize that writing a check to a political candidate in no way shape or form constitutes speech, it is an action pure and simple and one that desperately needs regulation.
I suppose by using this sideways approach Skinview is saying that his unconsitutional, revisionist views on gun control can't stand on their own.

[Baron Lake]

Some places you'll need to take a class Gloria. That might restrict your freedom a bit but, you know.... in a good cause.

[BinCo]

Some places you'll need to take a class Gloria. That might restrict your freedom a bit but, you know.... in a good cause.

As a person who owns several guns I would encourage a class in the proper use, handling, care and storage of any firearm as a mandate to owning a gun. Too many morons out there do stupid "accidents" with guns because of poor knowledge and no respect for the weapon. They go to WalMart and buy a gun where they are too "manly" to ask questions about safety and set themselves up for an "accident". Happens every year with hunters and city folks being stupid. Why not, most of us have to go thru a Hunter Safety class before being allowed to get a hunting license. Done for a good reason even though I have some gun nut friends who don't even want this.

As for the original question. Freedom of speech comes at a price. You have to be willing to be responsible for it. Too many right wing bloggers don't believe in this. They see no responsibility if they say things like "2nd ammendment remedies" and then some whack job does the deed.

For Gloria, start supporting more Libertarian and Democratic politicians. It's the Republicans who seem to write most of those laws against nudity and nude beaches under the guise of "protecting the children".