A question for Americans

[GWarface]

Because then people could walk around saying they want to kill this person and that person, and utter threats and spread hate and genocide propaganda and what not.

Just like what happends all the time anyway?

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Its because our government is overly sensitive and is scared of what will happen when someone speaks their mind.....and your like the 8th person to ask us that

 

[Skeleton Jelly]

Because then people could walk around saying they want to kill this person and that person, and utter threats and spread hate and genocide propaganda and what not.

Just like what happends all the time anyway?

It's better that we could actually punish said people though. And having those boundaries in place stop some of the people from doing so.

 

[zehydra]

IMO, the only place where real free speech exists, is on the internet.

 

[Jkudo]

Appropriate.

Trevor Moore taught me all i needed to know about life.

 

[archvile93]

As compared with many places in the world, where you might be shot for even uttering a complaint about someone, yes we do indeed have free speech. Do we have free speech as per the dictionary definition? Absolutely not.

So you have free-er speech?

About the same as yours, possibly moreso.

 

[hotacidbath]

Well, this question starts to get into some unusual areas in American Constitutional law. To give a basic, blunt answer: yes. Speech is protected by the First Amendment. If the government tried to break up a peaceful rally, there would be popular outrage and likely some impeachments.

However, media like films and games are not purely speech. They are, first and foremost, commercial products. As commercial products, they fall under the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the several states. So for all of the clamoring from the industry about how their products are protected by the right to free speech, they can be regulated as commercial products. In that sense, video games and films are more like cigarettes than speech. There are many regulations to selling cigarettes and hypothetical future legislation may ban them, but for now they are legal.

So really, the government isn't deciding what speech is protected. They are deciding what is speech. Personally, I think any product whose primary purpose is to turn a profit cannot be called "speech". It's like trying to justify insider trading as "speaking out against regulation of the market". As as for their power to decide what is speech, there are many, MANY groups dedicated to keeping the government in line in regards to that. The ACLU, for as much as I detest them, is particularly useful in cases of free speech.

I feel like your comment hasn't gotten any of the attention it deserves so I just wanted to quote you to say that I agree for the most part and I think you answered the OP's question better than I ever could. My only question is where do we begin to draw the line as far as what is considered speech? Magazines and newspapers are protected under freedom of the press even though most newspapers and magazines can be considered commercial products. Books are also considered speech even though these are also commercial products. The Supreme Court even extended the protection of the First Amendment to the internet. Where does the line fall within media? Do we draw it at the written word vs. spoken word? Paper vs. technology? What category do audio books fall into? Most (if not all) forms of media have some sort of commercial goal in mind, so how do we determine the difference between a product and a form of personal expression? And please feel free to point out any statements I made that are blatantly incorrect. I'll be the first to admit that my areas of expertise lie very far away from politics so it's entirely possible that everything I just wrote was bullshit. I'm just very curious about how it's decided what is protected as speech and what isn't.

 

[luckycharms8282]

Just a question, do you really have free speech if the government decides what speech is protected or not? For instance, the government can decide that videogames aren't protected as free speech, and ban them. What's to say the government can't decide that films aren't protected as free speech. So my question for the day is, is your speech truly protected?

I dont believe the american government has banned any video games or movies. If you could cite a specific example I could better answer the question.

 

[Woodsey]

Free speech is a myth, and so it should be.

Not where i live...

I feel sorry for you...

I feel sorry for you if people are allowed to run around the streets inciting racial hatred and the like.

 

[Panken]

There is not any thing keeping the government from banning movies or television. Its just those are considered "art" and video games are not, yet. If you want to know more about the whole lawsuit trying to ban/regulate video games, watch the "Extra Credits" that talks about it.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

As compared with many places in the world, where you might be shot for even uttering a complaint about someone, yes we do indeed have free speech. Do we have free speech as per the dictionary definition? Absolutely not.

So you have free-er speech?

Nail on the head my friend.

It may not be perfect, but it is better than a lot of other places.

 

[unicron44]

One thing that got me about the "Free speech" is that they aren't allowed to say "I want to kill the president, or something along those lines, unless it is to tell someone else they cannot say it >.>
Seems "Free" is defined by the government...
I think I'm within my rights to say I want to kill anyone, be it my neighbor, my cousin, some important government person, whoever. Lucky me. I just can't actually do so, even to protect myself :3

Appropriate.

That reminds me of a skit from the MTV show The State. A bunch of kids are in history class and discussing it. I can't seem to find it on youtube. Later in the show Michael Ian Black is talking about killing the president and is tackled by Secret Service.

 

[freedomweasel]

everyone is America is too sensitive and easily offended these days.

Yet we still teach children that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me". Funny, eh?

Am I the only one who thinks that saying is a load of crap? I mean, to an extent, no, words don't hurt people in the same way sticks and stones do. At the same time though it seems to place more blame on the people being offended compared to the people saying mean things.
Maybe I'm looking at it too broadly, it just seemed like an excuse for teachers to not have to deal with bullying.

 

[RobCoxxy]

What's to say the government can't decide that films aren't protected as free speech. So my question for the day is, is your speech truly protected?

That's the MPAA, mate, and they're mostly religious right.
So anything that goes against traditional Christian values tends to get R/NC17 ratings.

Any film depicting sex or drug use is really hard to get an NC17. There's no way it'll get a lower rating.


Yet people running around shooting each other in the face is totally acceptable for younger folk.

 

[GWarface]

Because then people could walk around saying they want to kill this person and that person, and utter threats and spread hate and genocide propaganda and what not.

Just like what happends all the time anyway?

It's better that we could actually punish said people though. And having those boundaries in place stop some of the people from doing so.

No.
Cant really see how its better to "punish" people for saying stuff you dont like...
Besides, the threats, hate spreading and genocide propaganda will always be here.. Just turn on the tv or read the newspaper...

I would hate not having my freedom of speech. Even though i dont really talk that much, i appreciate being able to say what the fuck i want to when needed...

 

[Rakkana]

NO OFFENSE AMERICANS!

Their laws only suit them when in suits them. The people running their government are happy to be hypocrites.

 

[Vuljatar]

The right to free speech and freedom of expression is guaranteed by the First Amendment. If the government decides to infringe upon these rights too much, well... then make use of the Second Amendment.

 

[mindlesspuppet]

When has the United States Government ever banned a video game?

The ESRB rates them for retailers, retailers decide what ratings they will sell, games with above a Mature rating don't generally don't get sold, companies avoid making them.

This isn't the Government banning or censoring, it's all about profit.

 

[astrav1]

I can't think of games that were flat out banned, but I'm sure there have been instances where speech has been outlawed. I can't think of anything at the moment.

 

[Dr Snakeman]

Well, this question starts to get into some unusual areas in American Constitutional law. To give a basic, blunt answer: yes. Speech is protected by the First Amendment. If the government tried to break up a peaceful rally, there would be popular outrage and likely some impeachments.

However, media like films and games are not purely speech. They are, first and foremost, commercial products. As commercial products, they fall under the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce between the several states. So for all of the clamoring from the industry about how their products are protected by the right to free speech, they can be regulated as commercial products. In that sense, video games and films are more like cigarettes than speech. There are many regulations to selling cigarettes and hypothetical future legislation may ban them, but for now they are legal.

So really, the government isn't deciding what speech is protected. They are deciding what is speech. Personally, I think any product whose primary purpose is to turn a profit cannot be called "speech". It's like trying to justify insider trading as "speaking out against regulation of the market". As as for their power to decide what is speech, there are many, MANY groups dedicated to keeping the government in line in regards to that. The ACLU, for as much as I detest them, is particularly useful in cases of free speech.

I hate to just say "yes", but that's how I feel about this comment. We have free speech. More so than most nations, even European ones.

In fact, I find it ironic that the OP is from the UK. Do you actually think you have more rights than we do? This country isn't the one known as the "nanny state" that watches us with cameras everywhere and doesn't allow us to protect our own property.