This documentary film look at the changing interpretations of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution – laws and court cases that have alternatively broadened and narrowed the amendment’s protection of free speech and assembly.
The film’s thesis is that post 9/11 the government has seized unprecedented license to surveil, intimidate, arrest, and detain citizens and foreigners alike.
The film also looks back to the Pentagon Papers’ case and compares it to cases since 9/11 dealing with high school students’ speech and protesters marching in New York City during the 2004 Republican convention.
Maybe we should call it “Freedom of Opinion”. Might calm things down a bit… or would it?
Totally
biased – no mention of the restrictions on free speech imposed by the politically
correct liberal establishment. Call a black a niger or say you hate fags and
see how keen they are on free speech. Despite the rhetoric, the reality is no
one really believes in free speech. Everyone thinks there should be some
restrictions – the real argument is about the nature and extent of those
restrictions.
Liberals,
for example, might evoke the ideal of free speech to deflect criticism of their
views but they are the first to call for the gagging of opinions they don’t
like.
Great Doc thanks.
The point is well made that, often times, free speech is attacked covertly by finding a route to discredit not what is said, but the person saying it.
There seems to be a strange assumption that if a speaker can be discredited, then what they say must also be considered discredited.
What strikes me, as an admittedly inexpert outsider, is that in the US there seems to be a general reluctance to engage in real debate. Perhaps the most telling example is the political tag ‘flip-flopper’ – which relies upon the notion that any change in a person’s opinion reveals a weakness of character. So the content gets lost; the debate is now about the person, no longer about the issue.
The first amendment is all well and good; however what is really needed is not a constitutional guarantee; but rather the creation of a society that respects ideas regardless of where they come from. A society that seeks to engage with debate, not shy away from it.
psssh sounds like some whiny liberal propaganda. i thought this was gonna be about hate groups or westboro or anti-abortion nuts who are pushing the limits of free speech, instead of some victimizing ploy based around 9/11.
Whining Right Wing bastards crying that there are not INTELLIGENT and thoughtful ”conservatives” in education.
Luckily for you though. You have Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck to think for you!
Whining Right Wing bastards crying that there are not INTELLIGENT and thoughtful ”conservatives” in education.
Luckily for you though. You have Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck to think for you!
Whining Right Wing bastards crying that there are not INTELLIGENT and thoughtful ”conservatives” in education.
Luckily for you though. You have Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck to think for you!
Unfortunately he’s not alone. Alot of people out there would rather be entertained than informed. Standing up for the constitution used to be considered patriotic, now apparently it’s considered “whiny liberal propaganda”. Which just goes to show how uninformed these people are, especially when you consider that the strongest proponent of restoring the constitution is a republican named Ron Paul. (Most with this mindset iv encountered seem to think liberal / libertarian = democrat)
If some of these people actually understood the difference between liberalism and libertarianism, or the difference between capitalism and fascism (also called corporatism) they might have different views.
Pride is a fools fortress. -Leon Uris
Whining Right Wing bastards crying that there are not INTELLIGENT and thoughtful ”conservatives” in education.
Luckily for you though. You have Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck to think for you!
And you’ve got CNN to tell you what to do.
Loser. At least you could of come up with a different post 5 times.
Great doc, thanks for adding it.
The reason the woman who wanted to sue fox for libel is going to lose her case is because of a 2003 court ruling where fox (successfully) defended the right to lie and misinform people as a first amendment right. You can google it yourself, and see the specifics of the case. Since fox isn’t taxpayer funded, they have no obligation to tell you the truth. The same goes for cnn, msnbc, etc. If fox reported on something that would negatively impact a sponsor and lost substantial ad revenue because of it, the board of directors would be open to litigation on behalf of the shareholders as i understand it. I try to keep this conflict of interest in mind every time the nightly “news” tries to sell me an ipad, or a new depression drug. (Or talks about the internet being an unreliable source of information, and full of lies lol)
Strange times we live in.
Welcome to city 17…