If freedom of speech really exists in this country(USA), why does George W. want Harry Belafonte to aplologize
95509
Because George W. Bush don't care about America, or any of it's people regardless of race, color and creed. Mostly I think he just hates black people. That's why it took so long to get help for the victims of Hurricane Katrina down South, because they say that the majority of people living down there are black. I hate Bush. Plain and simple and I can't believe that I have to suffer for another 2 years while he's president. 6 years has been long enough. If I was Harry Belafonte I would just say to Bush, "Screw you. I'm not gonna apologize, because it's my right and you can't change that."
858082
Freedom of speech has never existed, it was just a falacy for us to feel secure in this society, just an oxymoron though, like human rights.
694274
We define "freedom" very differently.  Obviously, since you are a liberal, you cannot conceive of how your rhetoric affects conservatives.\n\nVice versa.\n\nDifference is, I don't care.
895738
Not even close - the purpose of the morons shouting "Civil War!" is to continue their cut and run campaign.\n\nI just love it when supposedly influential and important newspapers, magazines, and columnists are caught out as they are with this "Civil War!" campaign.\n\nI love it even more that my boy George doesn't give a flying fuc! what those losers are screaming about today.  Unlike White Trash Billy, he keeps his eye on the ball instead of on the bobbing head!
277002
Absolutely.  It's freedom of speech.  Its the first ammendment of the constitution.(Bill of rights section)
1044517
No. This country was founded on free speech. If we weren't allowed to speak out, politicians would get away with much more than they do. Without free speech, Nixon would never have been exposed.
1152293
The Bill of Rights grant any American citizen to say what ever he wants about the country.  However, threatening the country or their leaders could rightfully lead to being shot in the face
802001
See newt gingrich's comment about restricting free speech, kinda says it all. I say any attempt to limit free speech or any other attacks on our constitution should be dealt with by revolution!
1035801
Thank you for your intelligent post. It is reasonable and is anger free. President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican president said, "To state that we must not criticize the president is unpatriotic, servile, and morally treasonable to the American public."\n\nIf it was good enough for TR, it should be good enough for the country.
103432
ideally, no. In reality, yes. One example of it is the concept of prior restraint, which is that the government stops something from being printed or published. Prior restraint is only alowed in case of messages that can put soldiers in danger (like publish where our troops are camping or where they're gonna attack). \n\nSometimes on college or university campus, there are hate speech and racist community or something like that going on. The president might stop those activities, and they're debating if it's a violation of the freedom of speech or not.
85349
Perhaps because they see it as if the person calling them names is not respecting their position of authority.  However, at the same time, if you are not acting violent or as if you  are going to cause them harm, I still think that we as citizens have Freedom of speech to express our opinions.
127858
Because we have so much freedom and opportunity here. It is such a huge place, and we can move about freely, make our own choices, speak our own minds without fear of repercussions.\n\nPeople have to learn to differentiate between the evil our government does, and how good and wonderful our people are.\n\nHere we still believe "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"
827679
unfortunately Conservatives such as sway are making it much more difficult for people like you and I to speak freely and openly on whatever subject we see fit. The right to free speech is important, otherwise we would live in a police state. That is why it is important, we need to avoid Martial law, something many people are afraid Bush is capable of.
1136389
With freedom of speech you have the right to write any book and not be charged with treason. The book should not insite hate in others but you can express your thoughts on the subject or outline a plan for your own. You are free to leave your country if you wish. It might be possible to found an island nation for instance in remote areas where you could buy an island say in south america.
542800
Trying to figure out how this new "War on Terror" justifies suspension of our Constitution.  In 1812, with a foreign enemy burning down Washington D.C., NO PART of the Constitution was re-written or suspended.  Emergency provisions did not ever give the president the power to unilaterally enforce the law before.  This was in the face of our absolute destruction with an very real enemy on our soil.  Now we have a fantasy enemy over-seas that takes occaisional potshots at us, which we created through our own failed foreign policies, so we now need to give up every fundamental legal and expression freedom we have?  Do Americans just not have balls these days?  Why aren't the real conservatives trying to "conserve" our damned Constitution which has weathered EVERY CRISIS before this?  I just don't get it.\n\nIf you want to hunt me down, I'll be easy to find in the postage stamp sized "Free Speech Zone".  When I was a kid, everywhere was a Free Speech Zone...except maybe in church.
869510
When you begin telling people that certain legal activities cannot take place that is deprivation of personal liberties.  When you decide any religion is offensive, it is a violation of the United States Constitution...When you take away the right to own property through Imminent Domain it is an infringement on personal property rights that are pillars of democracy  that violate the United States Constitution.  You cannot shout Fire in an occupied building and expect for it to be considered Free Speech or insult people different than yourself because of race or gender, there are limits.....Becoming too politically correct, being the thought and food police under the guise of liberty is really a ruse to infringe upon individual liberty one by one until your government has become socialist/communist.  That is never a good thing.
125011
The government may make no law respecting your freedom of speech. (1st Amendment).  No state may make any law depriving you of your freedom of speech (14th Amendment).  The freedom of speech applies to personal speech, political speech and even to a lesser extent, commercial speech.  In general, no prior restraint may be made against your freedom of speech (Times v. Sullivan).  However, the freedom of speech is not absolute.  You may not exercise freedom of speech when to do so would subject the public to danger (for example, you may not shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire).  This is a synopsis of ideas from the Constitution and many Supreme Court cases.\n\nYour exercise of freedom of speech may not interfere with other constitutionally guaranteed rights. Many cases have addresssed the use of religious symbols in public places as well as actions of political speech such as burning of the American flag. These cases are not always models of consistency.\n\nSuffice it to say that freedom of speech is well protected but not absolute.\n\n\nIn the context of these cartoons and comments, at least in the USA, you can publish these ideas, even if they are offensive to others.  You are really not addressing the "freedom of speech" as such as much as you are addressing editorial judgment of the press.  While the press is free to say what it wants, it ought to consider the sensibilities of others, especially those who might legitimately take offense to the writings or utterances.