freedom of speach

[superslob]

Hello,

Since there seems to be a lot of political conservatives here I'd like to ask what your opinion is of "free speach zones". Of course both political conservatives, political liberals, and those inbetween are welcome to respond. The interaction between Abinadi and King Noah takes place starting in Mosiah 11. In America President Adams jailed all those who disagreed with his actions. Woodrow Wilson (I think) did it during world war one. We had the 1950 hunt for communists. In recent times Bush had people shipped to free speech zones. In the B of M King Noah had abinadi burned at the stake. What are your opinions relative to what an individual in a position of power should be allowed to do?

TIA
SS

[marc]

No more than what the Constitution tells us. Hence the reason for a separation of powers. Freedom of speech is there so that we can freely speak of controversial things like gun laws or corrupt leaders without legal repercussions.

[Nan]

I firmly believe in free speech. But that doesn't mean that you get to choose the consequences of that speech.

[superslob]

I firmly believe in free speech. But that doesn't mean that you get to choose the consequences of that speech.

Hello nan,

What are your opinions relative to what consequences an individual in a position of power should be allowed to inflict on an individual who says things the peson in power doesn't like? King Noah burned Abinadi at the stake. Would that be too much consequences. The consequences under Bush's rule was being sent to a free speach zone. Was it a good thing that Bush was able to inflict that consequence?

SS

[uglypitbull]

Free speech 'zones' are a way for someone to isolate you where they don't have to see or deal with you. We have the right to peaceful protest.....anywhere we want, not in a designated 'zone'. Marches, parades, etc...might be subject to local laws, but the idea that free speech has been/will be restricted to a 'zone' is unconstitutional. They actually did it at both Republican and Democrat conventions and will continue to do it (unjustly) in the future. True free speech is almost dead.

Obviously the hunt for Communists didn't work, look who is at the helm of this nation today.

[superslob]

Hello uglypitbull,

It's human nature for individuals and for those in power to want to silence dissenting veiwpoints. In the past members of both parties have curtailed free speach. I was wondering if you could provide a link to the article with regards to the actions taken at the democrat convention.

[uglypitbull]

Just one link?

http://coloradoindependent.com/4488/a-f ... convention" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0220-02.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_9744092" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA4z6v3ALpQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (describes the cages...er, free speech zones)

[superslob]

Hello uglypitbull,

Do you have any links published after the fact which shows free speach zones were actually used? All of your links involve the supposed plans of the Democrats. None involved the report that they were actually used.

[uglypitbull]

are you serious?

http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-04/just ... ?_s=PM:LAW" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[superslob]

Hello uglybitbull,

Sorry for the delay but I had to think about this for a while. In reading some of the provided information it appears that the matter revolves around the right to freedom of speach, minus the right to a captive audience. During the Bush era many people were picked up along the motorcade route, therefore those individuals weren't attempting to obtain a captive audience. Can the same be said with regards to the individuals in your above link?

SS