How much freedom can you take?
A commenter suggests this blog was too long to get much of a response, so I'm shortening it up some.
A survey by the First Amendment Center indicates that more Americans support and understand their First Amendment freedoms than in recent years. If you look through the survey, you will see that while support for the First Amendment is up, it is far from universal.
How much freedom can you take? We'd like some response to the scenarios posed below. You can respond here or e-mail me at dwells@enquirer.com. If you include your name and a phone number so I can check back with you, we may include your comments in a discussion on the subject in Sunday's forum.
Freedom of speech:
The city just spent millions of dollars refurbishing Fountain Square to be a downtown centerpiece. The idea is to provide a place where everyone can come together. At the dedication ceremony, a speaker stands at the microphone and offers a harsh denunciation of a local politician, embarrassing the organizers and putting a damper on the festivities for some people.
Should the city require people who want to make speeches on the square to get their remarks cleared in advance?
Freedom of the press:
The local police department has drug undercover officers posing as students on a local college campus. A newspaper gets tipped to the program by a college employee who is worried some students may be entrapped by the officers. A grand jury has prepared sealed indictments but the police and college administration want to continue the operation for a few more weeks before making arrests.
Should the newspaper be allowed to run a story about the investigation in progress? Even if the paper can run the story, should it choose not to?
Freedom of religion:
A church group contributes the money to erect a Christmas Nativity display in a public park during the month of December. Every evening members of the group gather in the park next to the display to sing Christmas carols. Another group provides funds to erect a menorah in celebration of Hanukah in the park during the same period. A third group marches around the perimeter of the park every evening carrying signs that say "God is dead."
Should the city permit any or all of these displays?
posted by David Wells at 2:21 PM
5 Comments:
at 1:51 PM, December 01, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 2:49 PM, December 01, 2006 
Brah Coon said...
-
-
at 4:20 PM, December 01, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 4:03 PM, December 04, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 9:50 AM, December 06, 2006 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*Freedom is one thing that I can still stand in large doses. In recent years, however, our freedoms seem to be shrinking in the name of political correctness and an effort to not offend anybody. We enjoy our freedoms that remain because some tough people made tremendous sacrifices to secure that freedom. At the very least we can develop a thicker skin to allow freedom of speech to live on. Let liberal poets show their backside by blasting politicians at a dedication story. I think Ken Blackwell is tough enough to handle it and his detractor is the one who came off looking idiotic. As for reporting on undercover police stings, I say go for it. The police warn us in advance about drunk driver checkpoints, yet they still haul in a fair share of drunks. All police cars are clearly marked in Ohio, yet plenty of speeding tickets get written. Any drug dealer who doesn't know that some of his customers might be undercover cops is probably too stupid to read the newspaper anyway. When it comes to religious displays or singing in public places, let everybody have their say as long as they have obtained the proper permits. The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. By ignoring the people we disagree with, they are more likely to disappear than by confronting them and drawing attention to their cause. Live and let live and don't be afraid of the light of truth.
*sigh* Nope. I still can't make head er tail of it. Better lop some more off, so us Joe Sixpack's can better understand.
Society’s real problems that result by others exercising and abusing their freedoms and privileges do not go away if we ignore them. Most dramatically, we ignored rising Militant Islamic Fundamentalism for 30+ years. Where did that get us?
Your statement (“The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. By ignoring the people we disagree with, they are more likely to disappear than by confronting them and drawing attention to their cause. Live and let live and don't be afraid of the light of truth.”) may only hold limited validity for insignificant problems or minor personal differences.
Your “live and let live” mentality is legitimate as long as your exercise of Freedom does not significantly and adversely affect the Freedoms of the rest of us.
The more relevant issue is the intelligence to identify and prioritize what are society’s real problems, resulting from the exercise of your Freedom “crossing the line” and stomping on the reasonable exercise of society’s collective freedom. Then, we must confront these problems with vigor, truth, vigilance, and fair reasonable solutions.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Speechmakers shouldn't be required to have their speeches cleared. The content thereof shows the speaker's greatness or smallness(re; calling people names).
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS I: The paper should be able to run the story, but if they had any common sense and REALLY are interested in seeing the drug traffic in schools and college campuses reduced - they wouldn't run it. In the case of national security secrets revealed, such as The NY Slimes has done during the Bush administration, they and the leaker should be prosecuted for treasaon.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS II: ABSOLUTELY appropriate! It's his and his peers education in which he's interested.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION: Yes, because goverments cannot favor one religion or non-religion over another per the 1st amendent. BTW- ACLU and atheists' attacks on the Christian faith and Christmas are denying our rights under the 1st amendent to practice our religion. As one writer I've read has said, "Christmas is celebrating Christ's birthday and NOT a 'Holiday Season'. If they don't want to celebrate it - don't!" If the majority of a city's citizens and ruling bodies are Christian and they want to practice their religious holidays, they should have the right to do so. After all, under a Republic such as ours, majority rules.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: yes, it should be illegal because it is desecrating our national emblem.
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY: the picketers should be allowed to stay as long as they don't interfer with the unit's operation.
FREEDOM TO PETITION, ETC.: No, the city did NOT do the right thing. The city violated the citizen's right to petition and should be sued for such.
Freedom of speech:
The speaker abused her invitation to speak at the event. However, while city management has the freedom to choose whom they wish to speak at this event, they do not have the right or freedom to censure the speech. The speaker was impolite, the city has no recourse!
Freedom of the press I:
The American system of justice requires a crime be committed before there is a crime. No entrapment has occurred. A newspaper that is interested in the community and its laws would not destroy an enforcement project of this scope and cost by publishing an early story. The newspaper would use its early knowledge to closely monitor for illegal government actions such as entrapment and publish their story about what they discovered, EVEN IF ALL ACTIONS WERE LEGAL!
If an unscrupulous newspaper published an early story, the government recourse should be to sue the paper to recover the cost of the project that was destroyed.
Freedom of the press II:
The purpose of school is to educate and teach students to think. This editorial shows analytical thinking and (by definition) has a point of view. The editorial is benign and should be allowed.
Having said that, school papers should be edited and censured by teachers or professors responsible for the newspaper. School newspapers do not have the same freedoms or purposes as private papers.
Freedom of religion:
ALL of the religious displays should either be allowed or ALL should be permitted! The government does have that choice, but, they can not discriminate against any religious choice.
Freedom of expression:
The owner of the museum could fire the curator or whomever approved the exhibit. The government can not (and should not) legally stop the display unless there is a public danger
involved.
Freedom of assembly:
If all permits are in order, the group should be allowed to assemble and display their opinion.
Freedom to petition the government:
The city cannot stop garbage collection. This action is risking public health and must be against any public charter. The city does have Eminent Domain in this case and should go ahead and use the land in the public interest.
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home