blatham wrote:This ought not to be an issue. The principle of free speech holds that anyone should be able to speak freely, and that constraints on such speech are where the danger lies.
There is no justification within the principle of free speech to suggest that any individual or group ought to shut up. Such suggestions, or the more serious sorts of actions as I mentioned above (threats, boycotts) seek to limit certain voices being heard. They clearly work in opposition to the free speech principle.
However, as this thread demonstrates, and as the example of what occured with the Dixie Chicks or with anti-war protestors demonstrates, such attempts to curtail speech are not at all uncommon in the country which has this principle as its first ammendment. That makes the issue very important.
To suggest that actors ought to shut up about politics is not much different from suggesting that jews ought to shut up about the space program. One can validly query what special knowledge or expertise a speaker has on the subject spoken of, in order to ascertain credibility, and one can subsequently point out to other listeners that this speaker has no special knowledge, but one can't act to shut them up and still maintain the free speech principle.
Sofia's initial wording then, is in conflict with this principle. So, very clearly, are threats, intimidation, and boycotts. Their intent and goal is to shut the person up, rather than to present a more convincing counter-argument.
That such anti-free speech strategies are being forwarded so commonly in the culture, and by broadcast media, and implicitly (if not explicitly) forwarded by the government itself suggests to me that America is less freedom loving than it pretends to itself that it is.
blatham<
Your defense of freedom of speech is very moving to me. Without the free-flowing of ideas (such as we have on this thread), the United States would become a nation with "one voice." That is in direct conflict with our Constitution and the "melting pot" of a diverse population.
Right now, as the Dixie Chicks episode illustrates, the motives of people's speech are being called into question by an administration which gives short shrift to anyone who disagrees with it.
Free speech does not mean you have to agree or disagree with what is said. It just means that we all have the right to speak our minds without fears of reprisal from the government or from individuals who besmirch
others for their spoken or written words.
Those who do not understand the principle of freedom of speech often harangue others who do. That is part of the give and take of daily American life. But when a government or a person tells you to shut up, they are trying to take away your freedom. We must never let our voices be silenced by those who would seek conformity of thought in
all aspects of American life.
Thanks again, blatham.
