Would you join this Organization?

[Yeshua_Lives]

Would you be part of a religious or non-religious organization that limits your 1st amendment right "freedom of speech"?

[SIZE=-1]“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” — Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)[/SIZE]

 

[Wandered Off]

Most of us do this at our jobs, at least those of us working at large corporations. There are certain kinds of speech prohibited on the job for the vast majority of working stiffs. So yes if they pay me enough.

Besides, the First Amendment is specifically aimed at restricting the government from arresting you for anti-government speech.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Yes I would. But I would do it carefully as to expose the true nature of that organization so that other people would know what was going on. There are people in many places ie. Russia, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia so forth and such that continue to live there despite the lack of human rights like freedom of speech. I totally agree with the Supreme Court Justice's quote.

 

[Smoke]

When I was Orthodox, I had a self-imposed policy of never knowingly contradicting the teachings of the Church, whatever my personal opinion might be. However, I'd have had a fit if the bishop had tried to impose that policy on me. We all limit our speech in some way; having our speech limited by others is another thing altogether.

 

[YmirGF]

Curiously it seems that people have a penchant for interpretting "freedom of speech" as meaning "no consequences for expressing my ideas". The simple fact is that even Americans, with their much vaunted "freedom of speech" "right", do not actually have total freedom to say what they like, where they like. Go ahead and make a speech on public radio or TV calling for the eggsequeshun of Presidentshall cannedidates and see how free you are to make those comments. Likewise, in the workplace, you cannot make sexist comments or racial slurs with impunity. So, really, what is the big freakin' deal here? I am very curious.

Please note my inaccurate spelling, so as to not set off bells and whistles in Langley.

 

[Popeyesays]

Most of us do this at our jobs, at least those of us working at large corporations. There are certain kinds of speech prohibited on the job for the vast majority of working stiffs. So yes if they pay me enough.

Besides, the First Amendment is specifically aimed at restricting the government from arresting you for anti-government speech.

I worked for AOL once upon a time. I was not allowed to curse at people however stupid and rude they might have been.

This is technically a restriction on my freedom of speech, but I try to practice courtesy anyway, so it was not a major stretch of my capacities.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Jeremy Mason]

My family looked into the family tree and found out that George Mason was our great,great,great... grandfather. So whenever the Bill of Rights is being discussed I find it all the more interesting. The question to this discussion is why was freedom of speech included in the Bill of Rights and is the essence of this right limited to the US government?

 

[Random]

Please note my inaccurate spelling, so as to not set off bells and whistles in Langley.

Don't they just read direct? :sarcastic Admins...spooky.

Not many spybots or roving smart programs on the net going to pick up on "eggsequeshon" mind you, good thinking...

 

[Somkid]

I would not want to be a part of anything like that because one thing leads to another and before you know it freedom of thought is out the door.

 

[Yeshua_Lives]

Would you be part of a religious or non-religious organization that limits your 1st amendment right "freedom of speech"?

[SIZE=-1]“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” — Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)[/SIZE]

Also, what if one of the motives of the person who created this "organization" was to create a space for themselves to "get off" (sexually) with other members including married "staff" members.

Would you choose to be part of this organization?

 

[Popeyesays]

Also, what if one of the motives of the person who created this "organization" was to create a space for themselves to "get off" (sexually) with other members including married "staff" members.

Would you choose to be part of this organization?

Immorality such as you describe deserves rejection and full disclosure to the public.

Your hypothetical instance is narrowing, did you have a particular case in mind?

Regards,
Scott

 

[Yeshua_Lives]

Look around. You may even be a member of one now. :yes:

 

[Wandered Off]

Maybe I was not paying attention in class, but I thought that the only organization that could possibly limit your First Amendment rights is the government. The Amendment was to protect people's right to protest the government without risking arrest. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." As far as I know, it was never intended to extend to other organizations and all other speech.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Maybe I was not paying attention in class, but I thought that the only organization that could possibly limit your First Amendment rights is the government. The Amendment was to protect people's right to protest the government without risking arrest. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." As far as I know, it was never intended to extend to other organizations and all other speech.

Do you believe that freedom of speech should be limited to the government? President Bush obviously doesn't.

 

[Wandered Off]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Freedom of speech refers to that of the people. The restriction is on the government, so I missed where you were going with that. I'm a little slow sometimes.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Freedom of speech refers to that of the people. The restriction is on the government, so I missed where you were going with that. I'm a little slow sometimes.

Do you feel that freedom of speech should be applied to non-governmental organizations or do you feel that freedom of speech is only to be applied to governmental organizations.

I personally feel that freedom of speech should be universal, especially in a country where it was founded.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

I put it to you that a MATURE person limits his or her OWN speech in such fashion as to render it optimal and suitable! The issue thus isn't so much what one is ALLOWED to say as it is what it is WISE to say.

As it says in the Baha'i scriptures:

“Not everything that a man knoweth can be disclosed, nor can everything that he can disclose be regarded as timely, nor can every timely utterance be considered as suited to the capacity of those who hear it.”
--Gleanings, -p. 175

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Wandered Off]

Do you feel that freedom of speech should be applied to non-governmental organizations or do you feel that freedom of speech is only to be applied to governmental organizations.

I personally feel that freedom of speech should be universal, especially in a country where it was founded.

Thanks for the clarification. I think we have a good compromise now. I am free from worrying that the government will arrest me for speaking against it, and private organizations who regulate my speech do not have the power to arrest me. They are voluntary. If I don't like the restrictions placed on me at work, I can find another job. This forum has restrictions, and I can find another forum if I don't like them.

Sometimes there can be a greater good accomplished with boundaries. I have been in groups with no restrictions, and conversation often degenerates into endless arguments and insults. Groups where that is discouraged tend to foster dialog and opportunities for learning and the exchange of ideas. Yes, it would be better if we all were responsible enough not to need restrictions, but that is not the world most of us have.

As long as joining or leaving an organization is voluntary, I don't see a problem if it tries to regulate the speech of its membership. In that sense, the members are voluntarily choosing to be restricted.