Freedom of Speech - life without it is no life at all

Hangout GupShup Cafe
21

Thankyou Rubiya Nur for your message.

I do not wish to enter into any discussion on this matter with you as, by doing so I will be inflaming the moderator, as she has already pointed out that such variances are not within the folds of the topic.

I however, would beg to disagree with your findings. As 'adbulmalick' has intentionally misrepresented and distorted my comments, thus placing me in a false light, which is covered under invasion of privacy.

But I thankyou for advice.

Oh by the way anyone still interested in the topic???

22

Lots of interesting perspectives. I guess every one has his/her own preference as to what should be allowed as your basic right and what should be restricted. The quintessence of the first amendment of the US constitution is such that you cannot be choosy, it's all or nothing. It is true that such a legislation may lead to confusion in people's mind as to how their rights have been defined so broadly that they should have no fear to express whatever comes to their mind. It is true. But there are other laws and instruments in place that do restrict individual's behavior should it become a nuisance to society at large or should it become a violation of another individual's civil rights. For example, one individual or a group of individuals may protest in front of a religious establishment for the reason of defamation of their holy figures, but they cannot burn a religious (or any other) establishment for their disagreement. They also cannot harm members of the establishment physically. Such is not covered under "free speech act". The more commonly occurred example will be the protests outside of abortion clinics. One has a right to protest, as long is one is not trespassing on a "private" property, and keeps his/her protest on a public place (such as sidewalk or a road), and does not pose a threat for bodily harm or injury.

So when you say ( Dear Baykhatr) that without responsibility such an act is useless, it is true. But there are no guarantees that such responsibilities, if required by law, will make people behave differently. I can see your point, however.

Finally, look at the Soviet Union. It suppressed freedom of its citizens for over 70 years, and look what the results are today. Look at China. Look at some of our own friends in the Persian Gulf. Look to ourselves.

It is true that media is controlled by a handful of big business, but let me give you only 2 examples where this legislation shows its true beauty. The Watergate scandal… uncovered by two young reporters of the Washington Post. True, that Post is a big establishment, but these two men were determined and they would have exposed the scandal even if there were loners. They were not afraid of any repercussions by the Nixon government because their freedom to expose misdoing was guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Second, Monica Lewinsky scandal. Before it became out of control media circus, it was a simple 'average' kid Matt Drudge with his little known website that first exposed the sex scandals of the White House.

Try doing that in a country with no such freedom.

23

You are still mixing many scenarios. I wills start from religion, as you cited that first.

suppose under the state law, Chandu Khan is required to close his prayer rug shop on Sunday, but he would rather stay open on sunday and close on Friday, which is his religious day. Can Chandu Khan be succesful if he challenges this law as voilating his Ist amendment?

I await your answer.

Re the reporters and others who reveal certain intimate or private details about public figures, It is not covered by Ist amendment.

24

AMTH,

I tell you why I don't agree with FOS as an absolute right; becos it's a lie to decieve people;

You go on a public platform and say you deny that the Holocaust happens--well in Germany that's a crime!

You criticise democracy--and see how long the authorities will leave you alone;

There are many examples of when FOS is suddenly 'curtailed' to benefit the US; reasons of "national security" is always a good one!

But I don't give a hoot about all that really; In Islam there is NO absolute FOS--the shar'iah has dictated the limits [hudood] of what a person can say--and the limits are very wide and flexible but not absolute; eg insulting Huzoor Paak sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam is a crime punishable by death. Slandering a women without evidence is a crime punishable in court (or a man for that matter);

THIS is a perfect system. But then it is not man-made but made by Allah.

So, we as muslims shouldn't believe in absolute fos becos it doesn't exist anywhere and not does shariah allow it.

as for FOS on this GUPSHUP---what a joke! you try telling the people the reality of the Qadiani unbelievers and see if your post remains undeleted!

So we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that FOS is one of the great freedoms of the US!

[This message has been edited by Asif (edited June 15, 1999).]

25

Dear Baykhatr,

You say:
"You are still mixing many scenarios. I wills start from religion, as you cited that first.
suppose under the state law, Chandu Khan is required to close his prayer rug shop on
Sunday, but he would rather stay open on sunday and close on Friday, which is his
religious day. Can Chandu Khan be succesful if he challenges this law as voilating his
Ist amendment?"

What scenarios am I mixing? And Chandu Khan can go to hell if he wants to mix his religion with the law of the state. Religion and Governance do not mix in the USA. If it is his "private" business, he can leave it open 48 hours a day (or keep it shut 72 hours a week). Tell me a state where there is such a Law. You are talking bull! First Amendment precisely covers that. All Jews in NY state shut their business for sabath. There are no such ridiculous laws in this country. If it is your private usiness, you do what you like. There are such laws in some other countries that I wont mention.

You go on to say:

"Re the reporters and others who reveal certain intimate or private details about public figures, It is not covered by Ist amendment. "

You have no clue what First Amendment is. It covers freedom of press in addition to many other freedoms. Read my original quote taken from the First Amendment.

Dear Asif

You say:
"I tell you why I don't agree with FOS as an absolute right; becos it's a lie to decieve
people;

You go on a public platform and say you deny that the Holocaust happens--well in Germany that's a crime!"

We are not talking Germany here. And how would it deceive people? (By the way, would you deny Holocaust?)

You say:
"You criticise democracy--and see how long the authorities will leave you alone;"

There are registered communist parties in the United States. There is no such nonsense like that in the United States. Tell me an example, a more recent one. US policies are criticized more at home than abroad. This law makes it possible for citizens to criticize public policy. Don't you ever see Sunday Morning political shows? Don't you read papers?

You say:
"But I don't give a hoot about all that really; In Islam there is NO absolute FOS--….."

We know that. And I can understand how exposing people can be so dangerous to their lies, deceptions, and their fragile beliefs in all kind of garbage.

You go on to say:
"as for FOS on this GUPSHUP---what a joke! you try telling the people the reality of the Qadiani unbelievers and see if your post remains undeleted!"

Is that what your Sharia dictates your rights as? Slandering others' religion? I guess not. Correct me if I am wrong. If I tell realities of your faith, my posts will get deleted as well.

26

Dear Baykhatr,

There was one very high profile case in New York City a couple of years ago. A Sikh was denied admission to a restaurant where the restaurant policy was "no hats allowed". His Turban was considered a hat. He sued the restaurant on the grounds that his rights to express his religious beliefs were violated. He won a multi million dollar lawsuit against the restaurant. The first amendment deals preciously with such issues. Freedom to express. That's what it really is all about: Freedom.

Now you may argue that what about the freedom of the Restaurant to dictate its own policy. Well, that will be a valid debate. But when the purpose of a business (or its reason to exist) is to serve patrons, that business must show sensitivities to the people it serves. In addition, religious headwear is not the same as a baseball cap, everyone must learn that! So the law is very tricky. But not having such laws will only lead to disasters.

Now imagine. If you have a religious headwear (a prayer cap) and a restaurant refuses to serve you. Wouldn't that be a sad day? I think it will be very sad. So my friend, that's what it is. Your rights, my rights, everyone's rights. And not just 'your rights'.

27

It's all relative. No doubt that the US has got a better system of checks for rooting out corruption through freedom of press.

But anything that could be deemed harmful to US policies then there is a very tight lid kept on it. Does anybody know what goes on in the military labs of the Nevada desert? Isn't there information which is classified?

Everybody has their own idea of Freedom of Speech, and since we have all agreed there is no absolute Freedom of Speech it is pointless arguing about what constitues it.

Each to his own.

28

NYA
you have one heck of an attitude. I was asking you to 'Suppose'. And if Chandu Khan did challenge this law, the courts will probably not let him have it his way. You know why??

Because, the courts, no matter what Ist amendment says, have consistently upheld a uniform day of rest, rather than to conform to one religious practice. However, Chandu Khan may challenge it on the basis that it discriminate against certain type of business or if it was vague.

Re 'me having no clue about freedom of press', well educate me then instead being on a spit. What I am saying is that when a figure is public, everything about him can be grilled, investigated and intruded into. Fine by first amendment. But when judges keep news reporters from attending trial. why?? and when government seeks injunctions to halt the publication of so called sensitive info. Why?? why is that the theater nearby my house does not show porno movies, while most of us want to watch it??

Admit it that Freedom of speech, however, has not been doled out as a favour by the rulers; or constitution makers, rather, the press/public has to fight for it through a protracted struggle spanning decades. During this period, the press and individuals has to undergo crippling restraints and curbs aimed at gagging the voice or actions of the people. The intensity of this measures may differ from country to country, but basic rules are same.

29

Dear Baykhatr,

I didn’t mean to sound arrogant. Sorry if it came out that way. The ‘act’ of the US Constitution that we discussed, is not the law (well it is) but a guideline for lawmakers. In fact the constitution itself is a guide to all levels of legislatures: local, state, and federal. They must not make any laws that go against the constitution. There have been 27 amendments to the original version.

(This is only for those who are not familiar with the US Constitution, others may skip this paragraph). There are 7 Articles (or sections) and various Clauses (subsection within an Article) in the Constitution. Each Article dealing specifically with a specific role of government (or legislature, known as congress). It is a beautiful document, not very long, only about 20 pages. I highly recommend everyone to read it.

We have only discussed the first amendment of the US Constitution. Which guarantees the freedom of speech, along with other freedoms. It forbids governments to make or enact any laws that violate those freedoms.

I think we had a very healthy debate, we can appreciate the difficulty the courts face in deciding cases involving freedom of speech and expression. We didn’t agree on certain issues, but that’s ok. I respect your views. I hope you respect mine.

Let’s call it off here on this issue. We still have a lot more of Constitution to cover. Lets tell these Americans what we Pakistanis are made of, and how we can teach them a few things. I also hope that in the process we can see if any of these laws can be applied to our own homeland, and how will that make any changes (positives or negatives).

If you are interested, we can pick up Article 2 which states …….”right of people to bear arms”. I think Article 2 sucks. I think weapons kill people. I am totally against it.

I will wait to hear from you…

30

I am glade to see that you are looking at the issue with somewhat our angle. My point is that all these amendments allow people to have free speech, carry arms, but it does not prohibit courts to infringe upon such rights, which are so beautifully bestowed upon the innocents.

The right to carry arms says, that the people have a right to carry and keep arms in case they ever need to form a militia to protect themselves. Courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean that people as a group rather than individuals have the right to keep the society safe and secure. And that is why the state and local govt are allowed to pass gun control laws to protect the public health and safety.

Now there are those who wish to interpret the amendments, about free speech and right to carry arms, in the light of 200 hundred years ago, situation. And there are those who appluad them for being original. I have not seen any newspaper, or media or tv station, instead comdeming these jerks, for being fundmentals. But the irony is that when a Muslim talks about the original Islam, they immediately label him with these slurs.

What do you think??

or do you move on to Equality under the Law??

31

Dear Baykhatr,

I think 'politics' will be a more appropriate place to discuss the Article 2. As you are aware of the current debate (that is actually fracturing both parties) is about amending the previous measures, or water-downing the earlier requirements passed by the Senate (the requirements of background checks, etc.).

There are various gun control measures that are currently pending debates on the floor. We can pick each one as it comes and Vote our own thoughts. But let's move this to Politics. Because some of the debate is "more political in essence" than the "free speech act" debate. Unless, of course, the Admins of Guppshupp don't mind us "firing" at each other in the "General" arena.

Secondly, Dear Friend, we can still discuss the "right to carry arms" without bringing the perception of Muslims by the "West". Lets not drag that element into every debate/discussion we have. Otherwise, it is not as much fun, and most of the time it is fruitless. I will still respect your thoughts/arguments whether or not you agree.

Stay well

32

NYAhmedi!
(I dont add 'dear' before your name, because I dont know your name, and it is beyond my personal agenda to hold this faction, whom you represent, as dear or near to me. I am sure, you would be kind enough to acknowledge that every one is entitled to his opinion. And where better one can express such wishes and salutations to one n other than 'Freedom of Speech' folder)

It is absolutely kosher to take this topic wherever your heart desires. Ineternet is meant for firing at one another and I think the hosts and moderator are aware of it. It is the casuality they care most.

But one thing I think is utterly unfair to expect from one n other is, how to discuss and what to keep out and what to use. We as humans are part of this planets, and it is specialy so, when we're immigrants to this land of oppertunity. We have a unique advantage that allows us to compare the morals and lessons of this culture, to something which is inherently ours. I think what we must keep out is ignorance and short fuseness. Let sky be the limit.

May Allah have His mercy on all!