A Very Depressing (and frightening) Poll Results

[Amused]

Do you think the Constitution goes too far in the free speech rights it guarantees?

No 12170 68%

Yes 4746 26%

Not sure 706 3%

Granted, this was an online AOL/Time poll and they are not entirely accurate.

However...
That anywhere near 26% of the people who voted thought our Constitution "goes too far" in protecting free speech is depressing beyond words.

But wait, it gets even worse:

Should media's free speech be limited in favor of war on terror?

No 10387 58%

Yes 6187 34%

Not sure 1027 5%

What the fsck are we teaching our kids in school?

 

[MajesticMoose]

was this an online poll? if so, don't put any stock in it's returns. I saw one done by time magazine (i think) done online that had Nader winning the last presidential election with 58%. Mind you this was after atleast a million votes.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Do you think the Constitution goes too far in the free speech rights it guarantees?

No 12170 68%

Yes 4746 26%

Not sure 706 3%

Granted, this was an online AOL/Time poll and they are not entirely accurate.

However...
That anywhere near 26% of the people who voted thought our Constitution "goes too far" in protecting free speech is depressing beyond words.

But wait, it gets even worse:

Should media's free speech be limited in favor of war on terror?

No 10387 58%

Yes 6187 34%

Not sure 1027 5%

What the fsck are we teaching our kids in school?

That the Constitution was written by a bunch of dead white males that were corrupt and looking out only for themselves. That unless it is considered a "living document" to be interpreted by the latest fashions of the day it is irrelevant to our daily lives. So far it seems they are doing a pretty good job of pushing that line of crap.

 

[stev0]

What the fsck are we teaching our kids in school?

nothing good I can tell you that much.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

But wait, it gets even worse:

Should media's free speech be limited in favor of war on terror?

No 10387 58%

Yes 6187 34%

Not sure 1027 5%

I'm not sure what this question means, but I know I was recently VERY angry at the New York Post's publishing aerial surveillance photos of a deployed Air Force installation and providing an inventory of the planes there. I think the media should know better than to publish coverage of military activities that threaten national security, and if necessary they should be prevented from doing so.

 

[NakaNaka]

First - online poll. Very screwed up, yes.

Second - What don't you like about the second poll? About supressing media for the war on terror? I am actually one of those people who believes that the American press should not leak stories like that we want to hit Iraq or where we are thinking about doing it. I only support it if the war department purposfully does it because they either A) Know Iraq knows or B) Is intended to through them off. I am a liberal, but hell if I think more Americans should die because the NYTimes wants to run an article because some idiot leaked a story OR they investigated into classified material.

Edit - Don that's what I was trying to say. Photos like that; anything that can help the enemy kill Americans I say hells no.

 

[Nemesis77]

What next?

Do you think mullets look cool?

No: 32%
Yes: 65%
Not sure: 3%

 

[ElFenix]

are the sorts of "polls" done online really even polls? maybe they're one sort... been a long time since i took a class that covered that. anyhow, theres probably some sort of selection bias.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: NakaNaka
First - online poll. Very screwed up, yes.

Second - What don't you like about the second poll? About supressing media for the war on terror? I am actually one of those people who believes that the American press should not leak stories like that we want to hit Iraq or where we are thinking about doing it. I only support it if the war department purposfully does it because they either A) Know Iraq knows or B) Is intended to through them off. I am a liberal, but hell if I think more Americans should die because the NYTimes wants to run an article because some idiot leaked a story OR they investigated into classified material.

Edit - Don that's what I was trying to say. Photos like that; anything that can help the enemy kill Americans I say hells no.

Um, I'm sorry, I should have made this more clear. The poll followed a story about CNN airing the al-Quaida training tapes. It had nothing to do with exposing US military secrets.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: NakaNaka
First - online poll. Very screwed up, yes.

Second - What don't you like about the second poll? About supressing media for the war on terror? I am actually one of those people who believes that the American press should not leak stories like that we want to hit Iraq or where we are thinking about doing it. I only support it if the war department purposfully does it because they either A) Know Iraq knows or B) Is intended to through them off. I am a liberal, but hell if I think more Americans should die because the NYTimes wants to run an article because some idiot leaked a story OR they investigated into classified material.

Edit - Don that's what I was trying to say. Photos like that; anything that can help the enemy kill Americans I say hells no.

It's called psychological warfare I guess. They want to mislead the enemy with stories in the NY Times, etc. You really think they publish something, that is REALLY classified? Don't think so. They can give out "classified" info which just misleads the enemy. And yeah, I don't believe everything that the media classifies as "classified", etc.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

how is this frightening?

 

[dullard]

That anywhere near 26% of the people who voted thought our Constitution "goes too far" in protecting free speech is depressing beyond words.

It depends on your definition of "speech". I know that people exist who think murder is an expression of speech. The 1st amendment of our constitution says that congress should not make a law that abridges this expression of speech. Thus the 1st amendment says murder cannot be made illegal. Obviously in that case the 1st amendment goes WAY too far in protecting someones right to express themselves with murder instead of protecting our rights to stay alive. Luckilly the Constitution says we have the right of life, and thus it overrides the 1st amendment.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room that ends up causing a stampeed killing 6 people is another, less extreme example. The 1st amendment specifically says you have the right to kill 6 people by yelling "Fire!". Luckilly there is another place in the constitution that says there is a time and place for everything. Sure you are free to say "Fire!", but not in a crowded location. This is another case that complete and unhindered freedom of speech goes too far.

What about police investigations? Suppose there was a serious crime and I was questioned by the police. The 1st amendment gives me the right to say anything I please. Thus I have the right to frame anyone for the crime. I could accuse you and put you in jail for years even though you are innocent. What about your rights? That is just too bad, since I'm free to say what I want to the police. Oh wait, luckilly there is an override to this too...

So in my opinion, some forms of "speech" must be limited. These are just a few examples - there are many, many others. What is frightening and depressing about saving lives?

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Don't sweat AOL polls, as they are probably neither valid (i.e., it doesn't measure what you think its measuring) NOR reliable (i.e., you wouldn't get the same results if you redid the poll).

This goes for all most all of the casual opinion polls you see on the web.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Originally posted by: NakaNaka
First - online poll. Very screwed up, yes.

Second - What don't you like about the second poll? About supressing media for the war on terror? I am actually one of those people who believes that the American press should not leak stories like that we want to hit Iraq or where we are thinking about doing it. I only support it if the war department purposfully does it because they either A) Know Iraq knows or B) Is intended to through them off. I am a liberal, but hell if I think more Americans should die because the NYTimes wants to run an article because some idiot leaked a story OR they investigated into classified material.

Edit - Don that's what I was trying to say. Photos like that; anything that can help the enemy kill Americans I say hells no.

Um, I'm sorry, I should have made this more clear. The poll followed a story about CNN airing the al-Quaida training tapes. It had nothing to do with exposing US military secrets.

I'd vote yes for the second poll also. IMO, the press shouldn't have free reign to publish whatever they want during war (not just war on terror) if it jeapordizes or hinders our troops.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dullard

That anywhere near 26% of the people who voted thought our Constitution "goes too far" in protecting free speech is depressing beyond words.

It depends on your definition of "speech". I know that people exist who think murder is an expression of speech. The 1st amendment of our constitution says that congress should not make a law that abridges this expression of speech. Thus the 1st amendment says murder cannot be made illegal. Obviously in that case the 1st amendment goes WAY too far in protecting someones right to express themselves with murder instead of protecting our rights to stay alive. Luckilly the Constitution says we have the right of life, and thus it overrides the 1st amendment.

Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded room that ends up causing a stampeed killing 6 people is another, less extreme example. The 1st amendment specifically says you have the right to kill 6 people by yelling "Fire!". Luckilly there is another place in the constitution that says there is a time and place for everything. Sure you are free to say "Fire!", but not in a crowded location. This is another case that complete and unhindered freedom of speech goes too far.

What about police investigations? Suppose there was a serious crime and I was questioned by the police. The 1st amendment gives me the right to say anything I please. Thus I have the right to frame anyone for the crime. I could accuse you and put you in jail for years even though you are innocent. What about your rights? That is just too bad, since I'm free to say what I want to the police. Oh wait, luckilly there is an override to this too...

So in my opinion, some forms of "speech" must be limited. These are just a few examples - there are many, many others. What is frightening and depressing about saving lives?

murder isn't speech, its an action, and happens to be illegal, so obviously its not protected.

framing someone is illegal, so obviously the constitution has been interpreted for that not to be protected speech.

as for yelling fire... you'd probably be prosecuted for something.

 

[Lucky]

I think the media should know better than to publish coverage of military activities that threaten national security, and if necessary they should be prevented from doing so.

Therein lies the problem. I am NOT going to say military secrets should be published, but the media and the military have a long, often contentious history. The military has not had any qualms about squashing both reports and photos NOT for security reasons but for political reasons. I.E., they didnt think the public should be seeing any dead american soldiers in vietnam.

Ideally, yes, I dont think that preventing the publishing of national security secrets is bad. However, how that has been implemented in the past and likely the future makes me think twice about the idea. Demonize the press all you want but they are often the only ones able to expose government at its worst, and if the power is made broadly available for the military to step in on a whim it will likely be a bad thing.

 

[dullard]

murder isn't speech, its an action, and happens to be illegal, so obviously its not protected.

framing someone is illegal, so obviously the constitution has been interpreted for that not to be protected speech.

as for yelling fire... you'd probably be prosecuted for something.

Pure freedom of speech and freedom of expression would allow all three of those examples. In our society we don't have complete pure freedom as you noted since those are all illegal. The 1st amendment would allow us to do them all, but since it goes too far, other parts of the consitution must override the 1st amendment. Thus these show that pure unhindered freedom of speech and expression can easilly go too far.

Freedom of speech includes freedom of expression which includes actions. The 1st amendment basically says we have the right to do anything at all. Obviously that is not accpetable in a civilized society. So the 1st amendment must have gone too far.

 

[Lucky]

So the 1st amendment must have gone too far.

Let's put in a reminder of what the 1st ammendment says exactly.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Gaard]

Flash: Air Force set to bomb Hussein's complex tomorrow at 0600 hours in an attempt to elliminate him and his grip on Iraq.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dullard

murder isn't speech, its an action, and happens to be illegal, so obviously its not protected.

framing someone is illegal, so obviously the constitution has been interpreted for that not to be protected speech.

as for yelling fire... you'd probably be prosecuted for something.

Pure freedom of speech and freedom of expression would allow all three of those examples. In our society we don't have complete pure freedom as you noted since those are all illegal. The 1st amendment would allow us to do them all, but since it goes too far, other parts of the consitution must override the 1st amendment. Thus these show that pure unhindered freedom of speech and expression can easilly go too far.

Freedom of speech includes freedom of expression which includes actions. The 1st amendment basically says we have the right to do anything at all. Obviously that is not accpetable in a civilized society. So the 1st amendment must have gone too far.

obviously ridiculous statements such as "murder is protected" is part of the reason why the federalists were against the idea of a "bill of rights."

again, murder is an action. i can speak as much as i want and no one is going to die because of it.

 

[Moonbeam]

What was that business about the Constitution not being a suicide pact. I wish I had had more time to look at that. Publishing military secrets in not wrong if what the military is up to is evil. What is the difference between silencing people who may say something you don't want to hear and attacking a cuontry because you are afraid of what they MIGHT do? What is the difference is searching people on the presumption they might be carrying a bomb without probable cause?

The Consitution was destroyed when the Supreme Clowns ruled that speech is money and corporations are individuals. The people no longer have anything to do with how the country is governed. Money and by extension, corporate interests, determine which or their two candidates we want. A sufficient knowledge of how to manipulate mass public opinion has been accumulated to insure there will never be any danger that interests other than theirs will ever come to power.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What was that business about the Constitution not being a suicide pact. I wish I had had more time to look at that. Publishing military secrets in not wrong if what the military is up to is evil. What is the difference between silencing people who may say something you don't want to hear and attacking a cuontry because you are afraid of what they MIGHT do? What is the difference is searching people on the presumption they might be carrying a bomb without probable cause?

The Consitution was destroyed when the Supreme Clowns ruled that speech is money and corporations are individuals. The people no longer have anything to do with how the country is governed. Money and by extension, corporate interests, determine which or their two candidates we want. A sufficient knowledge of how to manipulate mass public opinion has been accumulated to insure there will never be any danger that interests other than theirs will ever come to power.

didn't they rule that money is not speech?

 

[Chaotic42]

Have you heard the EIB commercial from the "NEA"? It's funny. School is anti-freedom now. People get their feelings hurt when they are free. We need to lock everyone up in a rubber room. The government knows what's best.

 

[dullard]

[

obviously ridiculous statements such as "murder is protected" is part of the reason why the federalists were against the idea of a "bill of rights."

again, murder is an action. i can speak as much as i want and no one is going to die because of it.

But according to interpretations actions are a form of speech. Thus actions are protected. But lets forget that one, since it is too extreme. The "Fire!" example is one where your speech will very likely cause death. The example of lying to police is another example where your speech could result in an execution and therefore death.

If the federalists were against the bill of rights, they must have had good reason. The first amendment was meant to allow us to disagree with the government. In many places you could be jailed or killed for disagreeing with the government. Thus the 1st amendment is very necessary. However the way it is written, happens to go a bit too far. I (and probably the federalists) would agree with something more on the lines of:
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech [/b]as long as it doesn't seriously impede someone else's rights[/b]"

What about some more grey topics?
For example a mentally challenged individual is standing on a cliff edge and someone yells "Jump!". Suppose that person jumps and dies, should the yeller be prosectuted? The 1st amendment says you have the freedom of speech.

Suppose I work as a spy. I collect highly classified documents and publish them to our enemies. Is my speech protected, or did I do something illegal? The 1st amendment says I have the freedom of speech and of the press. But should that freedom be limited?

Suppose I publish a book of home remedies that can aid in many diseases or injuries. In that book I publish a specific concoction to be taken internally (lets say to cure the flu) that I KNOW beforehand will kill 100% of the people who take it. A million people buy my book and a few thousand die due to that "cure". Do I have the right to publish that book?

 

[Moonbeam]

ElFenix, The Supreme Court ruled in its landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that the First Amendment prohibited any restrictions on the amount that any a candidate can spend in elections on his own behalf because, the Court reasoned, this is a direct expenditure of money for "expressive activities" which implicated core First Amendment principles.

It has since ruled that limitations on contributions of some kinds are OK.