This is disgusting... does a nation this stupid even deserve to be saved?

[Bloodseeker]

I've heard talks about the first ammendment on my favorite morning show the other day, and it reminded me of the mentality that I saw on the news a few years ago concerning their rights.

Before I go any further, allow me to explain my view on why this whole security increase thing is unneeded. If you remember, the 9/11 attacks had been anticipated and documented 5 times before the attacks. Each time, the documents had gotten caught up on the bureaucratic level and never reached the ears of the people that could have done something about it. The failure was not on the field, it was in the cubicle. However, the government still used the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to increase their hold and attempt to strip away more of our rights to freedom and privacy. (including the ever-so-infamous Patriot Act)

With that in mind, take a look at this. Its old, but...

[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/30/national/main520314.shtml][color=red]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/30/national/main520314.shtml[/color][/url]

Or if you want that spelled out plainly...

[url=http://www.jimgilliam.com/2002/09/first_amendment_poll.php][color=red]http://www.jimgilliam.com/2002/09/first_amendment_poll.php[/color][/url]

What. The. Hell. What kind of stupid *** would willingly give up his constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of press? They want the government to be able to keep stories from us if they don't like them? They want to government to have the ability to arrest them and/or fine them if they say something that the government doesn't like? How does that benefit them? How would that make our lives any better? But it seems that a few more Americans have come their senses since 2002...

[url=http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1024593.php/Poll_Support_for_First_Amendment_grows][color=red]http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1024593.php/Poll_Support_for_First_Amendment_grows[/color][/url]

...however, that still leaves 1/4 of our population willing to give up their rights so that the government can have their way. That's not all.

(just to give credit where credit's do, I found out about this next story from the morning show)

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4225013.stm][color=red]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4225013.stm[/color][/url]

According to this, almost 20% of those kids said that we shouldn't be allowed to say anything but what most people agree with.

[James]

[color=#332E1D][font=franklin gothic medium]Well, I'm not really sure how much of this is unexpected. Freedom of speech isn't really absolute; it comes with responsibility.

Generally speaking, I think that there are people on both sides who blow things out of proportion. The Patriot Act is really only taking laws that apply to organized crime investigation and shifting them over to terrorism-related investigation. If you read the act, a good chunk of it only relates to provisions for information sharing between organizations.

So that side of it gets blown way out of proportion. I doubt that the loudest critics are experiencing any true violations of their civil liberties.

But by the same token, I think it's essential for society to maintain a level of freedom and expression, even during times of crisis.

We get told that people are anti-American if they make any criticism, or that they are pro-Saddam or something. Obviously that's rubbish. We get told that people like Marilyn Manson are responsible for school violence and that these people should be physically censored, whether or not their words are considered offensive.

I think there is a tendency to censor first and ask questions later - all too often, people complain about being "offended", without realizing that they too have a responsibility. Part of that responsibility, in my view, involves being selective about what content one consumes. If something offends you, nobody is forcing you to listen to it or watch it. Living in a free society doesn't just involve free speech itself - but exercising the responsibilities related to it.

In reality, I doubt that people want to give up core freedoms. At the end of the day, what are we really talking about? We're talking about waiting longer at airports, we're talking about a more flexible legal system that provides law enforcement with greater opportunities/freedom to investigate potential criminals. Even if you disagree with that flexibility, it's important to understand that such flexibility does come with various counter balances - the approval of a judge, warrants, etc etc.

So, although there is a greater level of freedom under some circumstances (for law enforcement), it is important not to ignore the various in-built counter balances. To say that law enforcement is given all the freedoms of some kind of despotic regime is just inaccurate more than anything else.

Generally speaking, my feeling is that the truth always lies somewhere in the middle. No, civil liberties aren't being eroded in the way that many would have you believe. But yes, there are various groups (particularly non-government groups) that are constantly pushing against freedom of speech with the aim of censorship. Those groups in particular are a problem, should they gain any kind of success.

As for 9/11, I don't know what I can tell you. Of course, the intelligence on it was bungled. But really, in all honesty, it's so easy to look back retrospectively and have 20/20 vision. Before those attacks occurred, nobody suspected that something so outlandish would happen. And we've all heard the various reports about how things were mishandled and so on. People make mistakes, what else can really be said? Does this make today's security measures any less valuable? I don't think so. I don't even think that the two subjects are related, really. [/color][/font]

[TheAmazingZLJ]

I think it's pretty amusing actually. I don't see why anyone would want their rights taken away either. Though I disagree totally on flag burning ._.

[DeathBug]

Yes, the government's doing such a great job stifling the media. That's why we're flooded with stories about Koran flushing, (That aren't true), or constantly showing out-of-context war statistics (without showing any of the many, many progresses) or constantly flashing Abu Graib pictures (After the military had already taken care of those involved.)

Freedom of speech carries with it the responsibility to speek responsibly, which goes by the wayside as the general population disregards all types of responsibility.

[Justin]

The older I get and the more I think, I find that I, too, find the truth is somewhere deep in the middle. The Patriot Act isn't all that it's made out to be on either side.
Bush isn't a wacked-out liar, but he's also not Jesus; a fact that sadly all too many of my Christian brethren seem to forget.
I think it's unfortunate to know that ALL human information is slanted in some way. Real truth is a rare find, and often when we find it, we discover it does not satisfy our slanted pallets.

Grace,
-Justin

[Chaos]

I think the main thing we need to remember is that people are rarely objective these days. Back fifty years ago a reporter would say the facts, and then give the editorial with something like "In this writer's opinion..." Nowadays, you have a board of directors that literally tell the reporters how they will write the news. Furthermore, in my opinion, the media has no business in war, or half of the political world for that matter. Take World War II and Vietnam for example. In World War II, once America got in the war, there were reports done when major offensives or mass troop movements went under way, and the occasional film reel of soldiers at camp before a movie. The reports were maybe five minutes long, and basically skimmed the information. Cut, clean, and dry.

Now, suddenly, in the span of fifteen years, we learn something. We always knew we had our rights, and used them, but we suddenly felt the urge to abuse them. Photographers were sent overseas by the bucketful and constantly filmed the war. We were constantly shoved information, casualty lists, troop movement, what-have-you. Now, Vietnam was a righeous war, even more so than World War II simply because it was Japan and not Nazi Germany that bombed Pearl Harbor, yet we still deployed in the European Theatre. Vietnam was about protecting a free country and stopping the spread of the Communist War machine. Keep in mind this was also near the height of the Cold War hostilities.

So we have American troops and volunteer civilians out in the field fighting against an unconditional foe, one that disappears into the crowd, and uses subversive tactics to attack the enemy. We now have dead American soldiers with their pictures on the front page of the newspaper. Sad, but they signed up for war. We will miss them. Oh, look, South Vietnamese children were killed by a Viet Cong suicide bomber. How terrible.

Gasp. What's this? A dead American reporter?! BLASPHEMY! The soldiers should be protecting them! It doesn't matter if he's a non-com, the enemy doesn't give a ****! Stop the presses, we must slant everything because we are in danger now!

And that's how the protests started piling up. Reporters in the field felt scorn because they were no longer on holiday, but rather in the middle of a [b]****ing war.[/b] So they wrote home about how American soldiers shot at children carrying assault rifles. So they wrote home about how American soldiers bombed a village suspected of housing North Vietnamese regulars. Not about how if an American soldier was found with a serrated bayonet on his rifle he had his nose and ears cut off with the bayonet and then shot. Not how captured American soldiers in prison camps had to dig graves for their fallen comrades and if they grew too tired they were buried alive. Or the deplorable conditions the soldiers endured night and day in the name of freedom. Or the fiendish acts of cowardice bombing the Viet Cong regularly ran.

Freedom of the press, right? Tch.

Bloodseeker, you make a big deal about wanting to know what kind of person would give up their freedom of speech and press, but don't you know? We never had it. We can say and do as we like, yes, but it's not a free pass. For instance, you can't scream out "Fire!" in a crowded theater and expect to get off scot-free. You can't say "I'm gonna kill that lying bastard," about someone and not run the risk of being arrested.

Same for "freedom" of the press. You can't print out false information, that would be libel. People always assume that because it says "right" we can do whatever. In fact, it's almost the exact opposite. Yes, we CAN say or write out something, but we run the chance of having it bite us back. People take what we have for granted.

Now, don't get me wrong, I am a strong advocate of individual's rights. Right to one's words, right to a firearm, right to smoke a goddamn cigarette. I abhor censorship. It's this new-age crap that makes society so prone to mishap these days. Either it is someone so sheltered that they crumble under pressure because they haven't lived in the real-freaking-world before or someone cowardly to say they went on a thirty-seven person killing spree because they watched too many cartoons and played Grand Theft Auto III. Please, spare me.

Okay, so we can't smoke in the whole restuarant. Fine. We'll sit in the back corner. No? Okay, we'll go outside. ...You're kidding me. SCREW YOU, EPA! ...I guess I'll go to space and smoke.

...Oh, you're joking with me. Space is a vacuum, carbon monoxide can't even spread there!


Rrrg. It's the population today. Parents don't set down enough guidelines. "Oh, he's just expressing himself."

"Honey, Johnny's expressing himself all over the walls."

It's the Flower-Child parents. Free love, wig out, try some acid! I mean, don't get me wrong, have a good time in life, but when you have a *$#@ing kid, shape up. Curse around them, spank them, Hell, grow some brass ones and have your kid cut his own switch. I had to do it more than a few times, but do you see me in a bell tower with a rifle? No.

A little discipline goes a long way. Believe me, I know from experience.

But, we can't do much about that, now can we, if we have bleeding heart liberals controlling the media. Take the recent [url=http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/27/news_6128170.html]Kanagawa[/url] incident. Kids today have no respect, so what does the general public do? BLAME THE GAMING INDUSTRY! MOVIES TOO! TV BAD! RRR. Point in case, [url=http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06/22/news_6128015.html]Nancy Grace[/url] says a game is "training kids to kill cops." No, you halfwit ignoramus. It's a [b]GAME.[/b] Only a dumb prick such as yourself would assume because you [i]can[/i] kill a cop in a [i]game[/i] that you're going to run out in the street with a Tec-9 blazin'.

Gah. I apologize for the rant, but the media just gets me so very mad. I'm tired of hearing anti-war protests. I'm tired of hearing the abortion crap. I'm tired of hearing the gay marriage crap. I'm tired of hearing the oil crap.

Oil. Another thing about the war. So what if we DID go over there for oil? If it lowers the cost of YOUR lifestyles and takes out a very potent threat at the same time I don't see you complaining.

Argh. All the news is about how three more Americans died today in the war on terror. Well, you know what? Those three, and the three before them, and the three before those, and so on, died so your *** could live an peace here. Those three died so that people in other countries could have a chance of living a half-decent life.

You people make me sick. Someone has the courage to go to war and fight for their country and beliefs, and all you do is spit in his or her face with this "unjust occupation" crap. You don't deserve to live in this country. Fly your *** out to Iraq and protest there. See how well the Marines treat you. If you manage to survive that, do you think the insurgents will give a **** just how strongly you oppose the war? No. They'll cut your ****ing head off for being American, and then the world will be a better place.


Really, though, I do apologize for the severity of my gusto.

And Bloodseeker, restricted rights on the media would mean less information being broadcasted. That means we know less. The less WE know, the less THEY protest. Besides, that was only just over one thousand people. Just because fifty percent or twenty-three percent of those polled say one thing doesn't mean the whole country will. You have to take into account location, age, lifestyles, income bracket, life experiences... Can't base everything on statistics. =)