|
Tell Us What You Think
name: Great Potato
email: Compexpert16@hotmail.com
Thursday, 30-Mar-2000 13:07 PST
As there will be many atheists here (myself included)
I think the best way to support my view is to say
that whenever we hear, or have heard about the first
ammendment being violated, it is a religious group
doing it. Whether a ban on pornography,
blasphamous, or supporting civil rights, it is
almost always the religious group that wants
something censored. I think that to ban something
just because you disagree with it, is taking some
of the worst from Nazism, Communism, and religion.
name: Hobart J. Crusenberry
email: Jake@Crusenberry.com
Thursday, 30-Mar-2000 17:53 PST
As repugnant as certain viewpoints, anti-gay, antisemitism, Christian, anti-government, etc., may be to me, I fervently believe that the First Admendment to the US Constitution gives everyone the right to "free expression." Even the right to be offensive to the majority, or even a minority of the public, should be protected as a quintesential American freedom.
None the less, it is often difficult for me to watch KKK rallies, or anti-abortionists, homophobic groups, or antisemities. I shake my head with disappointment at what I perceive to be ill-informed "hate groups". I mostly change the channel, go to a different website or put down the offensive book. In my mind, however, I always marvel once again at the freedom in our country that allows such differing viewpoints. Sometimes I even continue watching or reading these offensive viewpoints so that I know what others believe and say.
I know, I know! I am often told that MOST people should not be exposed to Neo-nazism, homophobia, Christianity, antisemitism, or racism least these bewildered people come to view these things as truth. (Maybe they shouldn't be exposed to atheists ideas either?) Believing that most people are dogmatic and stupid is a concern with which we all, as supposedly freedom-loving Americans, must come to grips. To believe that MOST people do not have the capability to sift ideas, use mostly rationalism and a broad-based, liberal education to make up their own minds, is a pessimistic viewpoint of the ability of people to govern themselves.
As for me, I want no "Big Brother" writing my history, censoring my newspapers, magazines, TV, websites or billboards, and even telling me what viewpoints I must not espouse!
I am not at all, I think, against citizen (or perhaps even government) groups that MONITOR hate speech or hate groups. It seems to me that it is in the our interest to know the activity of groups that condone or even encourage violence or other illegal acts. I do not, however, believe that the government should supress these groups through any illegal (or uncostitutional means).
Only in an unfettered culture of competing interests can "freedom" remain "in bloom." Only through unfettered exchange of ideas does rationalist democracy have any chance of survival.
I know this may be hard for many people to understand, that even those holding offensive viewpoints should be heard. If we start drawing lines on certain types of speech, other than that provoking provably IMMINENT public danger, then those viewpoints such as American Atheists' will join the list of government-forbidden "offensive speech."
Our alternative, I think, is to stay informed, develope a sense-of-humor at those we might label "flakes" and remain always vigilant at certain types of speech and groups. We must remain rationally aware that often hate speech DOES rise to the level of illegal actions or acts of violence. It is, however, against those illegal acts of violence that our government should take action--but only through legal, constitutional means.
Of course, as atheists, WE seek to change the law through LEGAL means, while dissenting vociferously against the hold that organized religion has on our government and culture. To many Americans, particularly the Christians, OUR viewpoint is offensive.
Always remember the well-known story (here paraphrased and modified): and then when the law authorities came to arrest the atheists, there was no one left to protest that WE were only exercising our right to free speech.
Bless this struggling country. Cherish that precious Bill of Rights. Seek always to use reason (not religion) to exercise one's rights and to protect the rights of others. The rights of others, all others, under the US Constitution, should be just as important to us atheists as our rights are to us.
Now, being an atheistic Jew, I quote a key Jewish tenet, and what is always on my mind and concience: "Justice, justice, thou shalt pursue."
Capt Hobart J. Crusenberry, USAF Retired
Member American Atheists
Member American Civil Liberties Union
name: Amy Mosier
email: SMosier@NETZERO.NET
Thursday, 30-Mar-2000 19:28 PST
Yes, absolutely. I am a woman and an atheist. When somebody tries to say that women are dumber than men or some Christian doctor attempts to prove that faithful people are healthier, I don't care. Why? Because I know they're wrong. But they have a right to say it. Besides, I wouldn't worry that people will believe offensive speech. Society, for the most part, seems to know what's right.
name: Richard A. Angorn
email: angorn@ufl.edu
Thursday, 30-Mar-2000 19:44 PST
As hateful and inflammatory as these reprehensible
practices may be, any government action to regulate
them would be a "foot in the door" that could lead
eventually to the demise of our cherished right of
FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Also, I disapprove of vigilante
action to remove offensive signs or displays. The
idiocy of such messages is obvious to people of
intelligence, and their removal or desecration by
vigilante action would only fan the flames and
incite the numskulls to further action. People who
put up such billboards or displays are only looking
for attention. Our best defense is to ignore them.
name: who's your daddy
email: hey_baby76@hotmail.com
Thursday, 30-Mar-2000 21:40 PST
no one should be allowed to harm another, physically, but an individual should be allowed to express his views, no matter how narrow-minded, one may believe them, because if he is not allowed to, where do we draw the line? who decides what is allright to say and what isn't?
name: David Lanham
email: Birditte@aol.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 01:00 PST
This is a very tough issue... answers to these questions do not fall merely into "yes" and "no" I don't think. I don't think we as human beings can make laws about this topic which would really cover the issue as it needs to be covered... many things are considered hateful by many people, and of course there are those who are simply offended by every little thing that they disagree with. This issue is not an easy one at all! Err... I don't think I really said much there that anyone wasn't already thinking themselves.
name: Dark Winters
email: Dark.Winters@Bigfoot.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 01:45 PST
Any opinion is protected, an insult is not. Public speech (bulletin boards, ads, etc) is not focused on an individual, but a group and is therefor not insultive:
"You faggot!" is an insult.
"I hate faggots." is an opinion.
name: Janus Black
email: janus_black13@hotmail.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 06:43 PST
This is a free country with rights that have good and bad results. These are opinions each group is expressing, and one way or another they will express these opinions rather legaly or illegaly. There will one day be a time when only one side will be left, let each side show its true face. Let hate show itself for hate, lets truth and reason show its face for truth and reason and then let the people of this free world decide which side they want to be on. --Janus Xavier Black
name: Robert
email: rfrick@inlink.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 07:22 PST
That's what the First Amendment was for. Bigots, blasphemers, and all manner of odious individuals have every right to say what they want, when they want, pretty much anywhere they want. That being said, they should also be prepared for hisses and boos from the populace.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Words to live by.
name: Wayne Schotten
email: wayneschotten@earthlink.net
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 07:53 PST
As much as I may detest a public message, I cannot support censorship, because I must be able to assert my own right to speak out against its content. Hateful people should stand in the light with the rest of us, and have their hatred exposed for all to see.
As for the flag, if "desecrating" the flag becomes illegal, then it ought to be burned, since it no longer represents the principles of a free people, but a fascist state.
name: Matt Zirbes
email: zirb_monkey@yahoo.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 10:44 PST
The reason the first amendment is so valuable to our counrty, is that it protects speach that many people feel is unpopular. The most prominent example would have to being in fighting for women's rights. Many people thought giving women the same rights as men was ridiculus, or even blasphemous.
There is also the red scare that america went through in the 40s. The government was checking up on people and censoring ideas for the sake of preserving democracy. Students at berkey went into such anti communist forums and meetings and protested these unfair actions. If the first amendment wasn't protecting them at the time, the rest of us would have to put up with Big Brother looking over everything we say or do.
Hateful, offensive, blaphemous, and unpopular speach is the very thing the first amendment was put out to protect.
Banning speach or ideas doesn't solve anything, it just bottles up the problem which will resurvace later. If you don't like what someone is saying, tell them why. If you think a pastor is putting up offensive billboards, you can put up billboards telling us why he is a bigot. If that person can say what ever he wants, you can to. But banning that person from saying something you don't to hear only restricts the rights of the rest of us.
name: Kelley Miller
email: kelleyamme@aol.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 12:16 PST
Protecting speech that is offensive is the purpose the First Amendment was designed for. There is no need to protect unoffensive speech. If any offensive speech can be proven to be directly causative of violence or discrinmination against the group it is directed at, however, the person responsible for the speech should be held responsible.
name: J/ Garry McAllister
email: McAllaw@aol.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 12:26 PST
The First Amendment as well as the very basis of the Constitution and the Bill of rights is the protection of the minority against the tyrany of the majority. Free and open debate and discussion of any and all topics, no matter how offensuve us the ony way to find truth.
Religious organizations have, throughout history, used fear, control, conformity and threats to protect their domain. The actions of the xtain reich today reflect this same attitude. The Scopes Trial and the actions in Kansas regarding science show that their fear of open discussion of that which they find offensive has not changed.
The greates challenge to our freedoms is represented by those who would impose some form of PC or those who would impose some form of "xtain nationalism" on this country.
Jefferson's speech regarding freedom from religion should be taught in all HS history classes.
name: Guy Ranallo
email: cvguy@juno.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 14:29 PST
By the strict control of free speech I can picture our society become the captive of the dominant religion.
name: Polly Rothstein
email: Polly@wcla.org
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 14:41 PST
I think it would be good for AA to send a press release showing that visitors to your site overwhelmingly support the right of hate groups to present their viewpoint.
name: Gerard Balan
email: ljbadd@yahoo.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 15:06 PST
Most of the questions in this poll have a common theme running through them: the issue of free speech. As a freethinker and African American male, I am sickened and appalled when either hate groups or individuals such as this NY Minister shamelessly spread messages of hatred and intolerance which eventually incite deplorable violence. As much as I hate such speech, it should be protected under the 1st Amendment like another other speech. No opinion, no matter how offensive it is, should be banned by the government. One of the things that make this country great is the free flow of ideas. History has shown us time and time again that a supression of ideas lead to the suppression of the people. Afterall, how can we attack free speech in one breath, and then expect others to promote the separation of state and church, also guaranteed by the first amendment?
name: Jim Challender
email: jimcpri@mediaone.net
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 15:55 PST
Several of the questions were poorly worded and could easily confuse the reader.
name: Kati
email: yakizz2@hotmail.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 16:21 PST
Anything that is offensive to any kind of group
is not of course RIGHT! Hate is wrong!
name: Bradley
email: BAllenNorris@aol.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 17:12 PST
The first amendment is intended to protect ALL speech, no matter how unpopular or offensive, in an effort to maintain the free expression and trading of ALL ideas. To put limits on unpopular speech is to take the easy way out, and to weaken our democracy as a whole. Without protection for minorities and unpopular speech, this nation would suffer under the greatest tyranny of all: the tyranny of the majority.
I personally don't want anyone other than myself deciding what I can or cannot view. Words, whether they be hateful, insulting, demeaning, whatever, are just words. This issue is childish non-sense. The childrens rhyme "sticks and stones" is all that comes to mind.
If the religious want to denounce certain lifestyles on billboards, let them! It is a waste of money. However, if you feel you must act, rent the billboard next to it and in large lettering state: "GOD IS DEAD" Then you'll be in a position to negotiate removal of both billboards, in reciprocation.
This all boils down to namecalling, and rather than banning it, it should be blatantly ridiculed for it's immaturity, or if you want to take the high road, downright ignored.
name: Terry Tremaine
email: t.tremaine@home.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 18:45 PST
What good is a law which protects speech that most would agree with? The point of free speech legislation is that it protects *unpopular* speech.
name: Roberta Singer
email: rsinger@frontiernet.net
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 18:58 PST
I am inclined to be a first amendment absolutist. Offensive views should be countered by letter-writing, demonstrations, and counter-advertisements. Vandalism is not a constructive response. The State should only intervene when specific threats of violence are involved. This can be a murky area, but I think intelligent people (or perhaps I should say civilized people) would agree that such utterances as "Kill all the (Jews, gays, blacks, atheists, etc.)" should not be considered a mere expression of an opinion.
name: dogon
email: dogon@iserv.net
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 18:59 PST
Censorship discourages free discussion. Even though I personally do not condone the views expressed, topics need to be in the open for the them to be discussed at all. Censorship against one group opens the means to censor anyone including YOU, whatever your views. A "cult" is just someone else's church. Blasphemy is in the eye of the beholder.
name: Ruthie
email: capellarl@mindspring.com
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 19:03 PST
As much as I disagree with many of the religion mongers, supremist groups, anti-gays, anti-abortionists, and their hateful speech, we help them if we ban them. They then become martyrs of sorts because their views are being censored.
The best way for the public to be educated about the often illogical, rarely fact-based hateful speech and beliefs of these groups is to let them say what they want. Then it is our job to use facts and logic to refute them. Suppressing their voices only strengthens their feelings that they're fighting the righteous fight.
name: Don Hirschberg
email: dhirsch@centurytel.net
Friday, 31-Mar-2000 21:11 PST
How utterly fatuous it would be to have a First
Amendment that only applied when it wasn't needed.
name: Henry Doberst
email: withheld
Saturday, 01-Apr-2000 08:51 PST
The free speech of ideas and media representation should be protected on all counts at all times. However I think it is a reasonable extension of public safety doctrine (inciting to riot, or commit crimes etc.) to restrict free speech that calls for specific acts of violence to individuals or their property. This would include slander/libel etc. (such as advocating for a whispering campaign against someone deemed unacceptable). IMO the proper way to counteract a message one does not like is with a constrasting message, not with a restrictive law. Public opinion and legal boycotts are fine as well. I prefer all "ideas" be on the public table for scrutiny and discussion/refutation. btw I am a Christian if that is important.
name: Tony
email: triffe@pacifier.com
Saturday, 01-Apr-2000 11:30 PST
As an atheist, I generally am very accepting of others, no matter what their views or lifestyles may be. I am a firm believer in free speech, but it disturbs me how some use use this priviledge. It seems to me that the religious right is the biggest violator. It is ok for them to quote the bible to condem gays or whatever else they feel is immoral and put that in print, but go ahead and critisize christians in print and see what happens.
This country needs free speech to remain free. But it is a two way street. And I think they forget that. And we definately do not need the government stepping in. Censorship laws based on "christian values" would put us in the same league as many middle eastern countries.
name: Emily Starr-Phillips
email: estarr@exeter.edu
Saturday, 01-Apr-2000 14:07 PST
The First Amendment protects ALL free speech.
It cannot and does not distinguish between what
may be offensive to some groups and what is not.
If the government begins to dictate what is
"allowable" free speech and restricts hateful,
offensive, and blasphemous speech, free speech
would cease to be free.
name: Christopher M. Maple
email: chris_maple@alesis-semi.com
Saturday, 01-Apr-2000 22:29 PST
1: Taking down the sign was a violation of the
contract with the preacher.
2: Certain messages should be illegal and properly
are subject to vandalism, such as "I will pay
$10,000 to the first person providing proof that
he has killed Mr. X.Y.Z."
3: Since flag etiquette demands that the U.S. flag
never touch the ground, how does someone properly
dispose of a worn flag? The only accepted method I
am aware of is to burn it.
name: Bart Meltzer
email: bartman99@iname.com
Sunday, 02-Apr-2000 11:02 PST
ALL speech should be protected under the First Amendment no matter how offensive it is. It's just too bad that our First Amendment rights are often violated because somebody or some group gets offended.
Those people that wish to curtail speech they find offensive refuse to think about having their free speech curtailed. They think because they have an apparent majority position for a certain issue, they are justified. They put blinders on and focus solely on the speech they find offensive with no regard as to how they themselves offend others. This is pure arrogance, and if their views are seen as a reason to curtail free speech, it becomes a violation of our (and their) First Amendment rights.
I don't like the message those two billboards in Staten island give, but I don't like them being forced down just the same.
The sad fact of my viewpoint is that it's too uncommon in America. In this case, I'm an Atheist standing up for the First Amendment rights of a Christian group. How many Christian groups will stand up for the rights of Atheist? Not many, if at all. Regardless, freedom of speech should be preserved for all Americans. Curtailing free speech is un-American.
name: Ried Crowe
email: ried.crowe@lmco.com
Sunday, 02-Apr-2000 15:55 PST
Although I personally find it deplorable that a
person or group has tried to post billboards
denouncing all people of any given group,
especially when it smacks so heavily of so-called
"hate speech", I feel that the single most
important virtue that sets America apart from all
other nations that Americans feel so superior to
is that of the unadulterated freedom of speech
that we are guaranteed by our Constitution.
In fact, it is due to this very civil liberty that
such things as atheistic forums and gatherings are
even allowed, as it is virtually assured that
these types of freethought and free expression
would have been outlawed long ago had it not been
for the Bill of Rights. Thus, this proves that it
works for everybody, as all Americans can have
their say about how this country should be. It
is important to remember, however, that it is not
what people say that hurt others, but what they
do.
I strongly agree with the notion that I feel
the Framers must have felt: given the opportunity
to self-govern, people can be trusted to be smart
enough to disregard those (radicals) who obviously
aim to do nothing but disservices to others (for
example, the self-centered and bigoted folks of
New York who felt the need to publicly blast gays
simply because they can't tolerate the lifestyles
of others).
name: ELZIABETH LAUER
email: JSLAUER@SPACEY.NET
Sunday, 02-Apr-2000 19:15 PST
THIS IS A HARD SUBJECT. IF THE KKK WOULD OF PUT UP A SIGN BEING HATEFUL TOWARD BLACKS, IT WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PUT UP. WHY IS THIS COUNTRY IN SO DENILE THAT GAYS ARE PEOPLE TOO. I BELIEVE IN FREE SPEECH BUT YOU REALLY CAN GO TO FAR.
name: Frank Bacon
email: 71714.163@compuserve.com
Sunday, 02-Apr-2000 20:30 PST
Some of these questions are very difficult. I voted no opinion on the one question that included the phrase "could lead to violence". In general I don't think free speech should be restricted even by the people negatively affected. I am against any vandalism and in favor of countering hateful speech by reasonable and/or loving speech.
name: Martha Shepler
email: mcshepler@aol.com
Sunday, 02-Apr-2000 23:43 PST
All speech is protected by the First Amendment, no matter how silly, offensive, or full of hate it is. It is the duty of rational people to counter silly speech with sensible speech and publications, to show others that the hate and bias based speech and publications are not to be taken seriously.
Also, there is no such thing as blasphemy. You cannot degrade nonexistent beings.
name: Kirk B.
email: kbrockma@sound.net
Monday, 03-Apr-2000 06:58 PST
While hateful & offensive speech is disgusting and not welcome in a typical civilized society, it must be protected by the First Amendment in order for other less disruptive types of speech be protected. We must steel ourselves and fight individually against such speech while keeping it protected. This is the price we pay for freedom. To lose _any_ of it is to lose _all_ of it.
name: Jack Elias Shock II
email: jshockII@yahoo.com
Monday, 03-Apr-2000 13:19 PST
Web Pages And Individual Publications Should Speak As They See Fit...If The Easily Offended Minorities Don't Want To See What Is Printed, They Don't Need To Read It...Whereas A Billboard Is Not Only Harder To Ignore...But It Also Speaks Out To EVERYONE Who Sees It...JESII
name: David Slakter
email: demrald@yahoo.com
Monday, 03-Apr-2000 13:36 PST
When considering the right to freedom of speech, it is important to note that this gaurantee applies even to what we find offensive or disagreeable. Free speech should, of course, be questioned when its main motive is violence or to reprieve the rights of others, and we should also not forget the power of the media and boycotts to cause of shift in these people's views.
name: Tim H.
email: withheld
Monday, 03-Apr-2000 14:05 PST
I absolutely do not want my rights to oppose a group that I feel to be misguided impinged upon. If I feel that you are wrong it is my right to say so. If I feel like promoting a higher power greater than myself on a billboard or a newspaper article or website I should not be restricted. You have the right to express your opinion and I have the right to express mine.
If you get onto the slippery slope of censoring opinion then your own right to opinion will slide down the slope to oblivion with you.
name: Jason Torpy
email: nephilim1@hotmail.com
Monday, 03-Apr-2000 15:18 PST
First, polls can be very one-sided. I thought this one was pretty objective. Just be careful not to make negative statements and then request an Agree/Disagree answer. That's confusing
As for the actual question, my viewpoint in general is that the government should not restrict anything if they can avoid it. The minister's billboards are hateful, but they convey his viewpoint. As long as it is clear what the origin is, e.g., "Homos are bad, so sayeth the Lord." It's clear who the bigots are, and people direct their peaceful demonstrations appropriately.
On the other hand, I'm a fan of the Constitutio and its interpretation by our Courts. What that interpretation is is that the government has the opportunity to regulate speech only in certain instances. In this case, the sticking point would be, "Does this action present an imminent danger to public safety?" "Are people going to start fighting right now because of this?" If not, then the government isn't going to regulate it. And it does not seem likely that riots will spontaneously break out because of a hateful billboard.
The reason that there is no government regulation of category so subjective as 'hateful, offensive, or blasphemous' is that it would easily lead to a tyranny that would certainly oppress americanatheist.org, among other things. Even if that tyranny is a tyranny of the majority, it is still not ok. So, the current reading of the First Amendment, is that the government can regulate 'dangerous' speech, not hateful, offensive, blasphemous, untruthful, wrong, or totally absurd speech. If citizens are offended, that's not the government's problem.
name: Shaun Funk
email: seminole@snowhill.com
Monday, 03-Apr-2000 15:32 PST
I believe that the first amendment should protect hateful speech because of the fact that even though it is hateful and offensive it is still speech and thats what the 1st amendment protects.
I know i have plenty of hateful things to say about religion and preachers and all of that BS and i have the right to say it even though it is offensive and hateful.
name: Sara
email: ssarajon@aol.com
Monday, 03-Apr-2000 21:44 PST
Judging from the results of the foregoing poll, these are the most enlightened people I have been in contact with on the internet. Free speech is free speech...not speech with which we agree. I hate intolerance but being intolerant means not allowing those with which I disagree to express their opinions.
name: John Jacques
email: jxjacques@netscape.net
Tuesday, 04-Apr-2000 09:40 PST
In this case it might be appropriate for objecting groups to buy an adjacent billboard carrying the New Testament teachings of Jesus about not judging others
Quoting from the old testamant while ingnoring the new, is NOT the identifying characteristic of a Christian.
name: Miller
email: biophobe@hotmail.com
Tuesday, 04-Apr-2000 15:13 PST
I believe the first amendment should indeed protect hateful, offensive, and blasphemous speech. The first amendment was not created to protect the popular opinion of Americans. That would be pointless due to the fact that it does not defense. It was concieved to allow for the unpopular ideas of the minority to get a chance at acception.
name: Geno Seay
email: geno@eonpictures.com
Tuesday, 04-Apr-2000 22:35 PST
As an American citizen unwavering in my atheist beliefs, I absolutely DESPISE billboards which promote homophobic, racist, or otherwise ridiculous ideas. However, living in a free society such as the United States of America means, by definition, that we must occasionally endure some of these silly moves on the part of of our "theist" counterparts.
Of course, in a perfect world, billboards such as the one described in the article would not exist. However, I am comforted by the fact that it is NOT prohibited by law. Despite the theist brainwashing that was forced upon most Americans, I stand fast in my faith in the human race. I fear the thought of a world in which the government has the power to determine what we, the People, are allowed to see and hear.
As an atheist, I firmly believe that "Freedom of Expression" should, in fact, SURPASS the First Amendment. I believe that the government, in its true "Big Brother
name: Robbie Bryant
email: rbass@airmail.net
Wednesday, 05-Apr-2000 03:59 PST
I just need to clarify my answers to the poll.
In the case where the minister put up the bill-
boards, he should be able to as long as they are
not on public property. I do also believe that
groups like the American Nazi party should be
silenced. If they are talking about overthrowing
the government, shouldn't that be coined as
treason. i do believe that a man/woman has the
right to speak freely. However, I think an
apprpriate punishment should be in store for those
who choose to slander and individual and not a
group. Just my opinion.
name: Rhiannon
email: cutekitten01@hotmail.com
Wednesday, 05-Apr-2000 16:16 PST
If the government and the public can agree what hateful, offensive, and blasphemous speech is then it should be against the law to post it publicaly. We were taught when we were in grade school that teasing others and hurting other's feelings was not right. The first amendment promotes free speech, but why do we have to carry this to the point of hurting people and demoting them because of what we think they should be. It hurts to think that because of an ammendment that was put into place to protect our rights the people I love and care about can be tormented publicaly.
name: Kira Gaber
email: garnet785@mail.com
Wednesday, 05-Apr-2000 22:42 PST
The government (yes, I can't believe I'm saying this) limit free speech when it hurts a certain group of people officially. To put up a hate message in a public place should not be allowed, because it is not stating your own personal belief but promoting it. That is wrong. Free speech should be protected, but not when it is advertised hate against certain people.
name: Keith Twombley
email: daoist@iastate.edu
Thursday, 06-Apr-2000 00:10 PST
All speech should be protected, especially speech that we do not agree with; the people who say things that we do not agree with are in the greatest danger of having their rights to speech infringed upon.
For our society to remain truly free, we must not restrict speech at all. The first restriction will send us down a slippery slope.
And besides, for the sake of utility: whenever someone participates in hate-speech, it lets the rest of us know the exact location of another screwball.
name: RANDY
email: CINDYANDRANDYB@AOL.COM
Thursday, 06-Apr-2000 03:42 PST
It scares me to think who may be in charge of defining hateful, offensive, and blasphemous speech.
name: Ronald Fernandez
email: RFernan572
Thursday, 06-Apr-2000 06:13 PST
Without question ANY law which bans freedom of speech in any form is contrary to the very essence
and spirit of a free society. It would replace freedom with fear and prohibit the free flow of ideas which is so essential, not only in the political arena, but in the very fabric of American life.
name: robert mesker
email: spinidle@hotmail.com
Thursday, 06-Apr-2000 07:22 PST
one thing we all have to remember is that at some point in time our atheist views are offensive to people so if you are like me and would love to see an atheist billboard you have to tolerate what is offending you. If you tolerate these things you are behaving in a much better way than the christians that would get all bent out of shape and say that they alone have the right to free speech. thank you
name: Christian Point of View
email: BXBOMER@aol.com
Thursday, 06-Apr-2000 11:02 PST
The original intent of the Founding Fathers framing the Constitution and the Amendments to protect our freedom of speech / freedom of religion balanced with the Judeo-Christian ideology that governed the law of the land.
Upon the growth of this nation, there has been a vast merger of various views and beliefs filtering in to every aspect of society.
Each and every person with the ability to articulate themselves should accept the possibility of oppositon which might bring about the missunderstood notion of "hateful, offensive and blasphemous speech."
To reject another viewpoint encourages debates, which when proves factual, ultimately changes the course of one's moral and ethical judgements.
As a Christian, I continually challange and accept other views which is in opposition. To criticize or condemn a false viewpoint and to consider it hateful or offensive, however "blasphemous" it can be, only eliminates the possibility of advancement and communication.
Without this freedom that we all enjoy, I wouldn't have the ability to include my view on an atheist website! :)
name: kevin roberge
email: robo1@mint.net
Thursday, 06-Apr-2000 11:52 PST
while certain messages may turn our stomach we can
not cover them up. We can not ignore the fact
that some people have widely different opinions
than our own. to some evolution, atheism,
socialism are repugnent and deeply offensive, to
others creationism, othordoxy (or nationalism)
and capitalism may be equally offending. we are
different and must work to enlighten others not
censor them. what we cannot see is still there
bioing under the surface of a tolernat society.
we must acknowledge these ideologies and allow
their expression and take action according to
reason and intellect not the back door censor
method which resembles a child with its hands over
its ears singing "la la la la la..i'm not
listening....la la la" we must listen, learn and
enlighten.
name: Mickey wargo
email: Liberty70@aol.com
Thursday, 06-Apr-2000 19:36 PST
Please abandon the two political parties now in power and vote Libertarian. From the responses posted to the poll, it is plain nearly all of those who responded are Libertarians far more than Demo-Publicans. Thank you and Take care! Mickey Wargo
name: Chris
email: Unity87@yahoo.com
Friday, 07-Apr-2000 09:31 PST
As distasteful and disgusting as christian rhetoric often is, I would never, EVER surrender their right to express their beliefs. To do so would be to shoot myself in the foot, for I certainly espouse and express beliefs and opinions that THEY find equally disturbing. Their rights are my rights. And that, to me, is the bottom line.
name: Terry Schoellkopf
email: Tschoellkopf@aol.com
Friday, 07-Apr-2000 14:10 PST
It is astonishing to me that the answer to this
much debated question is not obvious to every
single citizen of our country. We all know that what is hateful and offensive to some is not to others. For instance when people I work with talk
to me about how I need to "give my life and will
to Jesus", I am deeply offended. If I were to reply that all that Jesus stuff is silly mythology,then my co-workers would be offended. Free speech is just that, free speech.
name: Bret D. Wortman
email: WortmanB@usa.net
Friday, 07-Apr-2000 15:07 PST
There is no safe place to draw the line, so it must not be drawn at all. To begin to classify "acceptable" forms of expression is to begin the crawl toward censorship and the adoption of an officially endorsed viewpoint.
Though I may agree with those who found the billboards offensive, I must defend the right of an individual (or group) to purchase that space, and of the vendor to sell it, and of others to protest it. But we must not begin to legislate what is acceptable.
Do I believe the billboard vendor should have placed the ads? No, I believe he should have not taken the business. But once he did, it's out of my hands. Can we pressure him to remove them? Certainly. Should the purchaser expect to be compensated for the loss of what he purchased? Absolutely.
name: john j schmidt
email: civengie@aol.com
Friday, 07-Apr-2000 15:45 PST
first amendment means just what it says and applies across the board. i donot agree with restriction on fire in crowded theater. a breach is a breach and we don't need to split hairs on this one.
name: B. Allan Ross
email: yourhost@usqueers.com
Friday, 07-Apr-2000 20:02 PST
Anybody have $2,000 I can borrow? I have a billboard I'd like to put up. Available for viewing (or downloading/copying) at
http://www.usqueers.com/billboard.gif.
I stuck as close as possible to the original billboard on Staten Island, with just a _few_ alterations.... Enjoy!
name: Zachary Moore
email: zacharym87@hotmail.com
Friday, 07-Apr-2000 21:45 PST
While's there's no question that the reverend's views on homosexuality are biased and frighteningly irrational, NO ONE, repeat NO ONE has the right to prohibit the reverend from expressing whatever opinion he pleases on whatever topic he pleases. If gay people find his opinions offensive, they may voice their discontent, they may picket the revernd or the advertising company, they may not force him to retract his opinions or violate his property rights by vandalizing his property (such as covering the billboards). Our freedoms are indeed our most precious possesion, and they take precednece over anyone's offended sensibilities. If we allow the state to censor the reverend's speech, then no speech is safe. All it takes is one pressure group becoming "offended" or "victimized" to give the state an excuse to ban whatever opinions it feels like banning. The acid test of our freedom of speech is whether or not people like the reverend, espousing ignorant and biased ideals, are permiitted to speak their peace.
name: Martin Finkle
email: maf12@mindspring.com
Friday, 07-Apr-2000 22:20 PST
I voted to protect the free speech of individuals in all of the above cases except the "billboard" one. I voted this way because a person can easily avoid reading another person's opinion they don't agree with when that opinion appears in a magazine or newspaper on on the net. A billboard, however, is an in-your-face onslaught that is not as easily ignored. It can also be readily viewed by children. I support anyone's right to his or her own opinion. But I also have the right to choose not to listen. A billboard that is hard to ignore takes away that right.
name: Colt
email: colt@4state.com
Saturday, 08-Apr-2000 01:03 PST
In order for those you agree with to be able to have freedom,
you must also give freedom to those you disagree
with or THEY are being oppressed. What about
Nazis and Organized Christians and other hate
groups? Welp.. just because they have the right
to free speach, you have the right to disagree
and publicly oppose their views. What do you do in
the case of the billboard? How about pay for
your own add to be put over it? How about asking
the people politely to remove their comments from
the billboard? Or how about using your rights to
protest and speak out against it? The billboard
is privately owned and thus the owner decides what
goes on the board.. thus it's only logical to ask
the owner to remove the message or if all else
fails.. the example of vandalism that was given,
is acceptable. Limited, nonviolent,
nondestructive, civil disobedience is a wonderfull
way to get your voice heard. It's no excuse though,
to gather a mob and go burn down the billboard.
That is not civil disobedience.. it's terrorism
and oppression.
name: John Leslie Bates
email: Handel@flash.net
Saturday, 08-Apr-2000 01:12 PST
Free speech is free speech, whether or not we agree with the speaker. If any of us can prohibit the free speech of others, how long will it be before they can prevent ours?
name: Kristi Hansen
email: kristihansen@webtv.net
Saturday, 08-Apr-2000 02:09 PST
If this guy's signs are allowed to stay up, then I hope somebody will put up signs with bible verses of a different nature - the ones of god telling his Israeli assassins to dash babies against rocks, to "save" the virgins for themselves the gidly father who let his daughter be tortured and killed to save a couple of male stjangers from being raped, and other such violent behavior, as is common to the bibllical deity.
name: Kelley Smith
email: ksmitty@msn.com
Saturday, 08-Apr-2000 11:32 PST
The first amendment was originally drafted to protect POLITICAL speech not any speech.
name: Bill Gerdes
email: gerdesb_k@hotmail.com
Saturday, 08-Apr-2000 14:26 PST
Yes. The First Amendment does and should protect
hateful, offensive and blasphemous speech. If we
amend the First Amendment, even once, to accomo-
date one person or group's opinion of what should
be allowed, we will have started a process which
cannot fail to destroy all of the freedoms we now
enjoy. Be vigilant! Protect your freedoms!
Bill Gerdes
American Atheists member
American Civil Liberties Union member
American Humanists member
name: elizabeth onsurez
email: foreverjesus123@aol.com
Saturday, 08-Apr-2000 20:19 PST
well i think if the goverment didnt step in, we as angry and bitter people would kill each other over whos right or wrong. because dont are quarrels begin with what we believe in our hearts to be true. all wars have started over whos right or wrong. and how many innocent must suffer for what we believe to be true.
name: Whitney
email: potted_moss@anti-social.com
Sunday, 09-Apr-2000 21:20 PST
The First Amendentment not only should but DOES protect hateful and offensive and even (gasp!) blasphemous speech. If it didn't, then the responsibility of deciding which speech should be considered offensive falls upon the shoulders and into the dirty little fingers of the government. That is EXACTLY what the First Amendment was designed to protect us against - government declarations of what is and is not offensive or "right." It must protect all speech, or else we risk losing the greatest asset to our freedom -the right to freely express ourselves.
name: Anne Corwin
email: brightmoon1@juno.com
Monday, 10-Apr-2000 08:29 PST
One main purpose of the First Amendment is to help maintain a balance of power between majority and minority viewpoints. The Founding Fathers were aware that what was popular was not necessarily right, and that if a less-popular viewpoint were squashed at its inception, the nation might suffer in the long run. This being said, it seems clear that putting up billboards degrading gays or other groups should no more be protected by the First Amendment than should the oft-cited scenario of someone shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Though there is a degree of subjectivity involved in determining what constitutes "offensive", there are some very obvious guidelines that people can follow. We wouldn't, for instance, put up a full-color billboard depicting the actual execution of a criminal. Why? Because it would be upsetting to most people, because it would be disgusting, and because though it might make a point, there are many other and better means of making the same point, whatever that might be.
name: Erin Schmidt
email: saffire_ubw@hotmail.com
Monday, 10-Apr-2000 08:59 PST
As Americans, we are guaraunteed freedom of expression. Everyone should be allowed to speak out for what they think is right, regaurdless of who it offends.
name: Michelle Malkin
email: malkinb7@mindspring.com
Monday, 10-Apr-2000 18:16 PST
Such messages, public meetings and speeches should
not be prohibited. How else will people know what the hatemongers stand for? If they are forced into hiding or sneaking around with their messages, very few people will be aware of what such possibly dangerous bigots are up to.
name: Bruce Robinson
email: ocrt@religioustolerance.org
Monday, 10-Apr-2000 18:55 PST
Freedom of speech means freedom of speech.
Far greater harm will be done if we try to suppress hate-mongers than by letting them say what they want.
The end result will be a discrediting of the hate monger's particular brand of Christianity.
Regards
Bruce Robinson
ReligiousTolerance.org
name: Michael Short
email: shortuba@aol.com
Monday, 10-Apr-2000 20:49 PST
If you start suppressing any speech at all, where do you stop? I'm afraid that it would be ruled that speech against religion would be deemed "hateful" and thus "illegal", but speech against athiests and freethinkers would be "acceptable" and "lawful". The only speech allowed under such laws would be that which is not worth saying. And we need to remind people that blasphemy is a victimless crime.
name: Joe Bentley
email: bently@roosevelt.navy.mil
Tuesday, 11-Apr-2000 07:38 PST
As much as I hate to defend such an oddious public statement, I feel that the right to free expression should be upheld completely. We cannot as a free society draw a line that says "everything after this is bad." I would love to see this billboard burned to the ground, but then that would give every yahoo with an opinion the right to take into their hands the duty of approving what is okay to show in public. The billboard was a public, non-violent way of expression an opinion, all be it an incrediably insensitive and, lets face it, incorrect one. Noone should have the right to stop that.
name: Jen Wells
email: tomahawks7351@aol.com
Wednesday, 12-Apr-2000 10:33 PST
Re the billboards: They should not be permitted. If a person paid to display a billboard that said "god is a sham" or "minorities are inferior" you better believe that something would be done about it.
name: Ramanujan Srinivasan
email: ksri@medai.com
Wednesday, 12-Apr-2000 18:16 PST
I'm as atheist as one could get, but I also share the viewpoint of a Libertarian: that government should stay the hell out of private affairs. The company that owns the billboard/property has the right to determine what can and what cannot go on it. Also, ALL forms of speech whether obscene or blasphemous and even hateful should be protected. How else can we make fun of religion and its utter stupidity? =)
Go to Poll/Results.
![[back]](../backarrow.gif) Back
to Top of Forum.
![[top]](/uparrow.gif)
Copyright
© 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.
|
