Why Did The Founding Fathers So Highly Valued Free Speech And A Free Press?

[garwyli91]

Is it much more crucial now than ever, or just a way for people to result in undue influence? Ought to we restrict totally free speech beyond the fire/theater, libel, slander, provisions?

[jung-su]

Free speech was prized back when the concept was to maintain the government from locking you up for criticizing it. Who could have guessed what it could turn into when "honor" isn't something people care about anymore.I nonetheless think in cost-free speech BUT I do not feel it need to defend scum like the "news" rags or paparazzi who only harrass. Their victims never have considerably choice simply because if they sue, we the wonderful public, would like to think the worst in them anyway.Personally, I do not think that there require to be a lot more restrictions. Those on the books ought to be adequate, but the difficulty(as I see it) is that they require to be enforced much more. And those who spend good funds for junk like the Nat'l Enquirer, and so on ought to just acquire something else since they are element of the issue.

[Matherson]

They saw the value of attempting to enforce speech on citizenry. The second rule of communication is: "It really is not that individuals can not hear, it really is that they don't listen." What these wise folk figured out was that you can let individuals speak all they want--and picture that now that they've spoken, absolutely everyone else will be persuaded by the clarity of their thinking. Meanwhile, the fact is that no one was listening. The cranky ones aren't leading a revolution due to the fact they consider they've been heard and the government is saving income not stopping the cranky ones from speaking and absolutely everyone else is content anyway due to the fact they are ignoring you. Win Win Win.   danielpauldavis 46 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please confirm your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please confirm your account to send a message.

[Burhardt]

No, just shot the next morning.

[Ryleigh]

Subject Question: They valued a free exchange of ideas, though I don't believe that they would have placed some of the garbage that we are subjected to every day in their plan.  The exchange of ideas was to keep an eye on what the govt was doing and just the right to discuss what they chose and share those ideas in the press or books.  The Founders were concerned with social, political, legal, or economic rights or issues.   Importance or Undue Influence: I would say it is just as important now.  However, much of the press(media) has changed their views and report what they want us to know.  So much for the people's right to know.   Restrictions: At this time I would not restrict the exchange of ideas and viewpoints in the areas above.  I started out with 3 and added another.  This list is not meant to be complete as is, there may be more.  This is all that popped into my mind.   I am tired of the news being filled with Tiger and other similar stories

[Averyl]

trinnity said: 2 What about the death of Princess Diana? Should the paps who chased them have been prosecuted for manslaughter? 46 months ago

[Ardagh]

The second rule of communication is: "It's not that people can't hear, it's that they don't listen." What those wise folk figured out was that you can let people speak all they want--and imagine that now that they've spoken, everyone else will be persuaded by the clarity of their thinking. Meanwhile, the fact is that no one was listening. The cranky ones aren't leading a revolution because they think they've been heard and the government is saving money not preventing the cranky ones from speaking and everyone else is happy anyway because they're ignoring you. Win Win Win.  

[Deven]

Pales replied to post #2: 3 No, just shot the next morning. 46 months ago

[Adar]

turkermom said: 1 Free speech was prized back when the idea was to keep the government from locking you up for criticizing it. Who could have guessed what it could turn into when "honor" isn't something people care about anymore.I still believe in free speech BUT I do not think it should protect scum like the "news" rags or paparazzi who only harrass. Their victims don't have much choice because if they sue, we the wonderful public, would like to believe the worst in them anyway.Personally, I don't think that there need to be more restrictions. Those on the books should be enough, but the problem(as I see it) is that they need to be enforced more. And those who pay good money for junk like the Nat'l Enquirer, etc should just buy something else because they are part of the problem. 46 months ago

[Giollaruaidh]

3 Questions Require 3 Answers Subject Question: They valued a free exchange of ideas, though I don't believe that they would have placed some of the garbage that we are subjected to every day in their plan.  The exchange of ideas was to keep an eye on what the govt was doing and just the right to discuss what they chose and share those ideas in the press or books.  The Founders were concerned with social, political, legal, or economic rights or issues.   Importance or Undue Influence: I would say it is just as important now.  However, much of the press(media) has changed their views and report what they want us to know.  So much for the people's right to know.   Restrictions: At this time I would not restrict the exchange of ideas and viewpoints in the areas above.  I started out with 3 and added another.  This list is not meant to be complete as is, there may be more.  This is all that popped into my mind.   I am tired of the news being filled with Tiger and other similar stories Pales 46 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.