The following are online comments posted on DailyLobo.com in response to Richard Berthold's column "Speech is free, even if it's offensive."
by Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide
posted Wednesday
Richard M. Berthold should study law, as his essay is filled with untruths and is blatantly incorrect. If he wishes a quick survey of the literature that says speech is not free, he should start with Edition.cnn.com/2007/law/06/25/free.speech, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a former high school student in the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner case - a split decision 6-to-3 that limits students' free speech rights. The case is Morse v. Frederick.
Also, Mr. Berthold might find time to read LegallAd.quickanddirtytips.com/free-speech-limitations.aspx.
There have been numerous court (from local to U.S. Supreme Court cases) limiting free speech in the areas of (1) pornography, (2) child pornography, (3) threatening harm, (4) libel, (5) slander, (6) defamation of character, (7) wrongful accusations (usually against a professor or teacher), and (8) inciting riots (such as shouting "fire" in a crowded theater).
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
I have more than 400 books in my private library, in addition to the 3,000 volumes in my personal law library that I could cite, and I cannot find one reference to support your argument - wishful, but not realistic. You can go to your law library and read for yourself. Free speech requires the speaker to understand his or her responsibilities and the consequences of that speech. Berthold, your article is misleading, to put it charitably.
by Slowhike
posted Wednesday
Is it free speech or legitimate speech? This post brings several things to mind, as do the responses. I find several words very distasteful. However, I would also defend a person's right to free speech, which I must assume would allow them to use words that I don't approve of.
An additional thought is that it's not only the words used, but it is also who uses them that makes them offensive or acceptable. Political correctness has become tiresome to us all by this time no doubt, inasmuch as we expend no little effort to make nice distinctions and observe the unwritten rules.
I would venture to say that the courts have destroyed laws that created pockets of resistance to vulgarity and obscenity rather than anything they may have done to limit speech in even the most remote sense. In fact, censorship is an issue raised by Berthold's column, as well. I, for one, would have to personally favor the censorship for the most violent and sexually explicit material now on offer. The question then is, "Is there a way to draw the line?"
Censorship can be oppressive. The core of liberalism attempts to make any interference with the individual's self-gratification seem shamefully reactionary, or worse yet, conservative. Another great question then is, "Is it possible to argue for censorship?" If the government should not attempt to interfere or inject any virtue into the society it governs, should it not attempt to deter vice?
by Andres Saenz
posted Wednesday
Isn't this the same columnist who once said after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "Whoever can blow up the Pentagon has my vote?"
And now he's saying that it's OK to offend someone because you have the right to exercise your freedom of speech? Sorry, but I think he's a jerk.
