I have not read that particular thread, discussion, and argument as of the time of my writing this. In this manner, I know nothing of the prior arguments or rebuttals. If you did not, as you said, "portray myself in a very good light" in the other thread, it does not show now. With that said, I shall continue.
What you're trying to prove is that whoever made that statement did not have the right to say it, protected under the First Amendment. I appreciate your being specific, as it makes your argument clearer, and allows for me to understand exactly what you wish to present to me.
You've chosen to go about that by showing a quotation from a text book. The quote you have provided, while informative and not with out its basis in fact, comes from a Religious Perspective as noted in the title. In this manner, you must be careful. Are you arguing that the "Religious Perspective" is the correct one? Even so, that alone cannot discredit the source. I'm willing to look past this, being a Christian myself. However, such views may not hold with other people.
Now, to the quote itself.
"The Founders intended that the First Amendment should provide a climate of liberty in which all citizens could freely voice their opinions on matters pertaining to religion, politics, ethics, and economics." In this statement, your text book argues for the intent of the Founding Fathers. Their intent. When I read this statement for the first time, I asked myself how one could know another's intent, especially so very many years later. Of course, I've heard of studies done on exactly this sort of thing. Look at the Founding Father's letters to even their own journals. From such things, I can understand someone acquiring a feeling of understanding how someone else felt. But then, I remembered the title of your text book.
Religious Perspective. It is possible to interpret, and twist facts to fit one's own intent. Now, I'm not claiming this to be the case. Not at all, it's a textbook after all, though that by no means clears it of all doubt. What I'm getting at is the reason why I take sources, especially those which can take an obvious bias, with a grain of salt.
In discussing the
intent of the Founding Fathers, you have come to the conclusion that, as you put it,
"...the First Amendment has nothing to do with protecting small things (compared to religion, politics, and the like) such as insulting a video game character or system...". Here is where I disagree. At this point, for those who do not know the wording of the First Amendment here it is:
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." In reading the First Amendment, we find that it is very vague, much like the rest of the Constitution and its amendments. Yet, this doesn't suit us very well for this debate. We need to look deeper, such is why your textbook has searched for the
intent of the Founding Fathers. I would like to supply for you a couple quotes of my own. They originate from this website:
Find Law, which is advertised as a resource for legal professionals. More specifically, I'm drawing my quotations from this section of Find Law:
Annotations to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution: Page Six; Freedom of Expression--Speech and Press.
"Madison's version of the speech and press clauses, introduced in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, provided: 'The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.'1 The special committee rewrote the language to some extent, adding other provisions from Madison's draft, to make it read: 'The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the Government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.'2 In this form it went to the Senate, which rewrote it to read: 'That Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'3 Subsequently, the religion clauses and these clauses were combined by the Senate.4 The final language was agreed upon in conference." Paragraph 1, line 1.
With this quotation, I simply wish to show you that the language of the First Amendment has changed from when it was first drafted to its final publication. I believe it is fair to say we can see Mr. James Madison's
intent with the original scripting of the First Amendment.
A quote from Mr. Madison from debate within the house.
" 'Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish as the law does at present any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects.' " Paragraph 2, line 11.
As we're able to draw from this quote, Mr. Madison realizes the problems vague language will create, but also outlines the point I wish to make. The point being a person has the right to express "what sentiments he pleases", however, not without facing the consequences of that action. The person who made the statement:
"Mario is a wh***" is not outside of his bounds in doing so. However, if he is banned from the forum due to his language, reprimanded in some other form, or outright insulted by other members, that is what he must deal with. Yet, it is his
right as given by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to express said comment. Just as you have the right to "rail against him," but you must remember that, while your response too, is protected under the First Amendment, you are also to be held accountable for what you return.
That covers what I wish to discuss about the First Amendment. However there's still the matter of a factual statement versus an opinionated statement. The statement in question is "The GCN is for toddlers". For this matter, I'd like to give you the definition of an opinion, as defined by
Dictionary.com.
"1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: “The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion†(Elizabeth Drew).
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert: a medical opinion.
3. A judgment or estimation of the merit of a person or thing: has a low opinion of braggarts.
4. The prevailing view: public opinion." It is here that we see that an opinion is simply a judgment of someone, or something based on the information that they have. I believe it to be completely understandable for someone, based on their information, to say that
"The GCN is for toddlers."Edited by - Black Mage on 6/25/2005 1:02:03 AM
