Wednesday, June 22, 2005
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.
Having written that let's discuss this - are some words just to harsh to be said publicly? I would suggest that in certain situations, some things are best left unsaid. Is it not true we correct our children for making statements in public that are unacceptable to our standards? Do we not choose what we will let our children listen to on the radio or watch on television? Why do we censor THEIR media? Because some things are better left unsaid and/or UNHEARD. As a child I was taught that when company was calling, children were to be seen and not heard. I still believe in this to a certain degree. So, if we are censoring what our children see, hear and repeat then would it not be that same logic that dictates what should be acceptable public speech? I had a chance to read a letter sent by my grandfather to a co-worker. The letter, hand written of the late 1800's with plume and parchment by today's standards was ridiculous. This letter was a request for work supplies. Of 10 sentences only 1 had the actual request for supplies. The other 9 sentences of this letter were gobbledeegook telling the guy how much he was appreciated and how respectful my grandpa was for the help. According to my mother this is the way things were done back then. If this is the case then I would think that in the 1800's and probably before that, people had a general concern to be as unoffensive in their speech as possible. With this in mind it only makes sense to once again reinforce the fact that the First Amendment is designed to protect our freedom of speech - but we need to watch what we say and where it is said. If I was to take you for a ride in Peabody's Wayback Machine and we could question those responsible for the First Amendment how many of you out there would think these people had exactly in mind what is going on today? Do you think they'd want to hear the language on television they would hear? That one race can call each other a vile name without reprecussions but if another race uses the same slang term there's a good chance a fight will ensue? That this word should be used at all? I truly believe in my mind that our forfathers had no intention whatsoever to protect the rights to burn the flag, riot, swear in public, and basically act like a fool whenever and whereever one wants.
Come on folks - let's clean up our act and stop looking for reasons to blame others for the state of the state.
Having written that let's discuss this - are some words just to harsh to be said publicly? I would suggest that in certain situations, some things are best left unsaid. Is it not true we correct our children for making statements in public that are unacceptable to our standards? Do we not choose what we will let our children listen to on the radio or watch on television? Why do we censor THEIR media? Because some things are better left unsaid and/or UNHEARD. As a child I was taught that when company was calling, children were to be seen and not heard. I still believe in this to a certain degree. So, if we are censoring what our children see, hear and repeat then would it not be that same logic that dictates what should be acceptable public speech? I had a chance to read a letter sent by my grandfather to a co-worker. The letter, hand written of the late 1800's with plume and parchment by today's standards was ridiculous. This letter was a request for work supplies. Of 10 sentences only 1 had the actual request for supplies. The other 9 sentences of this letter were gobbledeegook telling the guy how much he was appreciated and how respectful my grandpa was for the help. According to my mother this is the way things were done back then. If this is the case then I would think that in the 1800's and probably before that, people had a general concern to be as unoffensive in their speech as possible. With this in mind it only makes sense to once again reinforce the fact that the First Amendment is designed to protect our freedom of speech - but we need to watch what we say and where it is said. If I was to take you for a ride in Peabody's Wayback Machine and we could question those responsible for the First Amendment how many of you out there would think these people had exactly in mind what is going on today? Do you think they'd want to hear the language on television they would hear? That one race can call each other a vile name without reprecussions but if another race uses the same slang term there's a good chance a fight will ensue? That this word should be used at all? I truly believe in my mind that our forfathers had no intention whatsoever to protect the rights to burn the flag, riot, swear in public, and basically act like a fool whenever and whereever one wants.
Come on folks - let's clean up our act and stop looking for reasons to blame others for the state of the state.
