Free Speech

[jbergsing]

In recent weeks, we've seen several radio "shock jocks" finding themselves in hot water over different bits on their respective radio shows, with two of the shows having already been fired. My question is this: Do we, as Christians, stand against the offensive material that these guys are spewing forth or do we stand for the free speech that the US Constitution provides?

The way I see it is if I support the terminations of these types of radio shows, who's next? The logical end of this path is the ban of all "offensive" broadcasts. Now I ask what types of shows would that include? In today's anti-Christian climate, you can safely bet that preaching about Jesus Christ would make the list.

Any thoughts?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

John,

I tend to agree with you. The FCC, and perhaps internal station monitors have broadcasting standards pertaining to vulgarity, libel, hate speech (I know, that's another topic!), etc. Apart from such violating industry standards, I support free speech, as it is clearly a two-edged blade.

When I worked on a landscaping crew (midstate NY), and the guys would cuss up a storm, I would invoke the "equal time" rule (per media air-time in the '80s), stating that for every curse I heard I had the right to bless. I told them I heard the Lord's name mentioned so many times that if I didn't know better I could think they were having a prayer meeting . And I would bear witness to Christ and the gospel with impunity. The only rule the foreman laid on me was, "Rafalsky, can you shovel and talk at the same time?"

As you indicate, freedom of speech is a precious right, and we do well to protect it. If the profane have the right to speak, so do we.

"Hate speech", per the homosexual activitists and those they garner to their side, is the most serious assault the free speech doctrine has ever seen, and it may well be this that tips Christians over into outlaw status. If we do not decry all sin, and the salvation offered in Christ, we withhold the love of God from those whom we allow to remain in their sin unwarned.

Many precious brothers and sisters have made the exodus from that lifestyle into the arms of God and eternal glory, thanks to the faithful witness of His people.

Steve

 

[Puritanhead]

My question is this: Do we, as Christians, stand against the offensive material that these guys are spewing forth or do we stand for the free speech that the US Constitution provides?

Free speech was never an absolute anyway. Free speech as historically understood within the Anglo-American constitutional tradition protects cultural and political speech and opinion, not obscenity nor inciting violence or a riot. Commensurate with original intent, obscenity laws were common at state level, but there was never any prior restraint on freedom of speech or press.

The way you frame this question is a false dichotomy—which is logically fallacious—because you set it on equipose where Christians either support prohibitions against obscenity or they are for the U.S. Constitution. If a Christian were for the U.S. Constitution commensurate with original intent, or for strict constructionist judges, then there should be no incompatibility between supporting obscenity regulation and the U.S. Constitution. Granted, the feds have no power to regulate obscenity, hence "Congress shall make no law..." as it's within scope and authority of state powers (as per the Tenth Amendment.) I am against the FCC as it has no constitutional authority.

References:
No Liberty for License: The Forgotten Logic of the First Amendment by David Lowenthal

 

[jbergsing]

Free speech was never an absolute anyway. Free speech as historically understood within the Anglo-American constitutional tradition protects cultural and political speech and opinion, not obscenity nor inciting violence or a riot. Commensurate with original intent, obscenity laws were common at state level, but there was never any prior restraint on freedom of speech or press.

The way you frame this question is a false dichotomy—which is logically fallacious—because you set it on equipose where Christians either support prohibitions against obscenity or they are for the U.S. Constitution. If a Christian were for the U.S. Constitution commensurate with original intent, or for strict constructionist judges than there should be no incompatibility between supporting obscenity regulation and the U.S. Constitution. Granted, the feds have no power to regulate obscenity, hence "Congress shall make no law..." as it's within scope and authority of state powers (as per the Tenth Amendment.) I am against the FCC as it has no constitutional authority.

References:
No Liberty for License: The Forgotten Logic of the First Amendment by David Lowenthal

Yes, I understand what a false dichotomy is (I didn't need a definition, but thank you anyway) and I agree with you. However, most people don't understand that and our spineless politicians will fold to the pressures of their constituents even if those constituents are misinformed. And I don't think I have to go down the list of laws that should be deemed unconstitutional to demonstrate that, if the will of the legislative and executive branches of government are strong enough they will pass whatever laws they want.

 

[Puritanhead]

With respect to the high-handed sentiments of favoring national obscenity regulation by the FCC. I think playing the all-or-nothing game at the 'national' level on public policy issues only leads to mediocrity, and dimunition of moral standards with time. The earlier community standards doctrines allowed the conservative backwater in the Midwest, the South, and Rocky Mountain States to maintain their moral norms. Nationalization of public policy concerning public morals has only lead to a loosening of standards, as has been the case for the past thirty years. We should give up on trying to set policy for San Francisco and Boston, and worry about our own communities and support a renaissance of federalism. If you say a renaissance of federalism is untenable, then I would just say trying to win on a pillar of moral values in national public policy arena is no less untenable.

 

[SRoper]

I thought "community standards" is still one of the criteria used (I'm thinking of the Miller test). The problem is it's easy for the defense to show that community standards are actually quite low.

 

[Bandguy]

In recent weeks, we've seen several radio "shock jocks" finding themselves in hot water over different bits on their respective radio shows, with two of the shows having already been fired. My question is this: Do we, as Christians, stand against the offensive material that these guys are spewing forth or do we stand for the free speech that the US Constitution provides?

The way I see it is if I support the terminations of these types of radio shows, who's next? The logical end of this path is the ban of all "offensive" broadcasts. Now I ask what types of shows would that include? In today's anti-Christian climate, you can safely bet that preaching about Jesus Christ would make the list.

Any thoughts?

Yes we should stand against this kind of filth, and no, the Constitution does not protect a person from being fired by a private company for spewing the filth. It does protect US Citizens from being persecuted by the government for excercising free speech.

 

[Dieter Schneider]

Here is something from the UK

 

[Dieter Schneider]

Here is something from the UK - http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2007/gay_rights/gpa/complaints_10may07.htm