thats what i am saying, are you arguing against me or what
Actually I wasn't arguing with OR against you, as I have not stated my point-of-view on the subject. I was simply offering some dissenting views to help fuel your mind a bit and to get you to start challenging what you think you know
Now here is my point-of-view (whether you are interested or not
): I am a strong proponent of freedom of speech (the right to express your thoughts, ideas, feelings etc.) as long as it does not impinge on an other's rights. I do feel strongly that freedom of speech should be protected and almost
all of the limitations of free speech should be through self-censorship. What I mean by that is, a journalist should make the decision whether to print libelous articles so a higher authority (i.e. government) does not have to. Where the less-than-scrupulous fail perform to self-censorship, I do think their should be legal restrictions and I guarantee you do too.
Sorry if you misunderstood me and took me too literally, but I am not talking about the act of "speaking" but the act of expressing ideas publicly through words or other more tangible means (images, art, music, pantomime, etc.). Again, though, don't think of freedom of speech as JUST being able to say what you believe; it is broader than that.
You seem to still be incorrectly defining freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is not just about expressing ideas but HOW you express them.
There is a difference between you and me having a conversation about something and us publicly expressing it where it can encroach on an other person's rights; that makes all the difference. I completely agree with you that IDEAS should not be silenced, however, HOW, WHEN, and WHERE the ideas can be expressed should be limited. No one should go to jail for having certain views (no matter how radical) but if someone has an offensive view, then I feel that they should not have the categorical right to express it in a way that will infringe my rights (take a public display of pornography or something equally offensive, for example.).
A free speech purist (which I am guessing you are not) would say that anyone has the right to "say" anything, anywhere, anytime. This will obviously conflict constantly with other peoples rights. For example, say person A is giving a speech in front of millions of audience members and TV viewers. Now person B who disagrees vehemently with person A runs up on stage, interrupts the speech and starts exercising their
right to free speech. Well, either you accost person B for the interruption (taking away their right to free speech) or you allow the interruption to continue (taking away person A's right to free speech). Either way someone's rights have been taken away, in a sense. Both person A and B should have the right to say their point-of-views to their own audiences, but neither should interfere with the other's right to do the same.
There are MANY instances in US federal laws where freedom of speech is limited and they are actually necessary in our society.
Section 8 of the US Constitution grants congress the power "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." This is the basis of the US intellectual property rights laws. Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights are all, in essence, a limitation of an other's free speech, aren't they? If you know anything about intellectual property, I think you would agree that these laws are absolutely necessary to "promote the progress of science and useful arts..." even though they circumscribe the free speech rights of others.
Pornography, copyrights, patents, trademarks, and the speech example are what I offer to you as legitimate reasons to limit free speech and I don't think you argue those in general. You wouldn't want someone interrupting you while you exercise your
right to free speech, nor would you want to be bombarded with pornography every where you go (some of you perverts may object to this, but I guarantee you that there is some
kind of pornography that you wouldn't want to see constantly while walking down the street
So, to wrap things up (finally):
You are right when you say that the right to express an idea, no matter how radical, should never be punished by a government or other authority. However, the expression of that right must be limited to some extent so it does not interfere with other people's rights as in the previous examples and that's what your teacher means by conditional. You just need to rethink your definition of free speech.
By the way: That school shooting/FPS correlation provided by your teacher, well...it's probably technically true. I dare you to find a kid in a public high-school that hasn't played an FPS at least once!