Well, I was very board tonight and decided to do another post. Yes, I already posted a post today, but who says I can’t? I just realized how stupid I was being about only posting one post a day. It’s my blog damnit, if I want to freaking post pictures of dog shit on the side then what’s stopping me? The same goes for posting more than one post a day. Anyways..I find it so interesting. What do you find interesting Ms.Amber? The freedom of speech and how far you can go with it. Oh, do tell Amber. The freedom of speech in America as defined by Wikipedia:

Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, sexism, and other hate speech are generally permitted. There are exceptions to these general protection, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent danger, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors and inventors over their works and discoveries (copyright and patent), interests in “fair” political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance.Flag desecration has continually, albeit controversially, been protected by the First Amendment, despite state laws to the contrary. A Constitutional Amendment has been introduced to contravene the First Amendment’s protection on flag burning, but it has failed to acquire the requisite enactment by the states.Despite the exceptions, the legal protections of the First Amendment are some of the broadest of any industrialized nation, and remain a critical, and occasionally controversial, component of American jurisprudence.

Now, notice the bolded part. It claims sexism, racism, ect. are generally allowed. Where can ‘generally’ go? I strongly dislike when serious documents or things of important nature use the word “generally”. Simply because, what if everyone didn’t do it, or everyone did do it? That would go against “generally ___”. Then again, how can you tell what is what and the amounts? I know in many places, hate speech and racism is not allowed, and punishable by law because they tend to rename it something like “abuse” or “harassment” ect., ect. ect. Going on with that, what about the freedom of speech on online forums?As it states or strongly suggests, some places may allow racism as it is allowed as stated by wikipedia by the contitution. But, what about forums? The government controls the shiz about freedom of speech, but I’m 99% sure that the registered people who made and own the forum can say that you can not use the word “orange” in their forums, whereas in the United States I am 99% sure they can’t do that. I suppose that’s the difference, so it strongly bothers me when my foruming peers being up the freedom of speech crap on the forum.But, look at:

In a rare 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court extended the full protection of the First Amendment to the Internet in Reno v. ACLU, a decision which struck down portions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a law intended to outlaw so-called “indecent” online communication (that is, non-obscene material protected by the First Amendment). The court’s decision extended the same Constitutional protections given to books, magazines, films, and spoken expression to materials published on the Internet. Congress tried a second time to regulate the content of the Internet with the Child Online Protection Act (COPA). The Court again ruled that any limitations on the internet were unconstitutional in American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2002).In United States v. American Library Association (2003) the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to require public schools and libraries receiving e-rate discounts to install filters as a condition of receiving federal funding. The justices said that any First Amendment concerns were addressed by the provisions in the Children’s Internet Protection Act that permit adults to ask librarians to disable the filters or unblock individual sites.Vikram Buddhi, a Phd student and teaching assistant at Purdue University, has been in the custody of the United States authorities since 2006 for

allegedly writing anti-Bush content and publishing it online.

That doesn’t have much to do with overall what I’m saying, I just though it was interesting.Anyways..yeah.~XPaint the SkyX♥