subsequent charges levied against the vocal Chinese protester at the recent public display of solidarity between the American and Chinese leaders?\n\nI thought free speech was an important part of your constitution and culture?
212918
Yes I am quite aware of what happened, but I am not aware of what happened after; you wrote, "treatment and subsequent charges levied against".  What exactly happened to her after her display?\n\nAnyway I very much detest the current Chinese regime, but I am not sure that the way this woman went about sharing her views were exactly appropriate.  It is difficult to say that since the Chinese (and Bush administration) are the inappropriate ones. But she snuck into a press conference, posed as a reporter (she may actually have been a reporter), and stood up and started ranting about the atrocities against the Fallong Gong.  \n\nI think she did a great thing, but she must also assume the responsibility for "trespassing" during a delicate diplomatic conference.  There is more going on then just "public display of solidarity between the American and Chinese leaders" as you put it.\n\nCurrently there are many tensions between are two countries.  China's tying the Yuan to the dollar.  Chinese using American high-tech firms for clamping down and jailing dissidence. Etc.\n\nThe Chinese are a difficult bunch to communicate with, you have to tip toe a bit.\n\nI don't like Bush at all but he is all we got right now for dealing with China, and I hope some progress is made.  We don't want more tensions between the US and china .  We already have enough as it is.\n\nDo you know that we have spy planes that fly up down and all around china?  What if China went into Taiwan, would America stand up for Taiwan?\n\nIt goes on and on.\n\nBut I am curious as to what happened to the woman.\n\nHave you heard about the guy at the Bush rally during the last presidential election, that had a "no blood for oil" sign?  He was arrested and jailed for months, just for a sign!  He may still be in prison for all I know.\n\nGod I hate Bush.
113598
Is it our right to question/challenge? or is it our duty? What do you really think our leaders do with all of the insults that are thrown their way? Do they go home and seriously contemplate about whether the people have a point? Or do they stand up and dust themselves off and blow off the criticism completely? Are we really heard? Or do we just gain satisfaction knowing we've had our "say?" \n\nOk thank god I didn't get deducted 5 points for each of those questions I just asked!!\n\nI guess my point is......yes, it is just par for the course. And people will say what they want to say and I suppose the ammendment to the constitution gave us that right. And if this is stated in our constitution, how could that possibly be unpatriotic or Un-American?? \n\nDoes it do us much good in the long run? *shrugs* Probably not.....but it is a right given to us by our forefathers. So have at it!! :) \n\nEnjoyed your question! I have a similar question posted on my profile.....would love your opinion. :)
145932
i'll answer your question without going off on a tangent like some of the other morons who've already answered.  First, i wanna address that idiot "DarkStarInMyAsss":  You're right that your U.S. people have the rights to change/abolish your own government, and not the Yellows, but did you consider what YOUR U.S. People have been doing around the world? WHO made you guys THE BOSS of all other countries.  So basically, DarkStarInMyASSS, you're a frickin' HYPOCRITE who's literally confused in life.  Here's a dime, now go and contribute to help pay off your U.S.'s $6 Trillion debt to foreign countries (the majority of which idiots like you owe to China).\n\nNow, to answer the REAL question:  Would i mind if China invaded and occupy the U.S. ?  NO !!!  Maybe it's time for this country to have a taste of its own medicine, and see what it's like to be invaded by a foreign power.  But you know what?  If the invading country happens to be China, they're not going to do it through animalistic and barbarric brute force and strength like the so called "nice and benevolent" U.S. did to the Middle East (what a crock of BULL !!!), because China is a better country and people than the cocky U.S. people.  Instead, China will economically and peacefully buy up all the major businesses and corporations here, and will control everything financially, and I think that's the better way to do things rather than bombing people.  And the U.S. should get ready for a wake-up call too because it WILL happen pretty soon.  You can see it already:  Chinese, as a language, will be the global language in the upcomming century, and English will take second place.  There are just too many Chinese running the world right now.  Oh well, too bad.  Learn to live with it.
341278
I agree its unthinkable.  \n\nI think most Americans will be abhorred at the thought.\n\nIf it happens, it will be motivated by ignorance of what free speech means.  And that will be the front.\n\nThe real battle would look kind of like the first:  State's Rights.
490817
Yeeehah for the American way! It's only free speech if they say it is. OK? Other than that, you must be content with the illusion of free speech and make sure they don't realise who you are through your ISP. Have you ever watched Spooks?
212956
i know very little people that would agree with a white supremacy group.  but no one can disagree that if you were to hinder their freedom of speech, no matter how disturbing it may be, it would take a step backwards in what this country was founded to do: ultimate freedom to beleive, demonstrate, and speak what they what they will.  if that's taken away, what do we have left?
415238
Unfortunately that is a tough one since for the most part we have freedom of speech. Call a lawyer and ask where the line between freedom of speech ends and slander begins.
233913
yes, GOD BLESS AMERICA! for we are that great & important that we can cause civil unrest in nations we're not even at war with!\nwe do this because we can, we are THE BEST NATION ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH! there for, we can make trouble for everyone else, because we can, because our great constitution gives us the right to express ourselves as we please!
672241
"through the use of fear, societies gave up their rights under the guise of security."  i think this statement sums up best all the uproar over what the bush administration is or isn't doing to 'protect' us as americans. there is a fine line being walked (and not very delicately if you care to notice the details) between "security" and "loss of freedom". and the culture of fear and separation noted in the article is all too apparent today... after all you're either a "patriot" or you "support the enemy". \n\n"those in power are of a smaller segment of society, but they hold the wealth and control" is an accurate description of where america is today. a minute percentage of people possess the lion's share of the wealth: the inequality has always been present but never to this degree. if this is indeed a part of the definition of fascism, you could argue that we are getting closer...\n\n"fascist nations... typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections." let diebold reign! here's to florida, and to ohio, proud supporters of the winning side!\n\n"governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion...." and how often to religious leaders echo the sentiments exactly of the us government? do you watch the 700 club?\n\nwhere did the platform for intelligent discussion of the issues facing the US go? why are people (being manipulated?) becoming so polarized? where has 'the beauty of the gray' disappeared to? isn't it funny how so many things in life are suddenly black and white, like apples and oranges?\n\nif you deceive often enough and use the proper (official?) channels, one of two things will happen. they will come to believe it as gospel ("this is a delicious orange! when did they start growing stems?") or they will use the knowledge they already have to resist ("THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!" -jean-luc picard) the lies. \n\nare you really willing to doubt that this is in fact an apple? and will we be reluctant to let go of a moniker we've worn proudly for over two centuries? stay tuned...
461498
yes, those who take the freedom of speech to its nebulous limits certainly do so to the point of abuse, regardless of the vitriol that harms otherwise defenseless individuals or classes.\n\nthis is not an experience unique to the US; every free and democratic country that takes pride in its constitutional freedoms, speech foremost among them, guards the same, albeit with varying degrees of zealousness. often, its actual exercise and limitations are determined by national priorities, political exigencies, or its well defined criminal statutes and established jurisprudence.\n\nmost democratic societies that enshrine free speech in their constitution adopt safeguards of varying degrees of effectiveness at combatting just such abuse. more often than not, the outermost limits are determined by whether the exercise of free speech crosses the line that determines the commission of an offense / crime defined by the country's criminal statutes, e.g., what one country defines as amounting to libel, oral defamation, grave slander, subversion or inciting to sedition may be radically different from another's. it's the country's criminal statutes and established jurisprudence that determine whether that line has been crossed for the authorities to in the interest of the majority, or for the offended to sue for redress and/or compensation for damages.\n\nother jurisdictions (countries) may recognize and enshrine the freedom in its fundamental law but justify the severe limitation on its exercise with such catch-all phrases as "national security", political realities and/or economic exigencies. in point of fact and by way of example, the philippine dictator marcos silenced the political opposition by criminalizing "rumour-mongering".\n\nin jurisdictions with particularly fragile economies, the mere dissemination of unverified information that may affect, or have, in fact, adversely affected the national economy, has been considered a crime of grave national proportions, amounting to "economic sabotage".\n\nwhile it is  a great reality that we have a freedom of speech that we have every right to defend zealously, it is, likewise, a tragic reality that we can only rely on ourselves, in the very exercise of the same freedom, to voice our faith and demand its reasonable curtailment once that freedom is abused to the unfair disadvantage of any one else. after all, if we don't safeguard the freedom and fight its abuse against others, who will defend it for us when we are at the receiving end of its abuse?\n\nit really all depends on how a country's constitutional institutions value this freedom, weighing the consequences of its free exercise as against the "threat" of its dilution or endangerment by the very threat or act of prosecuting every perceived abuse or violation, regardless of its lightness or gravity.\n\nmuch also depends on how zealously the citizens safeguard evey nuance in the exercise of that freedom. probably, the US citizenry and its institutions have so zealously guarded this very right precisely because it lies at the bedrock of its constitutional foundation; a 200+ year history founded on individuality and freedom is not something to take lightly. it is a source of rightful national pride...until its abuse in a single instance so focuses national consciousness and awareness of its potential for equal national shame...because its unfettered abuse has, in fact, resulted in patently wrongful damage to honor, life and limb, national security or the comon weal.\n\nwe can only pray that we safeguard the freedom enough so that it may not be abused at our expense. a painful paradox, but a sacrifice worth taking.
164944
First off, what I think, or what is law?\n\nI'm not in favor of it, however it's protected free speech. And I feel that it should remain so.\n\nI wouldn't necessarily call burning our flag an act of patriotism, rather a from of political protest. Depnding on the reasons behind the protest, I could see why one might choose to burn a flag. I do believe that patriotism is more than respecting the "symbols" of our nation, but it also involves protectiong our nation from enemies, both foreign AND domestic. We're not only allowed to voice dissent, but it's our duty...\n\nBurning a flag is simply intended to gain attention to your protest. As painful as that may be for those of us that fought under that symbol, we have to remember, these rights are WHY we foght...
104006
I've been to a few protests before and I agree many of the people have no clue. \n\nWhen I lived in Florida, I actually attended a protest(as a protester ) at a theme park called "Splendid China" which was owned by the Communist Chinese Government-although through several subsidiaries to hide that fact.\n\nSo there were always protests there- you had conservatives there protesting a Communist government owning a business in America. You had human rights advocates because there were rumours that Chinese workers who would ask guests for a way to emigrate out of China would be sent home to China and jailed. You had the Pro-Tibet crowd-because Tibet shouldn't be part of China, etc. So you would have people protesting for all kinds of different reasons. Or none. I asked a few people why they were there (adults now, not kids) and they would say things like "China is bad" or "Because it's the right thing to do."\n\nI'll be honest- I was there because a girl who I had the hots for invited me. Some of the causes I felt strongly about- but proving to the girl that her causes were my causes was my main  reason.\n\nSo I think you get people at protests who either have no clue, have some sort of social motive(like me), or just like to protest.
493462
Were you in a coma when our head monkey created "free speech zones" to eliminate the first amendment rights of people any where else.\n\nAccording to the constitution the entire US is a free speech zone.\n\nStart the Impeachment proceedings.
614048
This guy's actually got a point. I'm not so sure on the specifics of any yahoo involvement, but I do know for certain that the Chinese government is very oppressive to anyone who questions its motives or policies. Instances may have tailed off over recent years, but beatings and torture are still a regular part of protocol there. America simply chooses to ignore it because we're more concerned with preserving our good economic relations with China, even though a lot of the cheap labor we outsource there is indeed done by slaves. We really should wake up and start seeing the truth.
137469
Well, now days anything can happen if you say the wrong thing and offend somebody. But I agree. Where did the rights of freedom of speech go? And I always wondered why we have to allow blacks into our colleges, but they can dissallow whites into theirs. Isn't that racist? So it's okay for them to be but we can't? Other nationalities have different cultures, therefore we get into different negative situations. If we have to allow for their differences,they shouldn't take advantage of it. They should in the first place realize they came from their country to the United States. They need to follow our country rules, they are not here to start their own country in the middle of ours.
455
Remember that the 1st amendment only gives you protection from the Congress of the US enacting laws that interfere with your speech. Private entities (like Y! for instance) can do whatever the hell they please.\n\nI know it's infuriating. I grew up in a country where there was brutal suppression of speech of many kinds, and believe me, nothing makes you appreciate freedom like having seen what life is like without it. Nevertheless, those who own the bat and the ball  get to make the rules. If you don't like it, you're welcome to create an alternate forum where expression rights can be more to your liking.\n\nRemember, Y! is not in this business in order to promote freedom. They are in it to make $$$. And when the DOJ threatens, the risk-averse executives listen to their risk-averse lawyers and do what it takes to make their risk-averse investors happy.
114362
Yes, Just because the Islamics throw a fit like a child in Walmart we should censor free speech?  NO!  I support boycotts(not that I participate in them myself) as an effective way of handling this issue but not riots, arson, and death threats.\n\nBut as a side note I do believe it may have been poor judgement but it does not warrant the hostility from the Arab nations.  As some of them are using it as a tool of hate to gain support of hating Western culture.\n\nAs for the law in Austria.  No one should tell anyone what to believe or not believe. But denying the Hallocaust may be grounds for insanity and maybe they should skip the jail cell and enter the crazy house.