Is the religious right trying to suppress free speech?(see details)?
352242
I think the point is to keep things in some sort of balance. \n\nFree speech is important.  So is protecting our youth from indecency.  And some of the rest of us don't want to see that trash, either.\n\nThere is a lack of responsibility in the media that is growing at an alarming rate, and yes, it needs to be stunted a bit.\n\nEverybody wants to throw the words art and creative expression around.  Come on, can't we do better than this?
106889
For the record:  "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."\n\nIt is easy for me to relate this to standing up for things I don't agree with, because that free press prints things every day that I do not agree with, but I would defend with my life their right to say it.  That's not just rhetoric:  I am perfectly serious.\n\nFreedom of speech, and of religion, are never more important than when we disagree.  I strongly take exception to people telling each other they should kill the infidel, especially since they would label me one.  But they have the right under both the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression to shout it to the heavans.  They do not, however, have the right to kill just because they have the right to speak about killing.\n\nIn fact, all of these rights are somewhat abridged, in order to afford others their rights.  For example, freedom of religion does not, with some rare and mostly harmless exceptions, permit one to do something (such as ritual sacrifice) that would be illegal if it was not done in the name of religion.  So a Muslim can talk about killing the infidel, but that does not confer a right to do it.\n\nSimilarly, there are practical limits on freedom of the press, or of speech more generally.  One classic example is enciting to riot.  If a speaker shouts for a crime to be commited and that crime is commited, the speaker is as guilty as the person whose hands were actually involved.  So be careful about standing before a crowd of rowdies and shouting for rape, loot pillage and burning.!
963929
This is a very good point, and i have actually researched it before.  In the Freedom of Religion amendment, there are two clauses: the establishment clause, and the free excercise clause.  The establishment clause is the separation of church and state, or in other words, the government cannot establish or promote any one relgion.  In the free excercise clause, the government cannot ban any one religion.  Oddly enough, atheism is only considered a religion in the free excercise clause, and not in the establishment clause.  This is a sort of loophole that allows the religion to establish atheism in schools, without going against our rights to freedom of religion.  Pretty messed up, huh?
285924
Not of speech.  I believe that the way to calm many problems is allowing people to talk them out.  I don't see how saying something that you believe is bad.  Even if it is repugnant to others or hurtful to some.  Everyone on this earth is entitled to feel however they want.  EVEN if they hate me...my religion...my family...my country...my God.  That doesn't mean I will agree with them or even dignify what they say with a response but I will not censor them as I would not want to be censored.
1115182
Cheers to you. I think after this many years it's time to ammend all the ammendments.\n\n   Certainly,,, with that said,  and agreeing with you,,, there are inappropriate times to openly, publically, voice ones opinions. IE: Politics and Religion being two subjects that one should temper statements about.\n\nRev. Steven
112353
It's the "seperation of Church and State" thing. However, I do not agree with them. That has been with us since the beginning and I don't think it hurts anyone to say it. People have a choice whether to recite the words and if they don't like it, they don't have to save. Some of these folks don't want God anywhere in their lives and that's their choice but I think they go too far sometimes. It's bad enough that so many have lost God in this country but it is their constitutional right to object. God bless. =)
300036
Wow - \n\nYou must be mistaken.  I am totally shocked that a liberal, open minded, free thinking member would have anything to do with squelching your individual rights of free speech that were manifested in a forum specifically established to inquire about such matters.  \n\nParticularly because it was such a seemingly relevant question considering the happenings in the world today.\n\nI suppose I shall have to reconsider my opinion.  I wonder if I'm allowed to do that?
812673
Yep, apparently the term 'freedom of speech' seems to be a bit confusing to some. Freedom of speech is all-encompassing, so really the idiots at the top are just being hypocritical. It's very child-like and immature, don't you think?
597212
I got the joke... it's not all bad.\n\nBut I don't know if it is such a good idea to joke about this. It may seem strange to us today that there should be ANY limit on free speech. But this is THE BOTTOM to push if one wish to engage a Muslim in a death dual.\n\nThe law of their religion is full of sins punishable by death. Not unlike our religion BTW. The difference is that, they still feel obligated to carry out that punishment.
880212
Because they jump on any bandwagon and are the greatest offender of what they claim to be fighting against.   They need to be dismantled.  \n\nThere is a rational limit to "free speech".  This insane church group has gotten their "message" out.  What they are doing now is harrassment and is a disgrace.  You don't have the "right" to say anything you want whenever you want and just going to these funerals and doing this is just plain wrong.
448860
Unfortunately yes, a bill is being reviewed in Congress over the possible ban of religious texts upon public transportation.  Luckily its not a very popular bill.  Seems like a violation of the separation of church and state clause in the constitution.
414831
I don't understand how this country (US) could be founded on religion when the 1st amendment guarantees the separation of church and state. Politicians who seek votes by professing their religion don't look like idiots to me. To me they come across as being anti-American.
886942
I don't think there's specific cases as to why the denial is legal.  As you said, freedom of speech is why.  That's the same reason there's racist people, homophobes, and crazy religious fanatics.
1043197
There is no such thing as free speech. Freedom is an illusion.
1140358
IMHO, governments should keep away from all matters religious in the same way that religious figures and organizations should keep their hands off politics.\nThis kind of interference with the public's right to learn someone's point of view is an ugly violation of freedom of speech.
209886
They're not - they just want to keep it out of politics.  AS IT SHOULD BE.  It's called separation of church and state, something a lot of conservatives need to look into these days.  Religion is an exclusionary business, and if you include it politics, you alienate a large number of people.
873498
Anything inciting a riot, disruption of peace, and anything involving a conspiracy to incite, or act, with depraved indifference from this speechs consequence, including the possibility TOWARDS a crime being commited from this right (free speech, as it was intended for), in my opinion, is not free speech.