Is Freedom of Speech and example of a Civil Right?
338730
Freedom of speech is up there with freedom of religion in the First Amendment.  You think about why they wanted to put it first, and you have the importance.\n\nCivil rights generally refer to rights under the Constitution as Amended.  That is, generally about the amendments more than the body of the Constitution, except that of course it is the body that gives authority to the Amendments.\n\nSo yes, freedom of speech is one of the most precious rights we have, and we need to guard it with our lives, if necessary.  This is NOT the same thing as claiming the right to say any thing, any where, any time, at any volume.  It is a fundamental right that has to be measured against the other guy's equally fundamental right.  So we have endless case law detail on how, exactly, to implement the fundamental right of freedom of speech.  That's called Constitutional Law, and you get it in law school.\n\nI recommend going to law school to anyone who can.  Even if you never take the bar exam and practice law, the knowledge will serve you well in a variety of fields, most notably business, finance, non-profit foundations, and a host of others.
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.!
703640
Civil Liberties pertain to protecting legally guaranteed activites such as Speech or Press, etc.\n\nCivil Rights pertain to claims of equal protection and due process of law, and equal access to society's opportunities and public facilities.\n\nCivil Liberties protect your claim to be different.\nCivil Rights protect your claim to be treated equally.\n\nIn the American Constitution, Civil Rights are found in the first nine amendments to the Constitution. Civil Liberties is largely contained in Amendments 14 & 15.
954054
(Ah, sounds like a homework question)\nIt depends upon how literal you want to go with "not listed in the Constitution."\nThe biggest one is the right to privacy, which includes right to contraception (Griswold v. Conn.) the right to an abortion (Roe v. Wade) and the right to consensual private sexual conduct (Lawrence v. Texas). \nNext, I'd say rights that "spring" from dileaneated rights.  For example, the right to have "Miranda" warnings springs from the 5th Amendment Self-Incrimination Clause.  The right to flag burning and other "expressive conduct" springs from the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.  The right to be free from state sponsored segregation springs from the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.  The right to (basically) unlimited spending of money for political speech springs from the First Amendment Free Speech clause.  \nIn all of those in the above paragraph, there is nothing in the constitution about getting Miranda warnings, about schools not being segregated, or about getting to spend as much money as you want, but the Courts have interpreted concrete clauses in the constitution as providing those rights.\n\nPowers not in the Constitution that are returned to the States / People:\nPower to regulate real property and conveyances thereof (almost exclusively state controlled)\nPower to enact generally applicable criminal laws (almost all criminal law is state law)\nPower to decide how Presidential Electors are chosen.\nPower of localities to regulate business licenses and zoning laws (not in contradition with federal civil rights)\n\nJust a few.
94706
We have freedom of speech. We can say what we think but we also understand that others also have that right. If we reacted with violence every time we were offended, society would turn to chaos. With freedom comes the responsibility of respecting other peoples freedom.
989738
I think true free speech is limitless, but if you say something false that incriminates or otherwise harms others, the fact that you harmed someone would be a violation of law.
150211
The right to exist, freedom of speech, and desire for happiness
819691
I am a conservative Republican and I absolutely believe that we have a First Amendment Right to burn the U.S. Flag.  "I may not agree with a word that you are saying, I but I would defend, to the death, your right to say it."    No law abridging "freedom of speech".  First you have to ask what "speech" is.  If you think that speech only means "the spoken and written word", then fine, that's it.  The real question becomes, how far should the government be able to go to control your message coming across?  Hey, the internet and this Board aren't mentioned.  What is stopping the Government from shutting this site down.  Typing this stupid debate is not "speech" right?  P.S. chicks are allowed to dance nude BECAUSE of the liberal interpretation of "free speech", so don't rock the boat!
652993
freedom of speech\nfreedom of religion\nfreedom of press\nfreedom of assembly\nright to petition
24175
You have freedom of speech in the US, criminally you cannot be charge with a crime speaking your mind. The only thing you cannot say is Fire in a public place and that you are going to kill our presdent, those two thing are illegal to say.\n\nNow civilly, you can be brought to court for saying lies (slander) or damaging statements about people that affected them in some way. \n\nThere are very limited consquences for using your right to free speech.
468731
Free speech is a right. It has limits. You cannot threaten people. But if you believe they are wrong or sinning, they do not have a right to not be offended, as you are neither threatening them or harming them in any way.\n\nYou cannot punish peoples' thoughts and still be a free nation. \n\nYou have no right to deny others' speech merely because you don't like it. It is not harassment. You are equally free to ignore them or refute them. But if you curtail their rights by bringing government force against them, we've all lost.\n\nThat is a path that leads to oppression of all people.
606324
No.  That right is reserved for citizens and legal residents.\n\nThey do not have "civil rights."  They have "human rights."  This is an important distinction.  Also, to infer that the Constitution is bestowing rights on illegals is like assuming that illegals have the right to bear arms and vote.  "The people" in the Constitution very specifically means "the citizens" of the USA.\n\nWikipedia\nCivil Rights\nCivil rights are the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law. Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights"—civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim ought to belong to all people.
194367
Freedom of Speech is what I believe you are referring to.  Political Correctness was invented by universities that obviously have a lot of time on their hands.  Freedom of Speech is written into the Constitution of the United States and is and should be looked at with more forethought than what a bunch of busy bodies in and around a college campus thought was/is important.
863373
It is a sad state in this nation that to exercise your freedom of speech at a protest that you need to have a permit. That is total BS.\n\nThe first amendment of the constitution is my irrevocable permit.
392150
I don't think we've ever had true freedom of speech.  For example, you've never been able to walk into a crowded theater and yell fire.  If you do, you'll get arrested for causing a disturbance.\n\nTrue freedom of speech would be being able to say what you want, when you want regardless of what happens.  Under the bush administration I do feel like we've lost some of that freedom (If you say anything anti-Bush, you are declared a terrorist or a troop basher).  Sad days, good news is he can't be in office for that much longer!
159577
Yes.  Freedom of speech does not include incitement.  You will be arrested, if you yelled "FIRE!" in a theather and cause a stampede and a few people died.
334684
Yes. And if you doubt that answer, ask people the following questions:\n\n1. What 5 rights are guaranteed by the 1st amendment (Speech, religion, petition the government, assemble, and press).\n\n2. What does the 10th amendment say?\n\nI doubt most people could get one right, much less two.