MSMC
07-14-2001, 04:54 AM
Democracy is not a chaos. And freedom of speech is not absolute.They are bound by law. Legal Institutions for free expression are:
1) Constitution
2) Judiciary branch which is independent and has Judicial review capability
The Courts of the United States in their decisions regarding freedom of speech issues rely upon certain theories and philosophical doctrines. They are as follows:
Marketplace of ideas theory--- advanced by John Milton in "Areopagitica". The marketplace of ideas theorist believes in a principled, reasoned tournament of ideas in which truth will win in the clash with falsehood. He or she argues for prepublication, ethical restraints in areas such as blasphemy, profanity and personal attack, and supports - if ethical restraints fail - post-publication legal punishment for defamation, privacy invasion, obscenity, indecency, personal attack, and copyright infringement.The Marketplace of Ideas metaphor was introduced into Supreme Court doctrine by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his 1919 dissent in Abrams v. U.S. 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
Political self-government --- advanced by Alexader Meiklejohn. According to this interpretation of the First Amendment, Government officials and institutions obtain their authority from the consent of the governed, i.e. people. Therefore, the government must not suppress or censor any ideas that the citizens need to hear in order to carry out their task of self*-government. But freedom of speech is not absolute -- not everything should be said, but everything WORTH to be said should be said.According to this theory, freedom of speech can't be abridged, but speech itself can be. In other words, society can punish specific speech for the sake of the general welfare. See New York Times v. Sullivan,376 U.S. 254 (1964).
Individual self-fulfillment -- John Locke and Thomas Emerson's theory.Individual realization of character and potential as a human being means the right to form your own beliefs/opinions and the right to express those belief/opinions.Expression is a Natural Right. The purpose of society is to promote welfare of individual. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S.15 (1971).
Checking Value: Media acts as a counterweight to the government.Vincent Blasi (1977) believed that abuse of official power is a particularly serious evil to be avoided because government can use legitimized violence for its own end. Because abuse of official power is so harmful and likely to occur, its prevention and containment are of paramount importance. Because of the size and complexity of modern government, there is a need for well-financed, well-organized, professional critics (WATCHDOG) of government -- the media. However, he would grant less journalistic autonomy if it served the checking value. For example, in a one-newspaper town, the editors of that newspaper could be forced to provide access to someone challenging the political structure in the town. The Supreme Court has held that such access is not required of print journalists. See Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966).
Available at: http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/theorists.html
P.S. Just wanted to bring some clarity into all that heavy discussion of Ruslan's activity. I personally think he wouldn't be found laible in the USA for what he has posted here under current interpretation of the First Amendment, but most likely he would be convicted under libel claim. Allah bless us all and give each of us a strenth to be what we could be and forgive us for what we are. :):):) Best regards.
1) Constitution
2) Judiciary branch which is independent and has Judicial review capability
The Courts of the United States in their decisions regarding freedom of speech issues rely upon certain theories and philosophical doctrines. They are as follows:
Marketplace of ideas theory--- advanced by John Milton in "Areopagitica". The marketplace of ideas theorist believes in a principled, reasoned tournament of ideas in which truth will win in the clash with falsehood. He or she argues for prepublication, ethical restraints in areas such as blasphemy, profanity and personal attack, and supports - if ethical restraints fail - post-publication legal punishment for defamation, privacy invasion, obscenity, indecency, personal attack, and copyright infringement.The Marketplace of Ideas metaphor was introduced into Supreme Court doctrine by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in his 1919 dissent in Abrams v. U.S. 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
Political self-government --- advanced by Alexader Meiklejohn. According to this interpretation of the First Amendment, Government officials and institutions obtain their authority from the consent of the governed, i.e. people. Therefore, the government must not suppress or censor any ideas that the citizens need to hear in order to carry out their task of self*-government. But freedom of speech is not absolute -- not everything should be said, but everything WORTH to be said should be said.According to this theory, freedom of speech can't be abridged, but speech itself can be. In other words, society can punish specific speech for the sake of the general welfare. See New York Times v. Sullivan,376 U.S. 254 (1964).
Individual self-fulfillment -- John Locke and Thomas Emerson's theory.Individual realization of character and potential as a human being means the right to form your own beliefs/opinions and the right to express those belief/opinions.Expression is a Natural Right. The purpose of society is to promote welfare of individual. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S.15 (1971).
Checking Value: Media acts as a counterweight to the government.Vincent Blasi (1977) believed that abuse of official power is a particularly serious evil to be avoided because government can use legitimized violence for its own end. Because abuse of official power is so harmful and likely to occur, its prevention and containment are of paramount importance. Because of the size and complexity of modern government, there is a need for well-financed, well-organized, professional critics (WATCHDOG) of government -- the media. However, he would grant less journalistic autonomy if it served the checking value. For example, in a one-newspaper town, the editors of that newspaper could be forced to provide access to someone challenging the political structure in the town. The Supreme Court has held that such access is not required of print journalists. See Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966).
Available at: http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/theorists.html
P.S. Just wanted to bring some clarity into all that heavy discussion of Ruslan's activity. I personally think he wouldn't be found laible in the USA for what he has posted here under current interpretation of the First Amendment, but most likely he would be convicted under libel claim. Allah bless us all and give each of us a strenth to be what we could be and forgive us for what we are. :):):) Best regards.