Santa Zeno wrote:
DarkSideOfTheSchwartz wrote:
like I said, it wouldn't surprise me if they got rid of the first ammendment.
They don't need to. They have
Schenk v. US.
But that only applies to specific criteria--namely, if the speech creates a "clear and present danger" to the state or its people at large. Moreover, that particular case had to do with something happening during war time that affected recruitment, not just generic speech.
However, it DOES create a dilemma: What happens when an individual is born and raised in a country that, despite what the general rules of sociolization state, goes against what said individual believes morally and ethically? What if that individual does not have the means to migrate to another country and is instead forced by the laws of his/her own nation to act in a manner that defies his or her own code of ethics? Should that person be allowed to speak out and try to change things, or at least to try to see if there are others in that same nation that agree with him/her, even if such ideas are deemed "threatening" by the state?
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
