Sunday, March 3, 2013

Rights and Consequences

Does a person's right to freedom of speech shield him/her from consequences based on their opinions? For example, should I be able to say offensive things without having to pay the consequences regardless of who it may or may not hurt? Should people be able to express their freedom of speech but realize in doing so that there are consequences, sometimes negative ones? For example, a famous movie director tweeted the name and address of a person he felt was guilty of a crime. The person's name and address tweeted was not the intended person; he was a middle school child, not a criminal. This person received death threats and their home was vandalized. Should the movie director be held responsible for instigating such violence, or is he shielded under the First Amendment?
Posted by at

10 comments:

  1. AnonymousMarch 5, 2013 at 8:50 AM

    I think that the poepol are ti reling on the first amendment that thay do things like do what the person did and has to dill whit it buddy medley

    ReplyDelete
  2. UnknownMarch 5, 2013 at 9:19 AM

    no it only for letting poeple know how thay feel not to bring poeple down and hert them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousMarch 5, 2013 at 10:18 AM

    I think that people should have rights to say their feeling but should use it under a reapectful way.Which wouldnt put others in danger.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousMarch 5, 2013 at 3:31 PM

    No. You shuld not be able to say offensive things and not have to pay the consequences.As for the movie director he is not shielded under thed first amendment. He is not shielded, because he put a childs name and address on the enternet. With the thought of hem beaing a criminal. The Chids life was put in danger, for something he did not do. Even if the child did do the crime, it did not give the movie director the right to put his personal information on the internet.

    ~Brittanie Riddly~

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMarch 7, 2013 at 3:53 PM

    I thank that the movie director should be held responsible instagting such a vioence. The could have got killed and it would be the movie director responsible.

    miracle hardy

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 9:54 AM

    my opinion is the movie directer should be held responsible for the vilonce , because he wrote the stript for the movie . The directer should suffer the consequences.
    Tiaushja Garrett

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 9:58 AM

    I beleive The Director should be held responible because, he used the First Adement in a BAD way. He should should Tweet and say " This is for so and so. Sorry for the other one." That should stop the Death Threats and his Home being Vandalized.
    -Raeven Wyckoff

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM

    He is shielded under the First Amendent,because he has the right or freedom to speak what he feels that should be spoken. Then he is held responsible , it could be both ways he should of told the police if he thought he was so guilty . Instead of taking it to the police he took it and put it in his hands. The police would of asked him anything supporting the evidence so it goes both ways.

    - Abriana Wills

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 11:32 AM

    I think that that actor should have consequences.But we still should have the freedom of speech if we mess up we just have to pay the price. Cory Dates

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousMarch 8, 2013 at 11:32 AM

    Yes I think the famous movie director should have consequences, beacuse his actions were wrong. No I do not think that a persons freedom of speech right prevents him/her from having consequences. For everything you say there will always be a action and a consequence. Tyler Mead

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)