Freedom of Speech in America. (good or bad)

Hallo mein lieber. May we all learn from this exchange of ideas. I, Darth Vitiosus will take up the burden of denouncing "Freedom of Speech in America." I fully intend to minimize this idea to the point where it will be small enough to strangle in a bath tub that is used by the undesirable pungent invalids amongst us. Theoretically, we all may accept it is an auspicious day for us all say as we wish to speak out against whom we wish. It is great to speak out against whom we dislike, whom we disagree with, and best of all we can speak out what we are for without the fear of retribution. We need not worry about such retribution when the state will allow dissension amongst the disgruntled. In practice, we understand what "Freedom of Speech" is if we pay attention. I will list several examples, ranging from the media gone wild to the "people" going as the result of "Freedom of Speech." After my examples, we should come to the conclusion that "Freedom of Speech" exists to encourage disorder, disunity, and arise the infinite scorn that burns in our hearts for our enemies. Why embrace the worse emotions we can conjure up when we could all be satisfied? 1. The Media & Freedom of Speech One of the primary problems with "Freedom of Speech" is the media. The media tends to mislead the public into various disputes some of which are private and others which are public. In many cases, the media has passed a verdict on the case which affects public policies and court decisions the worse. For example, it was too long ago that the George Zimmerman trial happened about his dispute with Trayvon Martin[1]. Many news outlets would have us believe that George Zimmerman was a "white" racist. Yet, there was never proof that race was involved whatsoever. Then let us not forget the fact that Zimmerman was not even "white." Many members of the public had their mind set that Zimmerman was guilty yet there were few details that were ever released about the case. Another example of the media misleading the public would be the Casey Anthony trial[2]. Casey Anthony was assumed to be a baby-killer by many members of the news outlets with little to no details given about the case. Many members of the public and the media were demanding for her head based on little evidence. Did they know more than the jury? Did they have more facts? No, they didn't have more facts. Their mind was made up when it first appeared on the news. One of the most destructive grand standing that the media offered was during the Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War in 1967[3]. The Viet Cong had launched a massive offensive and lost this campaign. Yet if we are to assess the American news media at the time, we would of believed the South Vietnamese and the United States was losing during the Tet Offensive. The media's actions during this campaign arguably aided the North Vietnamese because they intentionally portrayed the North Vietnamese as winning the war. Why? More people watch the news as more disaster takes place. Conflict and tragedy brings higher ratings than peace and stability. Politicians are liable to the voters and their supporters. Corporations are liable to their stockholders and consumers. Who does the media answer to? No one. The media are an unchecked power who can mislead the public and offer little information which leads to disaster. As the journalist H.L. Mencken said back in his day: "A newspaper is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." The media's abuse of "Freedom of Speech" has distorted public policies and trials on many of occasions. I could add plenty more to this list but these are prominent examples. [1]http://www.cnn.com... [2]http://www.cnn.com... [3]http://www.clemson.edu... 2. The Mob & Freedom of Speech Recently, many TV screens saw the Ferguson riot and unrest[4]. The unrest in Ferguson came about once again when the American media wanted to whip the population into a frenzy about police brutality and race. It had nothing to do with the actual death of the suspect, Mike Brown. If the protest had to do with Brown's death, there would be protest every time someone is killed in Detroit or other violent cities. The protest had to do with race and police brutality. Yet, once again, there was no proof that race was relevant to the situation again. But hundreds of protesters from around the country besieged Ferguson with protests and threats. Than one night, a minority of protesters took it upon themselves to destroy businesses in Ferguson in alleged "retaliation" for Brown's death. The media encouraged this mob to come into existence and take "justice" into their own hands. If "Freedom of Speech" was banned, these riots would of never taken place. Ferguson is not an exception of a mob running amok. In fact, it is a long celebrated tradition among low brow Americans going back to the 18th century. The late 19th century, was the high point with mobs of Scots-Irishmen in the South lynching former slaves or their descendants in extra-legal trials. If "Freedom of Speech" was banned mobs would not be allowed to have a platform for protest and to incite unrest. I will not focus on the known extra-legal trials against former slaves. I will offer a more unique extra-legal trial, the lynching of Leo Frank, a Jew[5]. Leo Frank was was tried for the death of Mary Phagan in Georgia. The jury delivered the verdict of guilty and Leo Frank was given a sentence to hang. The Governor of Georgia, Governor Slaton commuted Frank's sentence to life imprisonment. Many people didn't like what the governor did and sent many threats his way. Some of these people organized themselves into a mob which was called the "Knights of Phagan." They proceeded to find Frank and lynch him. If there wasn't any "Freedom of Speech" was illegal, these people would never have been allowed to spout their own "justice," nevertheless act on it. [4]http://www.theblaze.com... [5]http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... 3. Order & Freedom of Speech Sind wirklich anders? Are we truly different? We are lead to believe the most divisive moment in recent political history was a government shutdown over budget negotiations[6]. Where were the fists fights in the Congress? Where were the militias arming themselves up for civil war? None of this happened because some politicians and the spin-doctors of the press were misleading the public and trying to incite mass hysteria. The academics and media claim it is "polarized." Where is the violent evidence of polarization that Americans saw at the period of the American Revolution, the War of 1812, or the Civil War? We have been lead in error due to the "Freedom of Speech." [6]http://www.whitehouse.gov... The problems with "Freedom of Speech" should not seem minor. Is it acceptable for the media, politicians, and other misleading characters to whip the population into an emotional orgy? Especially when these emotional orgies can result in an unrestrained anger and confusion? We should also take into account when "Freedom of Speech" gets completely out of the hand to the point when violence erupts as a result whether it be a fight, a brawl, a murder, or a riot. "Freedom of Speech" encourages disagreement and chaos which can not be reversed once initiated. The 20th century is the peak of this bloodletting with more unrest and chaos ever incited than ever imagined in monarchies that repressed dissenting speech.