people of influence and limited rights to free speech

By people of influence, I mean people like teachers, doctors, celebrities, news casters, etc

Here are some of my points that I have come up with so far (I need 3 strong ones for an essay...not doing so well)...

for yes, they should have their right's limited:
-not everyone has the social conscience to be mindful of what they say and not to offend other people.
-If there were no regulation, what would protect those who are being offended from hate?

for no, influential people shouldn't have their rights limited:
-We live in a free country based freedom, and included in that is freedom of speech
-How far would the law go in deciding what these influential people should and shoudln't say?
-Sometimes controversial things open up people's minds to new views
-If influential people have their rights limited, everyone should. They are not being treated equally. Who would want to work an influential job at the risk of being prosectuted everytime they open their mouths???

I originally set my essay up to say no, but after handing in my rough copy of my introduction paragraph to my teacher, she had huge ass question marks all over it. Either she's dumb as a fucking donkey's ass (which I am starting to think for more reasons that just this), or my points really don't make sense.
So, I am wondering what you guys here think. I thought this would be the best place to come for help with this.
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Read the first amendment--that should lay it out for you.

 

1) "Limit the freedom to speak when approprite"
means
2) "Limit the freedom to speak when those in power decide it is appropriate" which has historicaly meant
3) "Limit the freedom of those who threaten those in power."

The transition 1) to 2) is obvious. If some folks have one level of freedom and others a different level, that decsion is made and implimented by the exisiting power structure.

2) to 3) is a historical observation.


"All Animals are free. But some Animals have more freedom than others."

 

My first question would be why focus on such an arbritary seqment of the population?

And to lump newscasters/media in with this population and then limit their right to free speech is to strangle free press.

First Amendment:

By further lumping teachers into the formula you censoring education.

By limiting doctors, you could in essence be limiting the advancement of scientific research.

 

Why limit our marketplace of ideas. Lousy ideas will colapse on thier own without help.


So much of Free Speech seems to be about money, Why a fairness in broadcasting doctrine when there are thousands of media outlets to chose from? Who is afraid of Rush Limbaug and Don Imus?

Why a McCain- Feingold to constrain funding for political speech?

Why do taxpayers need to fund NPR, why compete with private industry?
Has PBS lost its reason for being in our 300-cable-channels age?

Why limit political donations? Are offensive speech regulations overeaching?

Why was Laurence Summers denied an opportunity to speak at a California College? The President of Iran got his due at Columbia.

Was Dan Rathers right to free speech denied? CBS?

 

Rather than limit bad speech, we would do better to encourage good listening and thinking.