A Quality Topic: Are There Limits To Free Speech?

[prince of a guy]

We all know that yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre is not protected under the First Amendment. Are there any others?

 

[J-DAM]

You usually can't go up to a cop and say, "Here piggy piggy! Squeel like a pig, boy! Reeeeee Reeeee Reeeeeeeeeee!"

Not unless you can run really fast.

 

[prince of a guy]

You usually can't go up to a cop and say, "Here piggy piggy! Squeel like a pig, boy! Reeeeee Reeeee Reeeeeeeeeee!"

J-DAM,

That is assault. You can, however, wear a t-shirt that says cops are pigs (if you're so inclined to do so). However, could you war a t-shirt that says "Belsen was a gas!"?

 

[Warik]

I believe the "limit" to free speech is that speech is not free if it causes immediate clear and present danger (or something along those lines).

So you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room because everyone will trample each other and kill each other and stuff.

You can't yell "I'M GONNA KILL U MR. PRESIDENT!" at a debate because there will be SS agents diving all over the place.

You can't yell "IMMIGRATION!" in a kwik-e-mart either.

-Warik

 

[prince of a guy]

I believe the "limit" to free speech is that speech is not free if it causes immediate clear and present danger (or something along those lines).

I would also add "fighting words" as speech not protected by the First Amendment.

So you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room because everyone will trample each other and kill each other and stuff.

Hmmm. I wonder where I've heard that example before.

You can't yell "I'M GONNA KILL U MR. PRESIDENT!" at a debate because there will be SS agents diving all over the place.

You can't do it because it's an assault. But yes, the Secret Service will open a can of whoop ass on you.

You can't yell "IMMIGRATION!" in a kwik-e-mart either.

-Warik

That sounds a bit racist.

 

[O'Stanozol]

You usually can't go up to a cop and say, "Here piggy piggy! Squeel like a pig, boy! Reeeeee Reeeee Reeeeeeeeeee!"

Not unless you can run really fast.

Yes you CAN

you go and say the nice words ( I THINK )

So you go to him and say I THINK you are a fucking sob pig, its all legal

anyway, why we own them respect if they cant respect us?

 

[prince of a guy]

Bump for an intelligent conversation

 

[1911]

However, could you war a t-shirt that says "Belsen was a gas!"?

Only if you use the complete name to maintain historical integrity. "Bergen-Belsen was a gas!"

Later,

 

[Y_lifter]

Simply put IMO..

The Limits to free speech are when it Impacts someone else's Freedoms

 

[Warik]

That sounds a bit racist.

I, fortunately, do not give a flying fuck (or any other type of fuck, for that matter).

-Warik

 

[prince of a guy]

I, fortunately, do not give a flying fuck (or any other type of fuck, for that matter).

-Warik

Racism is bad. If you are a racist, you are not living to your potential as a human being.

 

[Hangfire]

I agree, basically, with Y_Lifter. But I would substitute "rights" for "freedoms". When you encroach on the rights of others, speech can and should be curtailed.

Fortunately, it is really difficult to do that. I can't think of a single instance where my speech would encroach on anyone else's rights. We have the right to say anything we want to. We do not have the right to be heard. We also do not have the right to not be offended by others' speech.

Carol Moseley-Braun, the crackpot U.S. Senator from Illinois (D), once asserted that she found in the Constitution our right not to be offended or insulted, or have our feelings hurt. Obviously, she is not playing with a full deck of cards. I would rather be outraged by freely-spoken words than have that freedom curtailed.

 

[prince of a guy]

When you encroach on the rights of others, speech can and should be curtailed.

Fortunately, it is really difficult to do that. I can't think of a single instance where my speech would encroach on anyone else's rights.

Hangfire,

Please consider this:

Pro-life activists are allowed to demonstrate at abortion clinics. However, if I'm a teenage girl seeking an abortion and it is necessary for me to pass by the demonstrators, I might be intimidated not to do so. Hence, I believe that the fictional girl's rights have been violated.

Any thoughts, sir?

 

[Hangfire]

prince of a guy,

I don't believe that intimidating speech denies anyone of the right to go about their lives freely. That girl might be frightened but no one denied her right of free movmeent, free choice, free expression. She is completely free to exercise her right to enter the abortion clinic so that she could exercise her fictitious right to an abortion.

That example brings to mind the now-popular, but completely ridiculous, notion of hate-speech. The concept of that is so fundamentally wrong that it is exhausting to think about it, let alone debate it. The very people who preach tolerance (the rabid Left) are so intolerant of other people's verbal expression of thought, that they have to dream up new law to curtail that expression. I suppose that is because the speaker has shown himself to be not as tolerant as the nannies think he ought to be. Something like that.

 

[prince of a guy]

Hangfire,

Take a moment to examine the issue from my perspective. Try to be on my side of the debate for just a moment. As an exercise, argue in favor of my position.

The reason I humbly ask you to complete this exercise is that from your kneejerk response, I believe that you do not have the life experience to examine issues from various perspectives.

 

[Warik]

Racism is bad. If you are a racist, you are not living to your potential as a human being.

1) Racism is only bad if it is untrue. Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of traits and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. If this belief is untrue, then racism is bad.

Not that I believe this belief is true in regard to kwik-e-mart employees... just mentioning this to make ignorant "racism is bad!" monkeys who ramble the phrase on blindly.

2) I'm not a racist.

3) Don't call me a human being.

-Warik

 

[prince of a guy]

1) Racism is only bad if it is untrue.

So, true racism is acceptable?

 

[Hangfire]

prince of a guy,

My response is not knee-jerk. It is the considered response of someone who has walked the planet for nearly 46 years and, I assure you, has more than enough life experience. I can examine issues from any perspective that you present to me, but that critical examination doesn't have to result in agreement. I have formulated what I prefer to call my personal code over many years of experience and observation. That being the case, I can't argue your position because I so completely disagree with it and I've been around way too long to participate in right-thinking exercises.

I will agree with you that the girl would be frightened and intimidated. However, isn't it her responsibility to muster the courage to follow through with something to which other free people may voice oppposition? Should my speech be prohibiterd because it might make her uncomfortable?

By the way, in your ealier post, you posited that Pro-life activists were "allowed" to demostrate at abortion clinics. That is one of the problems with this dialogue in this country. Those demostrators have the RIGHT to assemble and protest. The teenager doesn't have the RIGHT not to be frightened by them. When it comes to rights vs. priviledges vs. wanting-to-be-able-to-feel-good-about-ourselves, I am an absolutist on the side of preservation and free exercise of rights........every time.

Regards,
Hangfire

 

[Warik]

So, true racism is acceptable?

So, you're asking if it is acceptable to believe that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race when in fact they do?

Yes, it is acceptable.

*stealing from Star Trek*

OK... so you have Humans and you have Klingons. Is it unacceptable to believe that Klingons are, typically, superior warriors when compared to Humans simply because they are Klingons?

Only if you're brain-dead.

-Warik

 

[prince of a guy]

I will agree with you that the girl would be frightened and intimidated. However, isn't it her responsibility to muster the courage to follow through with something to which other free people may voice oppposition?

Hangfire,

Perhaps I misjudged you, sir. Your response, while materially different from that of mine, is a well thought out and articulate response to my request.

That said, I would take issue with your point that I have quoted above. I do not believe it fair for a young girl, e.g. a 13 year old, who obviously can not grasp the concepts of birth control to stand up to dozens of angry demonstrators while at the same time seeking to obtain a legal abortion. Hence, I believe her rights have been violated in such a scenario as discussed herein.


Sincerely,
Prince of a nice guy

 

[prince of a guy]

So, you're asking if it is acceptable to believe that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race when in fact they do?

You are an ignorant person, sir.

 

[Warik]

You are an ignorant person, sir.

Hm. Most interesting. I've never considered this possibility.

Why don't you enlighten me as to why am I ignorant and this belief is incorrect so that I may cease being ignorant?

Your Friend,
-Warik

 

[prince of a guy]

Hm. Most interesting. I've never considered this possibility.

Why don't you enlighten me as to why am I ignorant and this belief is incorrect so that I may cease being ignorant?

Your Friend,
-Warik

Warik,

You obviously have an inflated opinion of yourself. Hence, to end this discussion civilly and toute de suite, I will withdraw my accusation of ignorance.

Good day, sir.


Prince of a nice guy

 

[Lao Tzu]

allow me to explain some of this stuff

'you can't yell fire in a crowded theater' was a term used in a trial where hippies were being prosecuted for distributing anti-vietnam war pamphlets during the war.

'clear & present danger' is a term used to describe whether free speech poses an obvious & immediate threat to life, limb or property (hence clear & present danger). i.e., yelling 'lets kill some pigs' during the l.a. riots may be considered clear & present danger because doing so poses an immediate & real threat to people.

also, during the 1850's, it was punishable by the death penalty to distribute literature condemning slavery in some southern states.

the bill of rights is a joke. the rights are trampled on at the exact time & place they were designed to be used. all of 'em. 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th.

you also have to take into account that there is no real comparison for the bill of rights, meaning 'clear & present danger', 'cruel & unusual punishment', etc. are basically whatever we want them to be or not be. whats cruel & unusual in one generation is ignored or tolerated in another generation. its bullshit if you ask me.

 

[Warik]

I will withdraw my accusation of ignorance.

So I'm right?

Thanks.

Good day to you, too.

-Warik

 

[litig8r]

You can't yell "IMMIGRATION!" in a kwik-e-mart either.

-Warik

LMAO

hasta

litig8r

 

[musclebrains]

That example brings to mind the now-popular, but completely ridiculous, notion of hate-speech. The concept of that is so fundamentally wrong that it is exhausting to think about it, let alone debate it. The very people who preach tolerance (the rabid Left) are so intolerant of other people's verbal expression of thought, that they have to dream up new law to curtail that expression. I suppose that is because the speaker has shown himself to be not as tolerant as the nannies think he ought to be. Something like that.

I think freedom of expression is the most important right Americans have and there are practically NO circumstances I believe it should be curtailed. The law does not protect terroristic threats, however. In the case of the abortion clinic, it would very much depend on the behavior of the protestors. Unfortunately, they have literally attacked and killed people in the past, so "peaceable assembly" can't be assumed in their case, typically. Basically, though, I agree with your own position.

As for hate speech: The law has long forbidden this in certain contexts. Libel law protects "hyperbolic invective." You can print just about anything about someone as long as it is in the context of demonstrably public discourse. Thus, if there's a public debate about government services and someone leaps to his feet and declares me a pinko commie traitor, it's protected speech. The courts have repeatedly protected this, arguing that it would be more damaging to free speech to try to regulate hyperbole than to permit it. (Of course, it is affected by the public or private stature of the attacked person.)

However, the courts have also LONG upheld cases in which a person is attacked publicly out of context in print. If you, out of the blue, call me a fat retard, when there is no context of discussion and especially when it is demonstrably untrue (shut up) and done repeatedly, then the speech is not protected. And, believe me, I know. As a,um, controversial journalist, I've been involved in several libel actions. And I sued a publication two years ago for repeated out-of-context attack and won.

Hate speech, as its typically described as an attack based on ethnicity or gender, is only legally proscribed in a few cases. The most obvious is in workplace harassment. I certainly support that. I can see no reason why a woman or black person should have to endure verbal harassment on the basis of gender or color. Of course, there's much controversy over whether that should be extended to gay people.

Another case, referred to here, is the "fighting words doctrine." That originally referred only to physical peril but was extended to psychological damage. It has seldom been used.

The effort to over-regulate epithetical speech does belong to the rabid left, I'm sorry to say. The most notorious example is law professor Mari Matsuda (sp?) who argues that only the speech of the dominant group should be proscribed. Thus she would literally make expressions like "lazy nigger" illegal but "honky tyrant" legal. The argument is based on power relations but one can readily imagine the nightmare of trying to determine who holds the power at any given moment.