• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Where does free speech end?

steve s said:
How 'bout laws regarding libel and slander. If I wrongfully state in an article or interview that you did jail time for being a pedophile, would you have no recourse?

Steve S
Click to expand...


I thought about slander and libel but forgot to mention them.

I think that slander and libel should be grounds for a civil lawsuit. I'm not familiar with the law on this subject in any country, and I wouldn't want to suggest that I agree with a particular set of laws regarding slander and libel, but I agree that they should be actionable in principle.
 
Where does it end or where should it end, (X$)?
Context dependent .
If text string X$ was " you stupidly vague poster" then the above response would have exceeded the free speech limits for this board.

Like most folk, I hold my tongue (sometimes) where I know it could get me in trouble.
It's not just shouting "Fire!" in a dark & crowded theatre. I might tell the archbishop of York that his god is non existent, but I doubt I'd tell the head mullah of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

What we don't say is decided by its effect on others and on ourselves. In a war, I don't blab about convoy movements. I expect a doctor to keep my VD clinic results to himself. Fill in more examples here->

It's a social thing. Use your head, is my advice.
 
Frankly, freedom of speech has it's advantages, and just like any other political decisions, those advantages based on that specific case and the likely effect must be weighed against any proposed advantages to limiting speech.

People often say something to the effect that giving government any kind of ability to limit freedom of speech we don't like opens the door have them eventually ban speech we consider necessary. I don't necessarily agree. We have all kinds of limits already, and other parts of the world have even more without devolving into totalitarianism.

As mentioned before, we have a system for addressing libel and slander.
We also have laws against harrassment, and restraining orders that limit who you may speak to.
We have the FCC which limits speech in certain venues.
We have the FDA and many other agencies limiting what corporations are allowed to say about their products on packaging and in ads. Note recent actions against Cheerio's for making unsubstantiated claims about health benefits, and against drug companies for promoting secondary usages for their drugs.
Some communities have local laws against certain kinds of obscenity in public places.
All states have laws against you screaming out your free speech loud enough to disturb people.

So we already have laws that limit, the content, venue, tone, truth value and even volume of our speech, many of these federally based.
 
UncaYimmy said:
How would you feel about the following signs:

"People who hate black people are scum and their children are sub-human."
Click to expand...

Unsure.

The problem I have with such signs is that while it may be what you expect in a free society, what is free about it for those on the recieving end of such speech? Consider the % of blacks in a country is about 0.1%, they are desperately poor, with no money to create a banner that is as loud and large as the '******* are scum' banner. They are surrounded by racist signs day in, day out. Is that freedom, for them? How do we measure it?

Are people here suggesting that the buck should stop at racial discrimination, not racist language?
 
Last edited:
JohnnyG said:
However, I don't consider refusing to admit or serve people based on race is a form of speech, it should fall clearly into the discrimination category.
Click to expand...

Could you expand a bit more? I'd like to understand your thinking.
 
steve s said:
How 'bout laws regarding libel and slander. If I wrongfully state in an article or interview that you did jail time for being a pedophile, would you have no recourse?

Steve S
Click to expand...

I think libel involves lies and untruths more than simple speech. Simple speech would be "You act like a pedophile the way you do such and such." The word "act" requires no proof. Did "jail time" requires proof in order to speak, with out lands you in libel zone.
 
Nosi said:
I think libel involves lies and untruths more than simple speech. Simple speech would be "You act like a pedophile the way you do such and such." The word "act" requires no proof. Did "jail time" requires proof in order to speak, with out lands you in libel zone.
Click to expand...

I'll let KingMerv correct me if I'm wrong, and even then I might argue because I try to keep on this as a layperson. Truth is supposed to be an absolute defense to defamation, but you can be held liable for making a true statement when that statement defamatory, done with ill will, and not something of public interest. Thus you can't buy an ad in the NY Times talking about how your hot little nanny from Hungary enjoys group sex with teenage boys even if it's true.

I lean towards erring on the side of allowing speech. The burden for justifying censorship should be very high indeed.
 
DC said:
hard question.
Click to expand...

That's what constitutions are for -- to lay down absolutes that cannot be changed without a lot more than just the blowing passions of the moment.

Best bet from what humanity has learned historically, the hard way: "Congress shall pass no law...", end of story.

All the "incitements" put together don't add up to the problems and evil of a government that can censor. Worse, when they can censor, the government begins inciting all over the place. :(
 
You have to separate "speech" as expression from "speech" as action. Speech as expression should almost never be curtailed by government. Speech as action should be treated as any other action.

For example, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is not a problem because the idea of fire is bad, but because the act of alarming a theater full of people is bad. Any other act you initiated which caused the same false alarm would be equally bad.

Another example is libel/slander. The prohibition against saying bad false things is not intended to keep the ideas from being expressed, it is intended to keep people from unjustly causing damage to others. Similarly, fraud.

Incitement is an act, not an idea. Sometimes it can be hard to distinguish between a repulsive idea and an inciteful act . . .

but that's what lawyers are for! :D
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Just a thread to explore the frequent issue of free speech. When should it end? When it incites violence? Surely any fool can be incited to violence, especially if it's related to religion. Should racist banners like 'asians go home" be permitted on the motorway?
Click to expand...
If you disagree with Glen beck and Rush Limbaugh you must be silent. Also you must never say there is no talking snake.
 
Here is a link that I found sometime ago that might throw a different aspect on to "freedom of speech".

http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html

When I did some research on the 1st Amendment last year I was surprised to learn that "freedom of speech" was much more liberal than I had originally thought.
 
sgtbaker said:
No I don't think "Asians go home" should be banned speech. The best way to deal with that is to confront the issue and make the owner of the banner explain themselves. Inciting a riot is a gray area and should be dealt with as individual cases. That's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're calling for a lynch mob. How are you planning to make the owner explain himself? And to whom?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
I just don't know. And if I do think it is legal to do so, I don't know how I reconcile that with my belief that racial discrimination should not be allowed to dominate a business, by refusing to admit or serve blacks, for example.
Click to expand...

Will you admit that you don't believe in freedom of association?
 
Last edited:
Of course, I can't tell you exactly when. I'll predict, though, that in 50 years, if the US still exists, 1st amendment rights will look nothing like today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom