Where does free speech end?

[Uncayimmy]

Blech. That's an ugly decision IMO and definitely the exception rather than the rule. I'm not completely shocked though. State laws can be putrid sometimes. Especially ones written in 1902.

For what it is worth, the appeal is still ongoing I believe. Hopefully, the SCOTUS will overturn.

No doubt it's an exception and state specific. It also deals specifically with libel. My example was more general, and it involves privacy issues:

Torts Section 652 D (1977)
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public.

And thus, as I understand it, you cannot take out an ad in the NY Times publicizing the private sexual exploits of your nanny.

 

[KingMerv00]

And thus, as I understand it, you cannot take out an ad in the NY Times publicizing the private sexual exploits of your nanny.

Arguable. I'd say a specific nanny having underage sex with her charges would be of public interest.

You are talking about a right to privacy rather than libel in any event.

 

[AnnieJ]

Arguable. I'd say a specific nanny having underage sex with her charges would be of public interest.

You are talking about a right to privacy rather than libel in any event.

I'm not sure there is a right to privacy when a crime has been committed such as a nanny have sex with those she is in charge of. I think the right to privacy is thrown out the window in that case. If the charges have not been proven that might be a different story. There might be some legal recourse then. I don't know I'm not a lawyer.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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?

I think a lot of people mistake 'free speech' with 'you can say what the heck you want with no consequences'.

Actually all kinds of freedom (at least the ones worth having) come with a measure of reponsibility.

Free speech means that you can speak freely, but you may have to take reponsibility for what you say.

Hans

 

[Clippy]

Why does the right to whom you associate with trump things like wearing hair nets?

You're comparing apples and oranges. Who is made ill by a barber's decision to only accept customers of a certain racial background?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

A potentially devastating long term ill for that society.

 

[KingMerv00]

You're comparing apples and oranges. Who is made ill by a barber's decision to only accept customers of a certain racial background?

If it is just one barber, not many. If it is 98% of the barbers in a state...

 

[Uncayimmy]

Arguable. I'd say a specific nanny having underage sex with her charges would be of public interest.

Well, if you saw our nannies, you'd agree the public would be interested regardless of how old the partners were.

You are talking about a right to privacy rather than libel in any event.

Correct. In terms of free speech, however, most people don't see the distinction. I don't say that to be insulting to anyone - I'm just basing it on all the mistaken notions I've heard over the years. In virtually every case of libel, the truth will be a defense, that case I cited notwithstanding.

However, in the context of this thread, speaking the truth is not an inalienable right. There are simply things you cannot publish even if they are true.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I'm not sure there is a right to privacy when a crime has been committed such as a nanny have sex with those she is in charge of. I think the right to privacy is thrown out the window in that case. If the charges have not been proven that might be a different story. There might be some legal recourse then. I don't know I'm not a lawyer.

Crimes are considered of public interest, so that's an easy one.

 

[Robin]

So all we need is a polite "No thank you, I like it here" on the other side of the freeway?

Or "We already are home".

 

[MikeMangum]

If it is just one barber, not many. If it is 98% of the barbers in a state...

That might actually happen, if the subgroup turned away only made up ~2% of the population. Absent government mandates and enforcement of that sort of discrimination, it has a tendency to solve itself. If 98% of barbers in a state would not serve African Americans, for instance, there is going to be someone out there who is going to see an unserved market. My understanding is that legally mandated discrimination of that type was actually one of the original factors in the growth of a black middle class - they had a captive market and little competition for that market.

I think the negative result of that sort of thing is not economic; it is NOT that some minority won't be able to purchase a service that they are willing and able to pay for and from which someone else can make money, I think the negative result is simply social discord. That sort of thing, especially if it is widespread, is divisive and reduces social cohesion and trust.

 

[KingMerv00]

That might actually happen, if the subgroup turned away only made up ~2% of the population. Absent government mandates and enforcement of that sort of discrimination, it has a tendency to solve itself. If 98% of barbers in a state would not serve African Americans, for instance, there is going to be someone out there who is going to see an unserved market. My understanding is that legally mandated discrimination of that type was actually one of the original factors in the growth of a black middle class - they had a captive market and little competition for that market.

I think the negative result of that sort of thing is not economic; it is NOT that some minority won't be able to purchase a service that they are willing and able to pay for and from which someone else can make money, I think the negative result is simply social discord. That sort of thing, especially if it is widespread, is divisive and reduces social cohesion and trust.

Yes yes we know. The free market fixes all ills.

 

[Clippy]

Yes yes we know. The free market fixes all ills.

Forced integration doesn't look to be much of a success. What do you recommend?

 

[Clippy]

A potentially devastating long term ill for that society.

Could you be more specific?

 

[Clippy]

That might actually happen, if the subgroup turned away only made up ~2% of the population. Absent government mandates and enforcement of that sort of discrimination, it has a tendency to solve itself. If 98% of barbers in a state would not serve African Americans, for instance, there is going to be someone out there who is going to see an unserved market. My understanding is that legally mandated discrimination of that type was actually one of the original factors in the growth of a black middle class - they had a captive market and little competition for that market.

I think the negative result of that sort of thing is not economic; it is NOT that some minority won't be able to purchase a service that they are willing and able to pay for and from which someone else can make money, I think the negative result is simply social discord. That sort of thing, especially if it is widespread, is divisive and reduces social cohesion and trust.

You make excellent points. I would point out, though, that Putnam's research shows that social cohesion and trust are reduced in multiracial neighborhoods.

 

[Clippy]

Restrictions on 1st amendment rights will arrive via 'hate crime' legislation. It might take a while, but it will happen. As people become increasingly unhappy with the system, including the demographic transformation of the country, the government will look to restrict criticism. Just my prediction.

An example of why I hold this belief:

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/100833-groups-want-fcc-to-police-hate-speech

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Could you be more specific?

Race riots for one.

 

[Clippy]

Race riots for one.

You get these anyhow. Why should they be worse if communities were legally allowed to self-segregate on the basis of race?

 

[AnnieJ]

You get these anyhow. Why should they be worse if communities were legally allowed to self-segregate?

I think in most large cities self-segregation occurs on it's own. In Atlanta as in all larger cities we have our Asian districts, Hispanic....etc.

I question whether it is "self-segregation" when that segregation occurs because of one's color of their skin or their nationality.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

You get these anyhow.

Why should they be worse if communities were legally allowed to self-segregate on the basis of race?

You surely must see how a section of society being treated as second class citizens is going to cause a devestating affect to social cohesion.

Do you think child labour laws should be enforced? After all, nobody is made ill by those.