Freedom of Speech

[Veiled Princess 1]

Let's please restrict this thread to freedom of speech discussion and not drag other things in here...

Should freedom of speech be absolute? We all know it's not but some don't know when to stop. Go into any crowded area and yell "fire" and see how far freedom of speech carries you.

Does every freedom not come with a certain level of responsibility?

Should your personal freedom be allowed to intrude on another's rights, like the right to live in peace and be pursue happiness?

If someone takes advantage of free speech and it causes harm to another... should that person be held responsible?

I thought to add the poll after I already put this in Off Topic... I understand if it gets moved

I'll be first... I vote limited because I don't think personal freedom should intrude upon another's rights.

Edited July 20, 2006 by Veiled Princess

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Other than yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It should be limited. Limited by common sense of the individual and a consideration for others.

Many people don't agree with homosexuality, but you wouldn't point out two guys kissing in the street and shout (for all to hear) "that's fcuking disgusting!"

[dani_christine 0]

i voted "limited"...but by that i mean limited by decorum, good taste, and concern for the rights of our fellow man.

i do not mean limited by the government...i will tolerate the hate speech of a few idiots to protect my right to say what i wish. it is a very slippery slope if the government starts limiting what we are and are not allowed to say.

[UmmSqueakster 54]

Interesting thing to think about. Last night, my husband and I went through the Bill of Rights, and I attempted to explain the various freedoms and protections it affords us. Being a paralegal, I'm somewhat aware of the case law that makes it increadibly complex, so I ended up going umm, so we have a freedom of speech, but common law tradition prior to the amendment means that it really means this, and case law since then complicates it a whole bunch. So um, yeah, don't yell fire in a crowded theater and if you want to plan a demonstration, get a permit from the city first

This provides a pretty interesting read about the first amendment for the quasi legally minded.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Let's please restrict this thread to freedom of speech discussion and not drag other things in here...

No right is absolute.

Therefore, freedom of speech must also not be absolute. Limited, in other words.

The big question is, what are the limits?

I disagree with people who say the limits are the boundaries of bad taste. I am free to look at two homosexual men kissing and say dude that's nasty. JMHO. I am also free to tell people who are bound by medieval superstition that they are living a lie. I am NOT free to direct people, by means of free speech, that murder or assassination or genocide is ok or desirable. That is where I draw the limit.

But it doesn't really matter where I choose to draw the limit. We live in a society where public opinion matters. I am just one member of that public. My opinion matters but I must obey the laws set by the society I live in. If this country were to make it illegal to say certain things, I would not say them... even if I wanted to. Instead, I would do what I can to change the law.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

limited

previously mentioned - fire in a theater.

you have the right to hear music. i also have the right not to hear it.

inciting a riot might be to some free speech. it's also gonna get you a jail sentence.

telling everything you know about a classified government program will do the same.

say you'll off the president and you'll discover yourself the object of attention by MIB

so freedom of speech is limited. just use common sense.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It doesn't necessarily come down to a question of taste. You might think that homosexuality is wrong and distasteful, for instance, but few people would go up to a gay couple in say, a shopping mall, and articulate to that dislike to them. The fact that you 'can' say something doesn't mean that you 'should'.

Where I grew up in the UK, there was a lot of racism specifically towards people of Indian and Pakistai descent. As a member of British (or any) society, is it reasonable for a indian person going about their business to be subjected to abuse by people shouting "paki's go home"?

I agree with others though that limits on 'freedom of speech' should be self-regulatng rather than legislative - which is to a large extent what society already does - marginalising people who hold deviant views.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

limited

previously mentioned - fire in a theater.

you have the right to hear music. i also have the right not to hear it.

inciting a riot might be to some free speech. it's also gonna get you a jail sentence.

telling everything you know about a classified government program will do the same.

say you'll off the president and you'll discover yourself the object of attention by MIB

so freedom of speech is limited. just use common sense.

It's not enough to use common sense. Every case you described is a legal constraint on free speech. If you know something to be illegal, don't do/say it.

I agree with others though that limits on 'freedom of speech' should be self-regulatng rather than legislative - which is to a large extent what society already does - marginalising people who hold deviant views.

But don't the legislative limits reflect social views when a country democratically elects its legislature?

[keltic 1]

Let's please restrict this thread to freedom of speech discussion and not drag other things in here...

No right is absolute.

Therefore, freedom of speech must also not be absolute. Limited, in other words.

The big question is, what are the limits?

I disagree with people who say the limits are the boundaries of bad taste. I am free to look at two homosexual men kissing and say dude that's nasty. JMHO. I am also free to tell people who are bound by medieval superstition that they are living a lie. I am NOT free to direct people, by means of free speech, that murder or assassination or genocide is ok or desirable. That is where I draw the limit.

But it doesn't really matter where I choose to draw the limit. We live in a society where public opinion matters. I am just one member of that public. My opinion matters but I must obey the laws set by the society I live in. If this country were to make it illegal to say certain things, I would not say them... even if I wanted to. Instead, I would do what I can to change the law.

AS is absolutely right here, as far as how to deal with laws that you might not like... and that you generally go with a consensus of public opinion

ALL rights come with responsibility... thats what so many ppl are failing to see nowadays (sound enough like my grandaddy?)... lots of ppl want the luxuries without doing the work that goes with it

rights are limited to where they encroach on anothers rights... it has to be that way or then we have to say which person has what right on an individual level... and we all know where that will get us...

be responsible with your rights, and you will most likely keep them... be irresponsible and you may well lose them...

for example:

someone has a right to pursue happiness... he/she chooses to pursue happiness by going on a killing spree... its his/her right, yes?? no... he/she then has a right to a fair trial... and then if he/she is found guilty, then they lose their right to freedom, right to vote, right to pursue happiness, etc

kind of drastic, but shows that you have to be responsible with your rights... and often times, being irresponsible with your speech can be just as bad as any physical harm you could do to someone

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

limited

previously mentioned - fire in a theater.

you have the right to hear music. i also have the right not to hear it.

inciting a riot might be to some free speech. it's also gonna get you a jail sentence.

telling everything you know about a classified government program will do the same.

say you'll off the president and you'll discover yourself the object of attention by MIB

so freedom of speech is limited. just use common sense.

It's not enough to use common sense. Every case you described is a legal constraint on free speech. If you know something to be illegal, don't do/say it.

I agree with others though that limits on 'freedom of speech' should be self-regulatng rather than legislative - which is to a large extent what society already does - marginalising people who hold deviant views.

But don't the legislative limits reflect social views when a country democratically elects its legislature?

To a point. But 'freedom of speech' isn't (and never was) an exact science.

Edited July 20, 2006 by erekose

[rclouse 0]

Other than yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Ditto. Poll needs more options. I firmly believe in free speech, except in very limited, very specific circumstances as illustrated by the "fire in theater" example.

[Veiled Princess 1]

OK so at what point should the government step in?

I mean it's quite obvious, if you have eyes and ears and ever leave your house, that not everyone in this country has common sense? With no set legislature regarding the matter, when should the one who lacks common sense be sensored?

What if they are not actually calling for violence but their actions (speech) will most likely lead to it?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

OK so at what point should the government step in?

Layla,

Government "step in"? Limits on speech should come from the legislature, who are elected by the people. And only after a long public debate. The government shouldn't "step in" at all.

[Veiled Princess 1]

Other than yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.

Ditto. Poll needs more options. I firmly believe in free speech, except in very limited, very specific circumstances as illustrated by the "fire in theater" example.

Oh I'm sorry, it was my first time

What other options should be added? And how can I change it now?

Can someone make us a better poll so we can get an accurate outcome?

Layla,

Government "step in"? Limits on speech should come from the legislature, who are elected by the people. And only after a long public debate. The government shouldn't "step in" at all.

Is that not a branch of the government?

I think it's clear I'm not up to par on politics and the like.