Thread: Limits to free speech?

People are sure P(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)SIES now days.

What ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"?

The only limit to free speech concerns private property. Other rights are the only thing that can limit speech. That is why you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater if there is no fire. You cannot create calamity on someone else's property for no reason. You cannot step on other rights with free speech. The right to life is one.

I disagree. I think you have a perfect right to yell fire in a crowded theater. If a comedian is on stage yelling fire and everyone is laughing what's the problem. If someone attempts to start a riot that's a different matter. If someone wants to recklessly endanger people that's a different matter but uttering the words should not be illegal.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." How tough is that to understand. Even President Obama should be able to understand that.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

I disagree. I think you have a perfect right to yell fire in a crowded theater. If a comedian is on stage yelling fire and everyone is laughing what's the problem. If someone attempts to start a riot that's a different matter. If someone wants to recklessly endanger people that's a different matter but uttering the words should not be illegal.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." How tough is that to understand. Even President Obama should be able to understand that.

If you yell fire in my theater (property) and cause a problem, you will be held legally and monetarily responsible.

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

If you yell fire in my theater (property) and cause a problem, you will be held legally and monetarily responsible.

Aha! Give the man a jelly bean. "And cause a problem". That's fine. Holding me responsibile for the problems caused is quite legal and appropriate. But, a law saying I can't speak is not right.

The moment we consider speech "hate" speech, we are opening the door to second-guessing the Constitution. So if the Westboro Baptist Church protests at a military funeral, we can organize a counter-protest. It's that simple. Those same 2nd amendment defenders constantly trample on the 1st and 4th amendments, and constantly compromise their liberties for "security".

Originally Posted by PatrickT

Aha! Give the man a jelly bean. "And cause a problem". That's fine. Holding me responsibile for the problems caused is quite legal and appropriate. But, a law saying I can't speak is not right.

With "free speech" (just like every thing else) comes responsibility. Like I have said before, you should be able to say anything your willing to take the responsibility for. You have the right to call a man's wife a "whore", but in my opinion he has the right to put you in the hospital for doing it. That's called taking responsibility for your "Free Speech". Your turn

Originally Posted by MegadethFan

I know I made this same subject into a thread a while back, but I do have a problem plaguing my mind. I think people should be allowed to say what they want, however I think limits are in order. Libertarianism is defined by allowing all acts that are victimless, however some forms of speech can have victims. For example if a group of people surround and verbally abuse you, this can be psychologically harming, as can bullying, or defamation. In this respect I believe defamation and abuse should be restricted, whilst all other forms of speech should be permitted. I realize there can be clashes- for example, if someone wants to say homosexual lifestyles are bad and this psychologically harms someone should it be outlawed? I think libertarians often make their principled application on such issues to clear cut - too black and white. To such a dilemma they would say 'oh the gay person can just not listen, go away or counter the speech of the other person', however the reality all three of these options can often be impractical even impossible in many circumstances. Hence I think elements of the traditional liberal restrictions, such as criticism of others 'in good faith' is a concept that should be endorsed so as to limit speech that truly is intended for abuse.

The reality is that speech does do harm to others in some circumstances and I think these instances ought to be mitigated by the state. Do you agree?

Not so much by the state as by authority yes

A US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July 2011 that officials at Musselman High School could punish the perpetrator without violating her free speech rights because they could reasonably believe that those comments would create a disruption at school.
In a separate case, Blue Mountain School District v Snyder, two students from Pennsylvania - one a high-school senior, the other an eighth grader - were punished for opening parody MySpace profiles of their principals in 2005 and 2007 respectively.
In one fake profile the principal was depicted as a sex-crazed paedophile, while the other suggested that the principal was gay and used drugs.
A federal appeals court in Pennsylvania ruled in June 2011 that the students should not be punished because that interfered with their rights to free speech, because the posted information did not disrupt school activities.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/us...-1226247284099

In cases like those above I agree that the students have the right to do that but then the authorities should have the right to give the smart !#@ little !@#!@# a right clip upside the ear for being nasty little twonks

Originally Posted by gunnar wordon

The moment we consider speech "hate" speech, we are opening the door to second-guessing the Constitution. So if the Westboro Baptist Church protests at a military funeral, we can organize a counter-protest. It's that simple. Those same 2nd amendment defenders constantly trample on the 1st and 4th amendments, and constantly compromise their liberties for "security".

Westboro Church - a prime example of someone taking advantage of "free speech" to make an arsehole of themselves

What ever happened to the good old fashioned "rotten tomato" approach??

Free speech does not even work on this forum.

Try it for yourself. Say (*)(*)(*)(*)!

Originally Posted by beenthere

With "free speech" (just like every thing else) comes responsibility. Like I have said before, you should be able to say anything your willing to take the responsibility for. You have the right to call a man's wife a "whore", but in my opinion he has the right to put you in the hospital for doing it. That's called taking responsibility for your "Free Speech". Your turn

Free speech does not mean I'm free to say whatever I want. If I call my boss an idiot he is free to fire me. If my wife asks if her butt looks big and I answer, "Whooooeeeee!" I can expect retribution.

But, not from the government. The Constitution protects me from the government. Not from my boss, my neighbor, or my wife.

In the state in which I lived there was an affirmative defense for assault called "fighting words". If someone ragged you enough the courts would acquit you of assault for smacking them silly. That is not a violation of free speech.The First Amendment does not protect me from my neighbor. Criminal law does.

But, I am protected by the Constitution from the government and that's a fact that especially this current government hates. That's why we hear about the "seriously flowed Constirtution." The government hates private property rights, free speech, protection of relgiion, the right to bear arms. I think it's wrong but the government has gotten rid of the prohibition on double jeopardy.

Free Speech must be protected. Especially speech we don't like. If we're all free to say what the government wants to hear then we're slaves. It reminds me of basic training. "Are we all happy to be marching in the freezing rain?" "Yes Sir!" "I can't hear you." "YES SIR!"