Thread: Limits to free speech?

Originally Posted by PatrickT

If I choose to run for public office and a dipwad like Bill Maher makes fun of my infant child, I should have a right to sue him for $1,000,000. I should have a right to get a restraining order to force him to quit trashing my children. Or, maybe I could just post a bounty saying, "Bill Maher, Dead or Alive, $10,000."

You seriously don't understand the difference between between making fun of a person and soliciting their death? Pretty much anything anyone can say is likely to offend someone, therefore offense is rarely a sufficient cause to take legal action. Making fun of a kid is something most of us would find objectionable, but not actionable. Unless you can show damages it isn't likely to (and shouldn't) entitle you to a $1 million dollar cash prize.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

I think public figures should have the same recourse when referred to publicly as (*)(*)(*)(*)s, sluts, or (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) or when their son born with Down's syndrome is ridiculed in public as any private citizen would have. I do not think being a public figure should make you fair game for every nitwit on the planet.

Choosing to be a public figure means choosing to have the public consider and discuss you (and to a limited extend those around you). If you ask all of us to consider you, well some folks are going to voice opinions on your offer you don't like.

The difference between public discussion of Dan Quayle and Joe Citizen is that Dan Quayle started the conversation. By doing so Dan offered his consent to public scrutiny. Joe didn't.

Thank you, Taxpayer.

I think the system as it exists right now in the US is a pretty good one.

It's a pretty simple utilitarian concept: we say things to further our goals. The vast majority of these goals are completely prosaic and reflect our desire to respond to questions, or indicate we're hungry, or ask for directions, or give opinions on movies. But healthy people don't tend to speak randomly - we say things for a reason.

If you think of speech simply as a tool through which we attempt further our desires then the idea that speech has (or can have) consequences is obvious: there would be no point in saying anything, ever, if our words could not affect some kind of physical change in the world. So when I answer "yes" in response to your question "are you hungry" I'm doing so because I want to change the world from a place where you are unaware of my hunger level to one where you know I'm hungry. The vast majority of speech involves goals so prosaic it's not worth discussion but I think it's important to understand that speech doesn't fall into different categories of intent, and also to separate the speech itself from whatever consequences might arise once it's been spoken.

Let's say I have a cyanide pill and I put it on the kitchen table. Then I tell a small child that the pill on the table is delicious and he should try it, and a few minutes later the child is dead. I'm assuming everyone here would agree that I'm directly responsible for the child's death. Was I free to say what I did? Yes, in the metaphysical sense, because I said it clearly I was physically capable of doing so, and it was the result of my speech that produced the negative outcome and not the speech itself.

But this seems like splitting hairs. I'd quite rightly go to prison for the results of my speech, but what if I had made the suggestion and the child didn't eat the pill? Unless you're comfortable living in a world where only once certain negative consequences arise because of something said do we involve the courts.

The result is that there are broad categories of speech which are just listed as no-nos. Conspiring to commit felonies is a good example. Inciting a riot. Whatever category suggesting poison to a child would fall into. But even these are all argued for in court where things like intent are considered. Libel (well, defamation really, since libel is never spoken out loud) can be argued in court, and sometimes I agree with the guilty verdicts.

(an example: I run a food business and you start spreading a lie: my food causes cancer. The rumor, which is completely false, takes hold and my sales plummet. I would be able to successfully sue you for the infraction itself and the damages it caused.)

What I don't think is a good idea is expanding the list of things which you can't say at all. The current system, where consequences are assessed to see what, if any, damage took place is a better plan.

People should be free to say essentially whatever they want. And anybody can sue anybody else for whatever amount they like, but the disincentive is that it costs money to do this and without a good case a win is highly unlikely. To the poster above who thinks he should be able to sue Maher for a million bucks - you already can. If you can find a lawyer willing to take on a guaranteed loser of a case the net result will be you'll spend a lot of money and lose. But feel free to go for it if it's the principle that's important to you. Most people are more pragmatic and a lot less frivolous.

We should all be aware that our words have consequences, some unintended but for which we are responsible. Avoiding being locked up for something you said is as easy as avoiding being locked up for armed robbery - don't rob any banks and don't say things you know will cause the kind of harm people go to jail for. As for unintentional consequences of something said in good faith? That's what the courts are for, and that's why manslaughter is different than murder.

Taxpayer: "

"Choosing to be a public figure means choosing to have the public consider and discuss you (and to a limited extend those around you). If you ask all of us to consider you, well some folks are going to voice opinions on your offer you don't like."

And who decided that Governor Palin's son with Downs Syndrome was a "public figure" subject to ridicule?

Originally Posted by PatrickT

Taxpayer: "

"Choosing to be a public figure means choosing to have the public consider and discuss you (and to a limited extend those around you). If you ask all of us to consider you, well some folks are going to voice opinions on your offer you don't like."

And who decided that Governor Palin's son with Downs Syndrome was a "public figure" subject to ridicule?

The same people who decided it was fine to make smug remarks about Chelsea Clinton's apparent unattractiveness. None of it is good, but neither side can claim high moral ground on this issue. Personally I think remarks about Palin's child are sleazy and unnecessary, as were the ones about Clinton.

Palin herself is a public figure, and a divisive one, so I'm comfortable publicly saying that I'm not sure she's fully human. Also, she would have been good playing a nurse or something on the old Star Trek. And I wonder if she recognizes me from all the times I see her in my dreams, just sitting there naked, playing Jenga and listening to Die Antwoord. Probably not, because I'm usually hiding behind all the rabbits. Don't you love rabbits? I love rabbits.

It really felt good to get that off my chest. I feel safe here. Anyway....

I don't think there's any way to legislate this kind of childish, petty speech out of existence, and I do my best to make my disapproval heard regardless of whether I hear it from the left or the right.

Originally Posted by PatrickT

Taxpayer: "Choosing to be a public figure means choosing to have the public consider and discuss you (and to a limited extend those around you). If you ask all of us to consider you, well some folks are going to voice opinions on your offer you don't like." And who decided that Governor Palin's son with Downs Syndrome was a "public figure" subject to ridicule?

Sarah Palin? I don't approve of making fun of anyone because of a disorder or genetic condition. But when you ask to have the spot light shine on your life, well... it unavoidably brings attention to the folks who share your life. That attention isn't always favorable, fair, or even decent.