Beenthere, you have no point. According to you, I'm free to murder you if I'm willing to accept the consequences. I'm free to rape and pillage if I'm willing to accept the concequences. That is not freedom at all. You are free to say the President is a fool if you're willing to go to prison for twenty years. That's patently stupid, Beenthere. "The government shall pass no laws...abridging...." It's not a difficult sentence. It's not a difficult concept. It's simply a concept that statists, usually on the left, can't accept.
There should be no restrictions on speech. Unless your directly slandering someone it's inexcusable for government to be censoring media and opinion. Hate speech is often restricted on television and radio in this country but whats the point? If you want to access hateful information visit the internet. People in my country are whinging about the Australian Parties anti-gay adverts that recently came out. Saying it's homophobic and inappropriate. Well why is that reason to restrict it? If it's offensive to the majority then it will just obscure and cast that political party into nothingness. Letting idiots not look like idiots is insane. How are we supposed to vote for politicians when they can't expose there real political opinion? It's driving Australian politics in a direction when it should be free and open and left to it's own devices. Censorship is stupid!
But you can't prove that. But it still inflicts psychological harm, does it not? And if that's your standard... well. . How about all the people who work for the company and who depend on it for a paycheck? Gay men still contract AIDS at a higher rate than the general population. Therefore male homosexual sex is more dangerous than heterosexual sex. True, not fake. Can I say this and be OK under your reasonable limits?
This forum is private property. The owners are under no obligation to allow you to post whatever you like. In fact, you are the one who is obliged to comply with the forum's TOS in order to utilize this private property. Now if the government stepped in and told the owners of this forum that they must censor the naughty words? There's your infringement.
You are right. Free speech means the government can not restrict your expression. But there are almost always consequences to our deeds and words. Exactly. Unless you own a radio or television station. Then the government may apparently trample all over your free speech rights! 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. They've all hated it. Are there any limits in your view?
Technically, you are. I mean unless he or someone else can stop you. And then yes, there most certainly will be consequences. The difference here is that the consequences of speech (which is not the same as murder) come from the "social contract" and not from the government. The consequences of murder will come from both society and government and in the case of the latter, my hope is it will be swift and severe. You are not going to prison for even 20 minutes for doing that. What are you smoking and can I have some? There are plenty of statists on the right who also struggle with the concept. Not to put too fine a point on it.
You can say the president is a fool all day long and not go to jail. You murder someone and you might fry. Your the one that made the choice to do it, exercising your "freedom of speech" with action. The choices are yours. But to think there are no consequences for your actions is what is stupid. You seem to think that freedom is a license to say or do anything you take a notion to do at the moment. The Constitution was in effect 120 years ago also but if you steped on someones toes very hard you just might die in a gun battle. As I said, your free to do any thing you want to as long as your willing to except the concequenes. There are 7 words you can't say on the radio. Does this curtail their freedom of speech? As I said, a lot of people want to take their "Feedoms" as a license.
Do I think there are legitimate government imposed restrictions on free speech? No. Do I think people can be held criminally responsible for the reasonable results of their speech? Yes.
I appreciate the sentiment that you are expressing, it demonstrates the balance between freedom with personal responsibility and safety with responsible governance. But I have concerns about a law enforcement agency that does nothing to prevent criminal behavior when it can. I would expect a law enforcement agent to act to prevent a murder when possible, not just stand impotent awaiting to arrest the criminal when the act is complete. Whether you are destroying someone's child or their business, it doesn't seem reasonable to allow criminal action to continue in the name of freedom and only offer prosecution and possible compensation after the crime is allowed to do it's damage.
I do think there's a difference between free speech and harassment/defamation; I don't think this should apply to public figures who have put themselves in that position, but if someone makes a facebook page and is rich enough to spend boo coos of cash on advertising it, that is dedicated to embarrassing/insulting some non-public, private individual or their personal affairs, that is harassment/defamation and criminal. Not that there should be Draconian punishments for it, but it is criminal IMO.
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.
They chose to become a public figure. The main thing is though, I don't want people having an unnecessary burdensome worry in their life, that they might get prosecuted for making fun of Paris Hilton on a facebook wall post.
Oh, right. Same logic as, "she chose to wear that short skirt, didn't she?" Or, even better, "Well, she wasn't wearing a short skirt but her mother was." I know it's a shock, Deathstar, but laws aren't just to protect liberals. 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." Apparently the federal government is good with that. I don't want people have the unnecessary burden of supporting deadbeats. Do you care? I didn't think so. So, I'm sure you won't midn if I don't sweat the unneccesary burden of not trashing Paris Hilton.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
If you limit free speech then you don't have free speech. Who will decide who's feelings are hurt? How will it demonstrably be proved? Who decides how much hurt is actionable? Who decides what can or cannot be said based on any protected group? How about unprotected groups? Can children sue their parents for hurting their feelings? - - - Updated - - - Free speech allows hate speech. Inciting riots is actionable because of physical damage to others body or property.
