Do you unconditionally support Free Speech?

[KidsHappen]

As in the right of a person to say anything within the law as designed by the Framers even if you find it deeply offensive, as well as the right of others to voice opposition?

 

ETA: My answer and reasons. My answer was yes. I do unconditionally support the right to free speech as defined by the Constitution, no exceptions. Within the limits of the constitution, the people of America have the right to express themselves in any manner they wish, wherever they wish. I, in no way, want to see this right limited in any way. Now, we as a society have just as much right to voice voracious dissent but I do not believe that these rights should be limited by law or censored in any way. No matter how offensive your speech, I support your right to it. I also support the rights of other to diagree and even ask you to refrain from speeking in such a matter. I also appreciate people being nice and presenting themselves in a civil manner but I do not believe this should be regulated by law.

Edited January 8, 2009 by KidsHappen

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

As in the right of a person to say anything within the law as designed by the Framers even if you find it deeply offensive, as well as the right of others to voice opposition?

 

Not unconditionally. I believe location matters. I don't believe people should be allowed to use vulgar language around children. I don't believe anti-war protesters should be allowed anywhere near military funerals. I'm sure there are other examples I can't think of now but you catch my drift.

 

Otherwise, yes. Unconditionally, no.

 

Kristina

[Tracey in TX]

While I find Free Speech to be fundamental to our rights as U.S. citizens, I believe individuals or groups inciting violence should be allowed to be punished, perhaps sued by potential victims--maybe under a "Hate Crimes" law. We shouldn't tolerate hatred being taught from the bully pulpit. There must be some negative ramifications or we could find ourselves with a future Hitler promoting his own agenda.

[Tap]

No, I wouldn't want someone on my sidewalks in my neighborhood everyday trying to talk to my kids about joining the KKK, Aryan Nation, a child p*rn site, Satanic Worship, or a multitude of other things. Free speech as written has no exclusions about whether it is an appropriate topic for the audience.

 

I do believe in free speech and that people have a right to talk about whatever they want, whenever the want....but since others have to listen, who may not be so inclined...not wherever they want.

[LaxMom]

No. I do not support speech that has no other intent than to inflame. I support free speech, even opposing opinions that I find abhorrent, even in venues that are not appropriate; but not when the only purpose is to inflame or marginalize.

 

(I also support etiquette, so I would prefer that people put the comfort of others before themselves when speaking)

[Dayle in Guatemala]

I believe in free speech, even when I find it offensive. I also think that not all things are meant to be freely spoken of. In other words there are times when I think that in the interest of national security, public safety, or personal privacy there are things that shouldn't be openly and publicly spoken.

[KidsHappen]

There must be some negative ramifications or we could find ourselves with a future Hitler promoting his own agenda.

 

In other words there are times when I think that in the interest of national security, public safety, or personal privacy there are things that shouldn't be openly and publicly spoken.

 

I believe Hilter promoted his own agenda by stifeling free speech in the name of national security and personal safety. Hence my reluctance to in any way regulate it.

[beansprouts]

Not unconditionally. I believe location matters. I don't believe people should be allowed to use vulgar language around children. I don't believe anti-war protesters should be allowed anywhere near military funerals. I'm sure there are other examples I can't think of now but you catch my drift.

 

Otherwise, yes. Unconditionally, no.

 

Kristina

 

So do you think these things should be illegal?

[astrid]

So do you think these things should be illegal?

 

I think there are other laws, such as "creating a public disturbance" etc. that would come into play in cases such as hate-spewing protesters at military funerals or KKK members talking to your kids about joining up, right there on the sidewalk.

 

IMHO, when we seek to change the Constitution to fit the definition of what we consider "good taste" (for lack of a better term right now) we run a very grave risk of undermining all that we hold dear. It's a slippery slope, and as has been pointed out in the case of the Third Reich, if we set precedent for change, we may not like the change that follows.

 

However, I do want to point out that military funerals are not the only ones protested. I remember many incidents during the '80's and '90's where ultra-conservative Christian groups protested at the funerals of people who died of AIDS.

 

Astrid

[phathui5]

I don't think that the law designed by the Framers would have covered the kinds of things that people try to use it for today.

[Twinmom]

I'm generally in support of free speech, but I chose to vote no on the poll because I think a person needs to use good sense when exercising this right. One person's right to free speech is sometimes directly opposed to another person's right to live unmolested/abused/in the manner of their choosing. When this happens, I think the person should temporarily and voluntarily suspend their right to "speak" and place the needs of others above their own. I suppose I could have still answered "yes" on the poll because the person would not be giving up their right in these cases but rather voluntarily setting it aside. It's still a right...they are just choosing not to exercise it at that moment.

 

Kristina's examples of this are good ones...I can think of many others. Another way of looking at this might be the Bible passage about voluntarily suspending one's own rights (in this case, the right to eat food that another considers "unclean") for the sake of another. Makes sense to me.

 

Romans 14:19-21

 

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.

 

[KidsHappen]

I think there are other laws, such as "creating a public disturbance" etc. that would come into play in cases such as hate-spewing protesters at military funerals or KKK members talking to your kids about joining up, right there on the sidewalk.

 

IMHO, when we seek to change the Constitution to fit the definition of what we consider "good taste" (for lack of a better term right now) we run a very grave risk of undermining all that we hold dear. It's a slippery slope, and as has been pointed out in the case of the Third Reich, if we set precedent for change, we may not like the change that follows.

 

However, I do want to point out that military funerals are not the only ones protested. I remember many incidents during the '80's and '90's where ultra-conservative Christian groups protested at the funerals of people who died of AIDS.

 

Astrid

 

:iagree: I also believe that your good taste and mine (not you personally but and person in generel) may not be the same. I find the idea of PC police abhorent.

[dragons in the flower bed]

I believe Hilter promoted his own agenda by stifeling free speech in the name of national security and personal safety. Hence my reluctance to in any way regulate it.

 

You're arguing with a Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy, but I agree with the conclusion. I'm for free speech, even hate speech, even speech intended to incite violence, even despite being a radical pacifist myself. I agree with John Peter Zenger, who said, "No nation ancient or modern ever lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves," and Noam Chomsky, too: "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all."

 

As for protestors at a burial, that's a private ceremony. You may have them arrested them on trespassing grounds.

[joannqn]

I don't think that the law designed by the Framers would have covered the kinds of things that people try to use it for today.

 

:iagree:

 

I don't think they could have even dreamed that "freedom of speech" would be used today as it often is.

[astrid]

I don't think that the law designed by the Framers would have covered the kinds of things that people try to use it for today.

 

But it DOES cover those sorts of incidents, doesn't it? It's the same Constitutional right. Times have changed, that's true. However, I think sometimes we fail to realize that the early decades of our nation were no picnic, either. In my opinion, it's false to believe that Freedom of Speech is only abused in the present day, when one candidate calls another candidate a terrorist, or one whackjob gets his family to protest a military funeral with ugly slurs, on placards, or one group of skinheads parks outside a southern Baptist church and hurls racial slurs and threats while handing out leaflets to passers-by.

 

Lost in the annals of history are similar incidents that when viewed by their contemporaries, were just as off-putting.

 

JMHO, YMMV

astrid

[Tami]

I believe in free speech, even when I find it offensive. I also think that not all things are meant to be freely spoken of. In other words there are times when I think that in the interest of national security, public safety, or personal privacy there are things that shouldn't be openly and publicly spoken.

 

:iagree:

 

I am also questioning unconditional free press/free speech during war time. My question is, can a US war be won without propaganda and some censorship of the press? I always thought propaganda and censorship were purely evil, but if we are going to fight a war, isn't it in our national interest to fight to WIN? Or is unconditional free speech and free press a higher good even in war time? These are questions I have, and I am looking for patterns in history, particularly at WW I at the moment.

[astrid]

You're arguing with a Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy, but I agree with the conclusion. I'm for free speech, even hate speech, even speech intended to incite violence, even despite being a radical pacifist myself. I agree with John Peter Zenger, who said, "No nation ancient or modern ever lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves," and Noam Chomsky, too: "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all.".

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I couldn't agree more.

astrid

[PariSarah]

. . . legally prohibited speech (or speech acts), I believe that good social order requires restraint and civility. Even if we are reluctant to make some speech or speech acts illegal, we should recognize that speech or speech acts can be evil and/or immoral.

 

I have no problems with individuals and groups prohibiting truly evil speech or speech acts by reasonable and legitimate means at their disposal. U. S. law names some categories of speech that do not enjoy the protection of free speech; it disincentivizes others by removing financial privileges from those who engage in them (non-profits losing their tax exempt status for engaging in political speech, e.g.). I don't agree with U. S. law on every point, and would have different speech-restriction laws in The Kingdom of PariSarah, but I agree with the principle that the freedom to speak is not and should not be absolute.

[Tami]

No, I wouldn't want someone on my sidewalks in my neighborhood everyday trying to talk to my kids about joining the KKK, Aryan Nation, a child p*rn site, Satanic Worship, or a multitude of other things. Free speech as written has no exclusions about whether it is an appropriate topic for the audience.

 

I do believe in free speech and that people have a right to talk about whatever they want, whenever the want....but since others have to listen, who may not be so inclined...not wherever they want.

 

The sidewalk is a public place. Do you believe that Christians should also be censored from inviting people to church by going door to door, as happens when new churches open in neighborhoods? If I find ice cream offensive on the grounds that I am a vegan, does that mean that the ice cream man should be arrested because I am offended? What about if my neighbor's political signs offend me? Free speech has to include offensive speech, or it is not FREE speech. Since when do we have a constitutional right not to be offended?

 

Child Por* is obscene and illegal, and free speech does not cover obscenity, so it's really in a different category than the others.

 

Interesting thread - and I am surprised at some of the answers!

[Colleen]

Yes, I support unconditional free speech. The varied opinions as to what is or isn't offensive makes it nary impossible to place parameters around what is "acceptable". As well, we often choose to give volumes of undeserved attention to the speech that most often offends. It is our choice and responsbility to turn off and tune out that which we deem unworthy ~ or to engage with the speakers in a meaningful way, if we believe doing so can make a positive difference.

[KidsHappen]

You're arguing with a Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy, but I agree with the conclusion. I'm for free speech, even hate speech, even speech intended to incite violence, even despite being a radical pacifist myself. I agree with John Peter Zenger, who said, "No nation ancient or modern ever lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves," and Noam Chomsky, too: "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all."

 

As for protestors at a burial, that's a private ceremony. You may have them arrested them on trespassing grounds.

 

I responding, off the cuff, to the previous assertions regarding Hitler. Since I have never heard this term before I will have to study it and consider it more carefully. Thank you for pointing it out. :)

[KidsHappen]

You're arguing with a Reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy, but I agree with the conclusion. I'm for free speech, even hate speech, even speech intended to incite violence, even despite being a radical pacifist myself. I agree with John Peter Zenger, who said, "No nation ancient or modern ever lost the liberty of freely speaking, writing, or publishing their sentiments, but forthwith lost their liberty in general and became slaves," and Noam Chomsky, too: "If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all."

 

As for protestors at a burial, that's a private ceremony. You may have them arrested them on trespassing grounds.

 

 

Ok, after reading that article I have come to the conclusion that that was not the arguement I was making. As stated earlier, I believe that banning Free Speech is in itself a bad thing and counter to the previous poster, I would use Hilter as an example of how this could lead to bad consequences. I was not trying to argue that banning Free Speech is bad because Hilter did it. If I could have worded it better to convey thit idea, could you please give me an example of how? Not trying to be snarky but to honestly learn from my mistakes. I appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

So do you think these things should be illegal?

 

Yes, I do. For the record, I am not the least bit bothered by anti-war protests, even though I'm the wife, daughter, and granddaughter of soldiers. However, I feel that the people who protest at funerals of individual soldiers have crossed way over the line. I think protests at funerals are tantamount to slander of the deceased.

 

As for using vulgar language around kids, just imagine unbridled foul language in schools, on neighborhood playgrounds, on the teacup ride at Disneyworld, etc. without being stopped. So my counter question would be do you think that should be legal? Tami pointed out that there are already restrictions on obscenity. Given that most people consider foul language too obscene for children, it's not too far flung to put restrictions on using it around children.

 

Again, for me, these two issues ultimately come down to location. Curse until your tongue catches fire in your own digs but not around my kiddos. Organize a giant war protest and burn flags until the cows come home but do not line the streets and block the cemetery gates to a funeral procession of a single American soldier you've never met, whose intentions and political views you never even knew.

 

Also, I'm sure it's not authentic legal speak but I tend to believe in the idea that one person's rights end where another person's begin. To me, this is the trickiest of all American rights--too many if ___, then ____ situations. That's why I'm not a Supreme Court Justice...ok, one of many reasons. :)

 

Kristina

 

ETA: It's been a while since I actually read the Bill of Rights.

 

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.

 

Pairing that with the definition of abridge:

 

a·bridge (-brj)

tr.v. a·bridged, a·bridg·ing, a·bridg·es 1. To reduce the length of (a written text); condense.

2. To cut short; curtail. See Synonyms at shorten.

 

 

I think my argument may well hold water! Location...and permits, of course. :D

Edited January 8, 2009 by Alte Veste Academy

[Haiku]

Yes, I do, mainly because I deeply cherish my right to vigorously, loudly, and publicly disagree with certain ideas.

 

Tara

[Kris]

I absolutely, unconditionally support the right of free speech. I also absolutely, unconditionally support my right to plug my ears and cover my eyes. "They" have the right to say whatever they like and I have the right not to listen to it.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

ETA: My answer and reasons. My answer was yes. I do unconditionally support the right to free speech as defined by the Constitution, no exceptions. Within the limits of the constitution, the people of America have the right to express themselves in any manner they wish, wherever they wish.

 

Hmmm. I so do not read that little piece of the Constitution the same way. I guess the forefathers' deliberate ambiguity is one of our nation's biggest blessings and largest conundrums all at the same time.

 

Kristina

[Michelle in MO]

for time right now, but I made a few observations on this topic over on the Draconian Homeschoolers social group. To summarize my thoughts, I believe we have the right to free speech and the duty to exercise civility. I don't believe the Constitution was framed to protect only rights without regards to the duties of its citizens to behave decently. Here are some of my thoughts from earlier:

 

Because we have rights does not mean that those rights are or should be exercised without restraint. The desire to protect our individual rights does not preclude the necessity to exercise self-restraint. We have a yard and may possess the right to do with it whatever we want---within the bounds of decency as prescribed by our property owner's association, as long as their covenants and restrictions are not burdensome (which they're not). Free speech is a right, unless an individual makes threats against someone else or yells "Fire!" in a movie theater. We have rights, but those rights can fall under the constraints of a greater good.

 

Hammering out the definitions and limits of rights has become fodder for the legal system, courts, and the local, state, and federal governments, and will probably be a never-ending discussion.

 

When I was a student at the University of Minnesota, the student newspaper published an "interview" with Jesus. The interview clearly mocked Jesus: Jesus was swearing, calling his mother a wh*re, etc., etc. (Let your imagination run, because the interview did.) The interview took up at least a full page, if not a two-page spread in the daily paper. Even though the U of M is a secular university, this interview caused a huge uproar among people of many faiths---not just Christians, but Jews and Muslims as well, because of the shared commonality of all three faiths--and believe me, the outcry was as large among Jews and Muslims as it was among Christians. The board of regents brought a lawsuit against the student newspaper, stating essentially that they had no right to print this interview. The university and newspaper was state-funded, of course, from taxpayer money. Among these taxpayers would be Christians, Muslims, and Jews. So, did the student newspaper have the right to print this interview? I don't remember what their defense was, but they lost on the first round. The penalty was that that portion of the student fees which contributed to the daily newspaper was not to be required as part of the tuition; if a student objected to that fee being contributed to the newspaper, that part of their student fees was reimbursed. This had a minimal effect upon the newspaper, because although the outcry was huge, few students took advantage of this reimbursement of their fees. The student newspaper appealed to a higher court in Minnesota and won their case against the board of regents.

 

Ridiculous newspapers like National Enquirer and other "rags" can print almost anything they want, and often win in lawsuits. I can't think of the name of the law/tort (I'll ask my dh), but there is a defense of free speech for these types of publications. In other words, if the allegations are ridiculous to the extreme (i.e., "Astronomers see Elvis walking on Mars"), then the publication is safe. I cannot remember the defense the U of M used, but they won on appeal. My own minor protest was to request for my fees (a whopping $1.64 or something like that, back then) to be reimbursed---because I thought the interview so offensive. The student newspaper was published by the journalism students, who presumably were eventually going to be looking for responsible jobs as responsible journalists. This wasn't responsible journalism---or was it journalism like the National Enquirer and thereby defensible? I can read "The Onion" and understand that it's a complete spoof. Was this student newspaper an example of the same thing, or did it trample upon good sense and the rights of others? The daily student newspaper typically printed local/university news stories, but also world and state news as well. This was a fall "inaugural" issue, which didn't follow the normal format.

 

I have the "right" to say whatever I want on these forums---within the boundaries of the rules prescribed by SWB and the moderators. Do I say whatever I want? No---I should (and I think everyone should) always try to maintain civil discourse, on behalf of the broad perspectives represented by these forums.

 

So---this right of free speech is still hammered back and forth.

[KidsHappen]

But it DOES cover those sorts of incidents, doesn't it? It's the same Constitutional right. Times have changed, that's true. However, I think sometimes we fail to realize that the early decades of our nation were no picnic, either. In my opinion, it's false to believe that Freedom of Speech is only abused in the present day, when one candidate calls another candidate a terrorist, or one whackjob gets his family to protest a military funeral with ugly slurs, on placards, or one group of skinheads parks outside a southern Baptist church and hurls racial slurs and threats while handing out leaflets to passers-by.

 

Lost in the annals of history are similar incidents that when viewed by their contemporaries, were just as off-putting.

 

JMHO, YMMV

astrid

 

Once again, :iagree:. Many people seem to forget that the Framers faced charges of sedition and treason and risked their lives to speak out against the government in a time of war. They quite obviously endangered public safety and the national security (the nation belonging to England at the time) by doing so.

[beansprouts]

As for using vulgar language around kids, just imagine unbridled foul language in schools, on neighborhood playgrounds, on the teacup ride at Disneyworld, etc. without being stopped. So my counter question would be do you think that should be legal? Tami pointed out that there are already restrictions on obscenity. Given that most people consider foul language too obscene for children, it's not too far flung to put restrictions on using it around children.

 

I agree in principle, but I think we have too many laws as it is. I can just see myself arrested for slipping a "D***" in front of my kids...

[DB in NJ]

I do not support hate speech, including protesters at military funerals, or any racial, sexist, violent threat-type remarks.

 

I do not support your right to free speech when you scream FIRE in a crowded movie theater. (which is illegal, btw, and not covered under the constitutional right to free speech).

 

I support every Americans right to voice disagreement, dissent, and opinion. I'm thankful to live in a country where I am just as free to voice my opinions of the incoming administration as people were to voice theirs of the outgoing one :D And to think, in some countries, such opinions once voiced could land you in jail or worse!

[beansprouts]

I do not support hate speech, including protesters at military funerals, or any racial, sexist, violent threat-type remarks.

 

In Canada parts of the Bible are considered "Hate Speech".

[dragons in the flower bed]

Not trying to be snarky but to honestly learn from my mistakes. I appreciate your opinion on this. Thanks.

 

Me neither. :) It was "hence" that threw me off. I thought you were using it in it's first definition according to American Heritage, "for this reason," or "as a consequence."

 

To address another poster, I agree that we have a right to free speech and a duty to civility.

[KidsHappen]

Me neither. :) It was "hence" that threw me off. I thought you were using it in it's first definition according to American Heritage, "for this reason," or "as a consequence."

 

To address another poster, I agree that we have a right to free speech and a duty to civility.

 

Ok, thanks. :)

[Spy Car]

In Canada parts of the Bible are considered "Hate Speech".

 

There goes talking about Canadian politics :D

[beansprouts]

There goes talking about Canadian politics :D

 

 

The Canadians will be so proud!! :lol:

[WTMindy]

Around me, sure. Around my children. No!!

[beansprouts]

I think we should add spammers to the list.:D

[Jugglin'5]

Yes, I support free speech, even deeply offensive speech; with the obligatory exceptions for shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, pornography, and obscenity in certain venues.

[lionfamily1999]

. . . legally prohibited speech (or speech acts), I believe that good social order requires restraint and civility. Even if we are reluctant to make some speech or speech acts illegal, we should recognize that speech or speech acts can be evil and/or immoral.

.

We can recognize that relative to the listener, speech can be considered evil/immoral. The problem is, who gets to decide?

 

The beauty is, the framers saw this is issue and countered it with blanket protection. IOW, speech is free. Public speech, when it falls within the parameters of local and state laws, is not to be hindered. The parameters set to protect other citizens from suffering any loss of personal rights, are making libel and slander.

 

Children were not always looked upon as things to be protected, more as property. So, there was no concern that little pitchers with big ears might pick up a slogan or two.

I think protests at funerals are tantamount to slander of the deceased.

 

As for using vulgar language around kids, just imagine unbridled foul language in schools, on neighborhood playgrounds, on the teacup ride at Disneyworld, etc. without being stopped. So my counter question would be do you think that should be legal?

 

Again, for me, these two issues ultimately come down to location.

 

Organize a giant war protest and burn flags until the cows come home but do not line the streets and block the cemetery gates to a funeral procession of a single American soldier you've never met, whose intentions and political views you never even knew.

 

Also, I'm sure it's not authentic legal speak but I tend to believe in the idea that one person's rights end where another person's begin.

:D

I think the protestors chants could be construed as slander, if what they were saying was slanderous. Otherwise, it's not slander. It's wrong, immoral, disgusting and steps well outside the bounds of decency, but still protected by the Constitution. Why? Well, because most funeral protests do not revolve around the dead, but around an issue the protestors want raised to the forefront. Is it wrong to use a dead person as a pulpit? I believe so, but then, I'm sure there are many that would disagree. What about anti-war protestors? That mom, forever ago, that protested at her own son's funeral? Should that be illegal? It was her son, her baby, in that coffin.

 

As for the counter question, free speech can be stymied once one is on private grounds. It can also be hindered by the entering of a public building, if that building has rules in place. Can you wail in court? Beat your chest, jump like a monkey and bray like a mule? Sure, if you want to be held in contempt. Inside somewhere its different. The rules change.

 

Our rights do stop at the point of enfringing upon the rights of others and that is where the line should stay. Location is always important. Inside vs. outside, public vs. private, etc.

I agree in principle, but I think we have too many laws as it is. I can just see myself arrested for slipping a "D***" in front of my kids...

Which is why I LOVE blanket rights and abhor blanket laws.

 

Let's protect the kids, oh I know! We'll make a law that says that every single toy MUST be tested before it can be sold to kids. That's a great law, woohoo, save the children, yeehaw, jump on the band wagon!

 

Oh... sorry OP Shop. Sorry, small businesses... sorry Ebayer... sorry parents that just wanted to get a little something for the kids... sorry kids... no toys for you!

[DB in NJ]

In Canada parts of the Bible are considered "Hate Speech".

 

Yes, I've heard that. Abominable imnsho.

[Laura Corin]

I don't think that people should incite others to violence. I think, for example, that the people who broadcast messages on Rwandan radio specifically telling others to slaughter those of a different ethnic group should be prosecuted.

 

I do think that debate should be robust, however: I'd rather not hear someone say that they don't like (whatever group) because they are a different colour/immoral/unpatriotic, etc., but I don't think that the expression of such views should be illegal.

 

Laura

[Danestress]

I think the law should provide a civil action against those who slander you. I think that threats of violence should be illegal. I am fine with reasonable restrictions such as these.

 

Your question is confusing because you asked if we believe in total free speech "within the law." But I am assuming you are really asking whether we think there should be any laws restricting speech.

 

As for whether newspapers, online forums, Dads at the dinner table, and country clubs (just as examples) should be allowed to restrict speech, sure. The constitution guarantee of free speech is relative to the government. I'm free to say that you don't have a right to say whatever you want in my home:) It may not be illegal. THe government isn't going to inforce it, but I have a right to restrict speech.

[KidsHappen]

I think the law should provide a civil action against those who slander you. I think that threats of violence should be illegal. I am fine with reasonable restrictions such as these.

 

Your question is confusing because you asked if we believe in total free speech "within the law." But I am assuming you are really asking whether we think there should be any laws restricting speech.

 

As for whether newspapers, online forums, Dads at the dinner table, and country clubs (just as examples) should be allowed to restrict speech, sure. The constitution guarantee of free speech is relative to the government. I'm free to say that you don't have a right to say whatever you want in my home:) It may not be illegal. THe government isn't going to inforce it, but I have a right to restrict speech.

 

Ok, in looking back over my OP I realize that I made myself clear in the question but not my answer. I am not arguing that there should be no laws restricting speech. I do support the exceptions already in place as listed in the following wiki article:

 

Special exceptions

 

Obscenity, defined by the Miller test by applying contemporary community standards, is one exception. It is speech to which all of the following apply: appeals to the prurient interest, depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (This is usually applied to more hard-core forms of pornography.)

 

Fighting words are words or phrases that are likely to induce the listener to get in a fight. This previously applied to words like nigger, but with people getting less sensitive to words, this exception is little-used. Restrictions on hate speech have been generally overturned by the courts; such speech cannot be targeted for its content but may be targeted in other ways, if it involves speech beyond the First Amendment's protection like incitement to immediate violence or defamation.

 

Speech that presents imminent lawless action was originally banned under the clear and present danger test established by Schenck v. United States, but this test has since beeen replaced by the imminent lawless action test established in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The canonical example, enunciated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, is falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater. The trend since Holmes's time has been to restrict the clear and present danger exception to apply to speech which is completely apolitical in content.

 

Restrictions on commercial speech, defined as speech mainly in furtherance of selling a product, is subject to a lower level of scrutiny than other speech, although recently the court has taken steps to bring it closer to parity with other speech. This is why the government can ban advertisements for cigarettes and false information on corporate prospectuses (which try to sell stock in a company).

 

Limits placed on libel and slander have been upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court narrowed the definition of libel with the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell made famous in the movie The People vs. Larry Flynt.

 

And actually I am not terribly sure about #s 1, 4 & 5 but I am willing to abide by it as it is already law. I also support the rights of people to restrict speech within their personal space or space that they own (living rooms, websites and so on). I do not support any restrictions not already covered by law in a public space nor do I support any additional laws being passed futher restricting Free Speech. Sorry if I did not make myself clear before.

Edited January 8, 2009 by KidsHappen

[Heather in the Kootenays]

In Canada parts of the Bible are considered "Hate Speech".

 

I've never heard that.

[Barb_]

:iagree:

 

I don't think they could have even dreamed that "freedom of speech" would be used today as it often is.

 

Oh, yes they could have. Our generation didn't invent public impropriety, vugarity, or hate-filled speech.

 

Barb

Edited January 8, 2009 by Barb F. PA in AZ

[Desert Rat]

Yes. Always yes. Even the speech that I find distasteful and disgusting. I think that once one hands over the decision to limit speech to a governing body, one has already lost. Give them an inch and they take a mile. JMHO.