What really is free speech/free expression?

[HardWorkingDem]

After events of the last couple of days, I've really been pondering this question.

To those here, what do you consider free speech and expression?

Are there limits? And to have totally free speech and free expression can their be limits?

For example, what is this concept as to when it comes racial, gender or sexual orientation comments events.

I am familiar with the yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and that sort of thing, but what else?

You almost can't throw down a blanket "if it doesn't hurt anyone" because that would then limit the speech of many who spout off hurtful comments. So can it only be a physical hurt or mental as well?

Just curious.

[rinsd]

1. Free speech to me

Basically as ruled by the Supreme. General panic and encouragement of violence are not protected.

Everything else is protected. That includes hate speech that does not advocate violence.

[Skinner]

2. I fail to see what is so confusing about this concept.

Free speech = Say whatever the heck you want and the government can't punish you for it. Narrow exceptions to free speech include things that have a clear intent to cause immediate harm (like deliberately yelling fire in a crowded theater when you know there is no fire), but other than that you are pretty much free to say whatever you like.

Printing pictures of Mohammed with a bomb on his head or whatever the heck it was are covered by free speech. So are all other types of offensive or distateful speech. Free speech is not free if only non-offensive speech is protected.

[bloom]

3. I think it makes sense

to have limits about people" joking" about violence, for instance.

Things like this can and should be considered harassment IMO ->

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/02/and-people-ask-why-im-feminist.html



Other things that are designed to incite violence would be similar. I don't agree that there are no limits. I can see why saying there are no limits is easier legislate.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I think everyone would agree that

telling lies about someone or something should not be covered under free speech. Examples would be someone saying a certain person had committed a crime when that person knew for sure it was done by someone else. Another example are lies made by people at Enron. I would also include in this comments made by people that are refuted by history or science, ie the Holocost never happened or that the Earth was created 6000 years ago.


I also think that people would agree that hate speech should not be covered, at least when it is used to stir up violence or anger. Of course a lot of times, this type of speech also falls under the catagory of lying, but not always-sometimes it's merely an opinion. I think everyone would agree that a tirade by a KKK klavern suggesting murder/mayhem upon a minority should be illegal, especially if it includes an address and a suggestion that "something should be done".

That being said, I think most everything else should be ok. I appreciate it when someone who disagrees with me can make their argument while showing respect for me, and I hope when I make an argument, I grant that person the same courtesy.

[rinsd]

8. "made by people that are refuted by history or science"

Does that mean I can tell communists to just give it up already? :evilgrin:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. except in Cuba eom

[bloom]

11. I don't think we could legislate

people out of saying the world is only 6000 years old.

I think there should be laws preventing the government from stifling the speech of scientists and adding rubbish to their reports.


The violence thing is tricky. It seems that more attention is paid to people who say they would like to blow up a courthouse, for instance, then people who say they would like to commit violence against a group - even if it a specific group. People can vary quite a bit in how seriously they consider stated threats - and about actions that should be taken.

It also seems to me that there is quite a difference when you have a threat against a minority and someone calling on the majority to oppress them - than if the majority group is criticized.

Like it's not as much of a threat - to think of the minority joining together against a majority power. Of course - then you have the majority power - like we do in this country - and if there is a perceived threat to themselves - like when they know people are getting together in peace groups (as if THAT is a threat!!!) - they have the small group infiltrated and/or wiretapped - or whatever they want. It becomes not a matter so much about what is "Legal" as what a group (the FBI /NSA) can get away with.

And how free is our speech anyway - with the FBI wiretapping people like MLK and trying to use their stuff to encourage him to commit suicide - mostly because he was such a good speaker - and people were listening to him (and that this could happen today) ->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=360625&mesg_id=360625

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Armstead]

6. George Will actually defined it pretty well

ON ABC's This Week, george Will, a diehard conservative, said Freedom of Speech also means the freedom to be offended.

Good description, because truly free speech is not going to be acceptable to everyone. But when you try to prevent the speech that is unpopular -- either through intimidation or legal means -- that is contrary to its basic purpose.

Will is usually obnoxious, and it was easier for him to say this because they were talking about Muslims. But that is a pretty good definition.

[Igel]

7. Free expression is the right to say anything

you damned well please when you want to say it, and the government has nothing to say about it. It also implies that since you're free not to speak, your words are your responsibility.

It's a sort of ideal. It's constrained by how you rank other rights, since they all have to fit together in some predictable way. Preserving one right might require limiting another's application in a given situation. Exactly where these rights pick up and leave off can be messy, and slippery slopes abound, tempered only by sanity and common sense.

I clearly have a right not to be attacked, or to have somebody intentionally mislead into dangerous situations. I clearly have a right to speak my mind, and engage in potentially repugnant speech: to defend a woman's right to an abortion is repugnant to some. Saying "Allahu akbar" is repugnant to others, as is "Christ is King" or "God is dead". Do I have a right not to have certain words uttered in my presence, or for my eyes to be spared a certain image if the only reason is to prevent my being offended? There are harder debates, of course: Should I be able to raise my child with the moral sense I find appropriate, or should sex acts and wanton violence be shown in movies and on tv? My wife didn't mind some portions of tv shows and movies until she became a mother; suddenly she stopped worrying about the broadcasters' rights and focused on child rearing. The courts face the same tussle: creating a reasonable society for raising kids is in society's interests, since those kids will be adults fairly soon.

We typically place freedom of speech below physical violence, and above freedom from offence. We have traditionally valued tolerance, and spirited debate: as I've said before, if we're free from offence, we're also free from demonstrating tolerance, and free from diversity of opinion. It's gotten a bit fuzzy when race or sexual orientation is placed in a privileged position, because those are Topics that Must Not Be Named, for various reasons.

At the same time, since we have a right not to speak, we can also show civility and if not respect, at least courtesy. Few need to show sex acts on tv or in movies, to call out racially charged epithets, or to say "Christ is King" in a room full of Jews or Muslims, or "Allah is greatest" in a room full of Xians. And a backlash is appropriate if gratuituous incivility is shown.

[HardWorkingDem]

9. For myself,

all of the nasty things in free speech/free expression are covered - racial, gender, sexual epithets and so on as long as they do not encourage or cause violence, or someone to be harmed (outing of covert agents et cetera).

But the thing that really concerns me is the chilling effect upon speech and expression, that to me, is much more damaging. What concerns me more is when people censor themselves out of fear of how others will act or react. Take the Dixie Chicks for an example.

To me, the practice of true free speech and free expression is when people are complete fearless to say and think what they think.