Does Anybody Here Remember That Free Speech Has Limits ???

[WillyT]

The test Justice Oliver Holmes used, and was coined by him, was "Shouting Fire In A Crowded Theater".

The theory being that to do so could cause panic, and people might get injured or killed in an ensuing stampede for the door. With that, and other examples, limits have been encoded to sculpt the First Amendment.

Another of those limits is... INCITING TO RIOT!!!

Just askin...

:shrug:

BTW - Cool Wikipedia article on Free Speech: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech

[catnhatnh]

1. And this relates to??? N/T

[WillyT]

2. Free Speech, And It's Limits...

:rofl:

[catnhatnh]

6. Since you are so forthcoming...

I am cognizant of the decision and the "fire in a crowded theater" rhetoric.I am also aware that inciting to riot is a crime.I guess I am merely confused as to why I should find this germane to anything posted on the board...Or is this simply an addled stroll down memory lane???

[ButterflyBlood]

3. I agree, but this depends on the point you are trying to make

If you are implying that the Mohammed cartoons are not covered by free speech, I do not agree. It's not the cartoonists' fault that lots of Muslims couldn't handle them in a mature manner and had to go riot over them. Making fun of someone is not incitement to riot.

Now if you agree that the radical clerics and Muslim leaders calling for more rioting and more 9/11 attacks and all that are not covered by free speech, than I agree.

[Bjornsdotter]

4. Did someone shout fire? n/t

[strategery blunder]

5. That analogy had nothing to do with the facts of the case

that Justice Oliver Holmes submitted his opinion on.

The phrase originated from the SCOTUS decision on Schenck v. United States, a case involving the right to protest a war by circulating antidraft flyers. The "shouting fire in a theater" is a false analogy in regards to the case.

[BrotherBuzz]

7. Free speech also comes with responsibility, no?

[WillyT]

8. Correct-O-Mundo Bro Buzz !!!

All the liberals now angry at the Muslims too.

GWB's wet dream comin true.

:shrug:

[BrotherBuzz]

11. Dammit, I refuse to play GWB's game - he cheats!

As my pappy used to say, "Son, the best time to get lucky is when the other man's dealin'."

[meow2u3]

9. Free speech doesn't include slander and/or libel

Unless, of course, you're a right-wing repuke who smears Democrats for a living

[WillyT]

10. Also Correct !!!

:hi:

[T Town Jake]

12. Your post is inciting me to riot...

...have it locked immediately.

:sarcasm:

[ButterflyBlood]

14. Let's shut down the whole site

It might anger some stupid Freeper and get him to start rioting.

[BushOut06]

13. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that

Actually inciting to riot - getting up on a podium and telling people to riot is one thing. Publishing a cartoon in a newspaper? It might be distasteful - but even then, most of the cartoons I've seen have been targeting the extremist terrorists, not Islam in general.

Using that logic, BushCo could ban all protests and demonstrations in this country, because of the potential for rioting. They could point back at a few demonstrations that have gotten out of hand and use that as their justification. They could concievably use the "inciting to riot" to ban ANY speech they find objectionable.

[WillyT]

16. Now Let's Just Let That Sink In For A Moment, Shall We ???

You said... "Using that logic, BushCo could ban all protests and demonstrations in this country, because of the potential for rioting. They could point back at a few demonstrations that have gotten out of hand and use that as their justification. They could concievably use the "inciting to riot" to ban ANY speech they find objectionable."

Um... YEAH!!!

That train's a comin down the tracks. Be here shortly.

:evilfrown:

[rwenos]

15. Advocacy of Imminent Lawless Action

As I recall it, the key limiter is the "imminent" part. I can recall reading a case where a rock stars (I think it was Peppy Marchello) said something at a concertlike "Let's tear the system down. We'll take to the streets later." No advocacy of imminent lawless action, so no incitement to riot.

I think the bright line swings on "imminence."

[T_Matamoro]

17. You sound like a repub!

HI! first time poster and my first post!:hippie: I had heard about this board but only visited a few times. I have spent a lot of time this week at "danger of Jihad" websites because of this cartoon thang. What you get is 1/3 are smart people, 1/3 are rabid genocidal "kill all Muslims" maniacs and 1/3 are trolling Mulims who say things like "your children will be Muslims" or "you will all die in Bomb" (theier english aint too good! :)) Anyhew, A lot of the "neo-con" types were saying that liberals were siding with the terrorists on this one. I said NO! we know the threat to freedom as much as they (reactionaries) do. He said i should come here to see that they are in fact against America and freedom of speech. So here i am! Aftre a quick scan of GD ican see that the reation is mixed, which is really a relief to me. I thought it would be all non-sense and fooloshness. So onto this particular post, willyt you sound like a repub! Whenever I saw things posted in papers like "piss christ" or something offensive the first thing Fundamentalists and wingnuts say is "we have freedom of the press but also responsability" you know their whole "personal responsability" rap! Any time someone is offended they can claim the paper was acting irresponsably and callous. ANYONE can claim that something is incitement to riot (even if it is not). Anyone offended can choose to riot! so does that mean all "offensive" cartoons are off limits?? I hope not! As to this "yelling in the theatre" thing, it is totally off base. Our words have more than one meaning sometimes. When the FF wrote "the freedom of speech"....they were NOT making a reference to the human vocal cords! meaning that your "vocalisation" of your mouth (human speaking) cannot be oppressed by the state. When they said "speech" they meant POLITCAL EXPRESSION and not nessarily a human voice. the word "fire!" is not political expression. Weather a cartoon, or a letter or art piece (piss christ), or whatever. Besides a cartoon without words cannot in anyway convey the message "go and riot". To top it off is the geo-political analysis. IF the west does not publish these cartoons NOT because they are "sensitive to Muslims" but rather they are just afraid of being killed then we have lost a basic freedom through terroristic threats! SHould people in other countries tell us how to live our lives? well as you can see by my first post that i am a long winded big mouth. :) layta.

[rman]

18. Those silly europeans didn't know - now they gonna make a new law

for it.


EU mulls media code after cartoon protests

LONDON (Reuters) - The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday.

In an interview with Britain's Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show "prudence" when covering religion.

"The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression," he told the newspaper. "We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right."

The cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper last September before being reprinted across Europe, sparked a wave of protests around the world.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060209/wl_nm/religion_cartoons_eu_dc;_ylt=AsTMD2MhnQg9wn26uaoBPooUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NTMzazIyBHNlYwMxNjk2www.dcscripts.com

[T_Matamoro]

23. EU are afraid.

For those who follow Euro news this comes as no suprise. They are Dhimmi in every sense of the word. But the plain fact is this, the So called "EU" is tottering on the abyss. And this action to try and supress free speech could put it over. Last year most countries voted "no", "Nien", "nao", "ne" ;) to the EU constitution or even joining the EU. Denmark IS NOT a full member yet and a lot of euro countires have reservations about this very thing. Should some unelected beureaucrat in Brussells have the right to tell people how to live? they are worried about losing political independance so the EU membership is stuck in neutral right now about their laws and jurisdiction. Even in France they voted no to the constitution. This action will only make intergrating Europe into a single entity even harder. I guess now if someone makes a cartoon of the pope or the Roman church they'll get a papel bull issued against them...........then the inquistion begins!

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. You need to read up on the EU a bit more

2 countries voted 'no' to the constitution; 12 have ratified it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3954327.stm
But France is one of the large countries, and the Netherlands a medium sized one, so it's not practical to continue with the constitution they said 'no' to.

Denmark is a full member of the EU. It it not, however, a member of the currency union, though its krona is linked to the euro, so it stays within a narrow exchange rate.

Finally, the European Union is 'dhimmi' in no sense of the word at all. Get the full story from that commissioner:

His proposed voluntary code would urge the media to respect all religious sensibilities but would not offer privileged status to any one faith.

The code would be drawn up by the European Commission, the EU executive body, and European media outlets, he said. It would not have legal status.

So, they're not "telling people how to live" - they're suggesting a code for the media - which the media may well not adopt at all. If it did adopt it, it would be rather like the American media, almost all of whom have not shown the cartoons. Is the USA 'dhimmi'?

[rman]

26. I think it's peculiar that the response to this one case

is to change the law (or at least put some effort into trying to change the law).

It's not as though nothing like this case has ever occurred before in europe's centuries year old legal history.

Changing the law because of a single incident happens more often now then before, and it also happens on the national level.

It is as though certain forces are taking every opportunity to pass ever more restrictive laws.

The role of the European Commission is troublesome. Unlike the Eu parliament the EC members are not elected, and are basically representatives of the corporate world. The EC is pushing for privatization of everything.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. I'll repeat this: "It would not have legal status"

He is not proposing a change in the law. He is proposing a voluntary code of conduct for the media.

[rman]

28. True, but it's a start,

in case anyone "wants to go there".

[rucky]

19. You're not supposed to talk about this. n/t

[H2O Man]

20. Abbie Hoffman asked

about the consequences of yelling theater in a crowded fire.

[rucky]

21. eh....weak, legally. Can't prove it was intentional.

Especially because it most likely wasn't. It was thoughtless, artless, insulting and provocative (in a letter-to-the-editor kind of way). But it was also, for many Muslims, the final straw in a steady barrage of attacks on their religion and culture from the West. Provoke, provoke, provoke & something will eventually happen. While I agree that all the not-so-closeted Muslim haters are jumping all over this as an excuse to hate some more, the other side of the coin is that the cartoon was an excuse for their anti-Western hate to boil over.

As with most long-standing feuds, it's at the point where it doesn't really matter who started what. Both sides are looking for a fight and will always find an excuse to fight as long as they wish to keep fighting.

Slapping down limits on free speech (even if you can make the case) won't solve this problem. It's going to take the courage from one side to make a peace offering, and a bilateral agreement among leaders to ignore the provocations of the extremist factions from both sides to proceed to peace. Of course this will NEVER happen as long as the fanatics are in power.

[Behind the Aegis]

22. So...

"From 9am until 10am, Circuit City is selling 60" plasma screen TVs for $200." Inciting a riot?

Just askin'

[TriMetFan]

25. Yes free speech does come a limit.

That limit is. Is it going to hurt others? Now if some one shouts fire in a crowded theater and people get hurt and then it turns out you lied knowingly, then I would think you couldn't use you right to free speech. Now I think the Danish paper is partly at fault for the riots because they should have known that printing pictures of Mohammad was insensitive. So in a way it was like them shouting fire in a crowed theater.