First Amendment, what does it mean?

[Will-Mun]

This topic is regarding the American Constitution's First Amendment.

"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."

Specifically, the bold text. This topic came to me in a discussion in the main forums about Fred Phelps and his brood being sued for a shit ton of money because they protested a funeral.

The details you can find there, but what made me want to make this thread is two things, one, I think the thread in the main forums will be getting locked soon (it's civil for now, but may turned heated) or at least will if I try to bring this topic into the thread.

Two, I was literally shocked to find out people would actually say they believe there should be a limit to the Freedom of Speech... And since this is the first real time I've seen a major political disagreement emerge, I decided to hop over here to get down to the grit of it.

Freedom of Speech, it is the CORE of the American constitution, the rights of Americans not only to have their opinions of the government, but the right to vocalize it as LOUDLY as they please, or any opinion.

Now the major problem here is people like Fred Phelps, who says things that make people just want to wretch, it hurts people that these things are being said, makes you feel like you shouldn't be allowed to say it!

...But thats completely wrong...

The First Amendment doesn't protect popular speech, it protects the speech and opinions that we despise, the speech we thought nobody was really capable of...

The first Amendment protects the Ku Klux Klan, it protects Nazis, Religious Fanatics, Eco Nuts, and White Supremacists.

But it also protects us, right here with our opinions, in a country without freedom of speech, we would never be allowed to question the war in Iraq, we would never be able to voice our outrage over Katrina, we would probably be ARRESTED for making a Bill Clinton blow job joke.

Freedom of Speech is everything or nothing... How can it work any other way? What CAN you put restrictions on, and not have it be a double standard...? When does it stop? No matter what your opinion is, it WILL offend someone, and they will rally to take the right to say it away from you.

[Boozy]

Freedom of speech should not be limited, and it does not appear that the wording of the First Amendment makes any exceptions for "hate speech."

Canada has freedom of speech - but we exclude hate speech from our protections, something that has always concerned me. How do you classify "hate" speech? Its frighteningly subjective. If I say that I "hate" our Prime Minister and the government doesn't like that, what protection do I get under our constitution?

The Canadian government used this hate speech exception to imprison a holocaust-denier who published literature which "is likely to incite hatred against an identifiable group." I despise holocaust deniers....but if I don't give them the right to say what they want, then I don't have the right to say what I want.

There is a growing movement now to ensure that freedom of speech and rights of the individual thrive here in Canada. Interestingly, it appears as though the trend is going the opposite way in the States.

This goes back to another thread on this board - if the citizenry gets frightened enough of terrorism and moral/social decay, they will slowly give up their freedoms one by one to anyone who promises to fix the problem. The Republicans have been very crafty with this issue.

[Boozy]

I forgot to add a thought in my previous post...

Just because there is freedom of speech doesn't mean that we are free from any repercussions. The government can't arrest you, but there are a myriad of other consequences to talking like an a$$hole.

For example, the Westboro group was sued successfully in civil court for harassment. That's what the civil court is there for, and I think justice was served in this case.

Children as young as three understand that there are consequences to running their mouths. You insult another child, they might hit you. You sass back at mommy, you get sent to your room.

As adults, we also understand that we can't say whatever the hell we want to our bosses without getting fired, we can't swear at the cashier without getting kicked out of the store (hopefully), and we can't be brutally honest with our friends without eventually being ostracized.

There are natural moral and social limits to freedom of speech without the government stepping in.

[rahmota]

The 1st amendment to the constitution has got to be one of the more contentious amendments possible. I think it actually even surpasses the 2nd in amount of arguments as to what it means sometimes.

Personally I'll agree that what it means is that there is and should never be any LEGAL limits to what a person can or cannot say except within specific and limited examples. ie yelling fire in a crowded theator or other induction of panic moments that would be harmful to the general good.

What that does not mean though is that there would not be any SOCIAL ramifications on what a person says. A person starts using racial epithets or other unpleasant comments at best they are goign to get sued in civil court (which may or may not work if it can show harm resulting from said words) to getting their butts handed to them in some back alley justice.

Thing about civil suits is that there has to be a burden of proof that the words used where more than just emotionally hurtful. Yeah words can do damage to a person's psyche and all but thats not usually somethign that laws and the legal system are there for. I mena if everytime someone's feelings got hurt they sued someone there wouldnt be room for anythign else in the court system.

In westboro's case their words are harmful in that not only do they cause emotional harm but they incite well not panic and not rioting but contention and confrontation which involves the police having to watch out due to the high emotions on both sides. There have been fights break out. You have motorcycle clubs coming in to protect the funerals from the protesters. The protesters getting even more vocal. So this all leads to some very dangerous powder keg situations that could get very ugly very quick.

Legally the courts cant stop the protesters, nor the counter protesters. However if oen side starts throwing more than words they can step in. So they watch and they wait. But the subject of the protests (or at least their father) sued and the courts took the opportunity to try and get the point across (like that will work) that there are ramifications to their actions.

I hope I made sense in my assessment of this. Basically a person has the legal right to say whatever they want to. But a social responsibility to watch their words to an appropriate venue and be ready adn willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

[Greenday]

Freedom of Speech should be given to everyone, I'll agree with that. But if someone uses their free speech to say a lot of crap to me, they better not go whining to the justice system when they get their asses handed to them.

[Boozy]

But if someone uses their free speech to say a lot of crap to me, they better not go whining to the justice system when they get their asses handed to them.

If by getting their asses handed to them, you mean assault, then yes, they can expect protection against that from the legal system. And rightfully so.

The consequences of free speech shouldn't include being the victim of physical violence. No matter how despicable we may think their words are.

Example: I should be able to attend a pro-choice rally without getting beaten by pro-lifers, or vice versa. And if I am beaten, the perpetrators should be arrested and punished.

[Pedersen]

The First Amendment doesn't protect popular speech, it protects the speech and opinions that we despise, the speech we thought nobody was really capable of...

You're right. And as much as I despise Fred Phelps (and his minions), I will defend their right to spew their venom. On the flip side, I will defend everybody else's right to ignore them.

Finally, free speech does not trump the right to invade someone's life. Nor their death. If a group wishes to protest the funerals of those who have died serving this country, then let them. But do so away from that ceremony.

They are intruding on a very private time for that family. They are adding stress and aggravation to an already horrific time. Quite frankly, they deserve beatings.

If by getting their asses handed to them, you mean assault, then yes, they can expect protection against that from the legal system. And rightfully so.

Actually, there are numerous times when such violence is not going to be prosecuted. If your speech is designed to incite violence, and could be reasonably expected to do so, that violence may well be considered an "appropriate response", and have no legal action taken against the perpetrator.

While I am reasonably certain I have heard of such cases, I can not find them in Google right now. For that, I apologize.

[Greenday]

The consequences of free speech shouldn't include being the victim of physical violence. No matter how despicable we may think their words are.

Example: I should be able to attend a pro-choice rally without getting beaten by pro-lifers, or vice versa. And if I am beaten, the perpetrators should be arrested and punished.

So you're saying violence is okay, as long as it isn't physical?

And that example isn't the best of choices. You're talking about a bunch of fanatics being dumbasses. I'm talking about if someone talks trash about my mom/sister/girlfriend/penis size/etc., and doesn't let it go, I feel I am totally within my personal rights to defend myself by knocking his ass out in an attempt to shut him up, as obviously passive means of trying to get the person to stop obviously didn't work.

[Boozy]

So you're saying violence is okay, as long as it isn't physical?

I don't know of any other kind.

[AFPheonix]

I think what a lot of people don't get about the 1st amendment is that it doesn't guarantee freedom FROM offensiveness. While there may be some bad stuff that comes along with that, there's been some wonderful things, too, and it's one of our tools as a free people to keep men in power in check. The power of shame is very encompassing.

[Greenday]

I don't know of any other kind.

Verbal abuse, harassment, sexual harassment, etc.

"Stick and stones can break the bones, but words can shatter the soul."

[Boozy]

Verbal abuse, harassment, sexual harassment, etc.

"Stick and stones can break the bones, but words can shatter the soul."

Oh, okay. Gotcha.

But wait - at what point in my previous post did I imply that I was fine with verbal abuse, harassment, or sexual harassment?

[Seshat]

Freedom of speech means that you may speak, responsibly, as you wish.
(see footnote for what I'm using 'responsibly' to mean.)

* It does not guarantee that anyone will listen.
If people choose to walk away, they're perfectly entitled to. If people use their freedom of speech to yell 'shut up, you're a bloody idiot', they're entitled to. If people use social censure on you, they're entitled to.

* It does not override trespass. If someone in authority over a bit of private property asks you to leave for any reason, it's still trespass if you stay. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can stay.

* It does not override harassment. If you follow someone around, or constantly show up at their workplace, or in any other way harass them, you're harassing them. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're not.

* It doesn't override the slander and libel laws. But truth is (or should be) a perfect defence against accusations of slander and libel.

* It doesn't mean you can speak irresponsibly (see footnote). The classic example is shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
The disaster at the Coconut Grove demonstrated that a panicked mob trying to flee a fire causes more deaths than the fire alone. Creating a violent mob with your speech is another form of speech that I believe Freedom of Speech should not protect. It's perfectly possible to communicate your personal hate for a person or group without creating a violent mob.


Hm. I think that's it. If I thought about it, I might come up with other limitations on the freedom of speech, but I think that's about it.
Malicious speech is limited by slander, libel, harassment, trespass, the freedom to walk away and the limitation against incitement to violence. I think malicious speech is dreadful, but people should have the right to print as many malicious pamphlets as they want. And I have the freedom to use any they hand me as firestarters.



FOOTNOTE: I wish I had a better word for what I mean. I'm using the words 'responsibly' and 'irresponsibly', but what I mean is 'in a way likely to cause physical harm to people'. Predictably inciting violence or panic, that sort of thing.

[Greenday]

Well, in one of your earlier posts, you said freedom of speech should not be limited. To say that you agree with the court for siding against the people who were harassing seems kinda on opposite sides of the issue.

In my personal experiences, it appears as if the justice system couldn't care less about harassment and verbal abuse. So to continue being passive by going to authority is the same as doing nothing at all. In order to end the harassment/abuse going on, physical force must be used, and when I have done so, or even threatened to do so, all forms of harassment/abuse stopped. To go to authority, tell them what was going on, being pushed aside, then being punished for stopping the harassment/abuse on my on, seems like a total load of b.s. to me.

[Boozy]

Well, in one of your earlier posts, you said freedom of speech should not be limited. To say that you agree with the court for siding against the people who were harassing seems kinda on opposite sides of the issue.

I can see how my position may have been unclear.

I'll repeat what I said at the end of my second post: There are natural social limits to freedom of speech without any need for the government to step in. I would take the First Amendment to mean that you can't be imprisoned, executed or fined by the government for speaking your mind.

There still seems to be some confusion over the difference between civil and criminal courts. Civil courts cannot send anyone to jail. They are very limited in what they can compel someone to do; mostly, they issue monetary judgments, arrange for return of property, force evictions, etc. These courts settle disputes between citizens, not between citizens and the state.

There is nothing contradictory about believing in virtually unlimited free speech and still supporting the tort system.

Similarly, there's nothing contradictory about believing in restricting both free speech and the tort system. The Republicans have been attempting both for years.