Free Speech

[guywithashovel]

Here in the US, our constitution says that we have freedom of speech. However, due to the vagueness of this statement, confusion has sometimes risen over how far this freedom should go.

For example, let's say a group like the Ku Klux Klan wants to do a demonstration in the town's public square. This demonstration will involve several of the members giving loud, raucous diatribes filled with racist and hateful commentary. Something like this actually happened in my city several years ago. It wasn't the Klan. Instead, it was some Neo-Nazi group. They gave a demonstration like this on one of the sidewalks downtown. There were also several counter protests. There were several police officers in the area patrolling to make sure everything stayed peaceful, and when one of them was questioned about why the event was taking place, he said something like "We have to protect everyone's right to free speech, even if we don't like what they have to say."

Another example that comes to mind is the Westboro Baptist Church. Their freedom to do what they do has been questioned as well. Should speech like this be protected? Challenges to this type of expression label it as hate speech and/or say that it shouldn't be protected because it's harmful. If that's the case, then where should the line be drawn on what is harmful and what isn't?

[lordlundar]

Here's the funny thing. The only "protection" the first amendment gives is from the government to stop said free speech. That's it. At no point does it say that you are protected from the consequences of said free speech.

It's why the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" argument is a flawed one. You have every right to say it. You also have the right to remain silent when the police arrest you for inciting a riot. They're not arresting you for what you said, they're arresting you for the consequences of saying it.

Now for your examples, the police, despite the claim, are not there to protect free speech. They are their there to keep the relative peace and to prevent anyone from being violent. Should a fight break out, people are not being arrested for "infringing on the first amendment rights of others", they are arrested for assault, battery, etc.

Too many people equate the first amendment with an impenetrable bubble where they can say whatever they want and if someone so much as disagrees with them that they can scream their rights are being infringed upon. Sorry, no. It doesn't work that way.

[Jack]

I'd been conflicted about the apparent paradox of the prohibition of laws "abridging the freedom of speech" paired with abridgments of such, but in this view of consequences it does make more sense. Hate speech and libel, especially -- I had wondered how they can be disallowed while at the same time upholding the first amendment. Seeing them in a sense of the consequences of hate speech and libel does make much more sense - the crime isn't in saying the things, but in the results of saying those things (like inciting riot and ruining reputations). Thanks.

Note: This post only explores my intellectual understanding of how these things can be considered illegal without conflicting with the first amendment and does not get into my own opinion on whether they should be illegal in the first place.

[draco664]

Here in the US, our constitution says that we have freedom of speech. However, due to the vagueness of this statement, confusion has sometimes risen over how far this freedom should go.

The amendment in question reads

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.

Note the first few words? Congress shall make no law...

No real vagueness there IMO. In theory, Congress can't pass a law forcing you to follow a religion, limit your speech, what media to read, or prevent you from gathering and making demands of the government.

In reality, in both the US and most of the rest of the Western World, governments get around it by passing laws on punishing infringers for the consequenses of their speech. There are no real limits to what you can say, but you are not protected from the results of that speech.

If you slander someone (who has enough resources to hit you with a big legal stick), you haven't been stopped from saying what you want, only that you need to pay for their loss of reputation.

You can be charged with all sorts of crimes for saying things in certain situations (shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is a common example). Again, you haven't been prevented from saying things, only that you are responsible for the results.

You can, if you manage to acquire it, print any military or state secret. People who do are generally charged under laws with names like 'aiding the enemy', or 'diseminating state secrets' or even 'treason'. Again, technically not in trouble for the speech, but for the results (real, imagined, estimated or expected).

[Sage Blackthorn]

Stumbled across this awhile back.

"Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban ... At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question... Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals ... If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

-George Orwell

[the_std]

A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals ... If liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

While I genuinely love George Orwell, I don't think this quote (and the piece I specifically included) applies to this situation. Just because an idea never makes it to the media doesn't mean that people are being silenced. Anyone can talk, but people can also choose to listen. Just because no one wants to hear it doesn't mean that they're violating your first amendment rights.

[crazylegs]

I really like how the Human Rights Act 1998 words Article 10 (Freedom of expression)

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Essentially it means - you can hold whatever viewpoint you like, and as long as your view is not going to cause disorder (or likely to) then you can say it too.

[Boozy]

It's why the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" argument is a flawed one. You have every right to say it. You also have the right to remain silent when the police arrest you for inciting a riot. They're not arresting you for what you said, they're arresting you for the consequences of saying it.

This is one of the best and most concise explanations of the "limitations" of free speech I've read.

Well done.

[Jester]

First Amendment junkie and former broadcasting major here, and I had to weight in on this.

Here in the US, our constitution says that we have freedom of speech. However, due to the vagueness of this statement, confusion has sometimes risen over how far this freedom should go.

I believe there is a reason the Founding Fathers made freedom of speech and of the press part of the FIRST Amendment to the Constitution. They viewed it as absolutely vital. I agree with that sentiment, and believe people should be allowed to say what they want, no matter what it is.

George Washington said, "If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter. "

For example, let's say a group like the Ku Klux Klan wants to do a demonstration in the town's public square. This demonstration will involve several of the members giving loud, raucous diatribes filled with racist and hateful commentary.

This has happened on more than one occasion in this country. The most famous such incident was when a neo-Nazi group wanted to march through the streets of Skokie, Illinois. Not only did Skokie have a large Jewish population, many of its citizens were actually Holocaust survivors. The town government denied the Nazis the right to march. The Nazis sued, and with the ACLU representing them, took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed that, while the Nazis message was hateful, they had the same right to air their views as any other group.

Freedom of speech was is not there to protect speech we want to hear. Popular speech needs no such protection. It is unpopular speech that requires such protection. I agree that the Nazis had the right to speak their mind, and do so publicly. I should point out at this point that I am Jewish and find the views of Nazis and neo-Nazis repulsive and vile. I don't particularly enjoy hearing them, or any racists for that matter, throw their hate and verbal bile around. But I DO think they have the right under the First Amendment to do so. I also think they SHOULD have this right.

Does this mean I am not going to exercise MY right of free speech to tell such hateful people what I think of them and their views? Hell no--you better believe that I am going to speak my mind. And as long as all we are doing is speaking (even if at many decibels), no laws have been violated. And that is the way it should be if we are going to call ourselves a civilized and enlightened society: we should be able to allow those we view as uncivilized and unenlightened to speak their minds, even if we consider them ignorant jackasses.

In the words of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

There were several police officers in the area patrolling to make sure everything stayed peaceful, and when one of them was questioned about why the event was taking place, he said something like "We have to protect everyone's right to free speech, even if we don't like what they have to say."

While that may not be the job of the police, as someone else noted, that IS our job as a society. We must protect EVERYONE'S right to free speech, even if we believe that what they are saying is hateful dogshit. Because if we don't protect ALL speech, than who is to say what speech is and is not protected? Where do we draw the line? WHO draws that line? I know that there are many people, and I don't just mean Nazis and KKK members, who I do not want to have ANY say in deciding what I or anyone else can or cannot say.

Another example that comes to mind is the Westboro Baptist Church. Their freedom to do what they do has been questioned as well. Should speech like this be protected? Challenges to this type of expression label it as hate speech and/or say that it shouldn't be protected because it's harmful. If that's the case, then where should the line be drawn on what is harmful and what isn't?

I find what the WBC does is disgusting. We have one of their minions here on our tropical island paradise, and he is about as well-liked as a dead skunk in the laundry. I personally find him, his signs, and his actions loathsome, and I wish him much harm. That being said, I absolutely believe that he and every cretin like him should be allowed to speak their mind. Let him exercise his free speech. Whenever I see him on the streets with one of those hateful signs, I exercise MY right to free speech...usually with one well-aimed finger.

Here's the funny thing. The only "protection" the first amendment gives is from the government to stop said free speech. That's it. At no point does it say that you are protected from the consequences of said free speech.

True enough. Although if those consequences are violent, the violent parties can (and often are) arrested. Case in point: our local WBC-er has on more than one occasion been assaulted or had things thrown at him. I smile every time I hear this, and would gladly buy the people doing this a drink if I met them. That being said, if caught, they can be arrested and charged with assault, or some similar charge. The WBC-er, however, will not be charged if all he did was spew hateful language verbally or with his sign, and get his ass beat up. He did nothing wrong. And I agree with this, too.

For example, I know that if I walk into a gay bar down here and start saying how much I "hate queers," it is very likely that some very large gay men may take me out back and kick my ass. Even I had this belief (I don't), I am intelligent enough to know the consequences of my actions, and wouldn't be so stupid as to actually do this. Sadly (or amusingly, depending on your view), there are many people who aren't bright enough to understand the basic concept of "cause and effect."

Should a fight break out, people are not being arrested for "infringing on the first amendment rights of others", they are arrested for assault, battery, etc.

Your example is correct, but you are not quite right on the underlying premise. People CAN and HAVE been arrested, charged, and convicted for infringing on others' rights of free speech, and of other rights.

Hate speech and libel, especially -- I had wondered how they can be disallowed while at the same time upholding the first amendment.

Seeing them in a sense of the consequences of hate speech and libel does make much more sense - the crime isn't in saying the things, but in the results of saying those things (like inciting riot and ruining reputations).

We have to separate hate speech and libel, for they are two different things.

First of all, libel is not spoken at all, it is published. Slander is spoken. Other than that, they are the same thing: knowingly saying or publishing false information about a person or entity (government body, corporation), that causes harm in some way to said person or entity. Generally defamation of character is the cited harm, but it is not the only one through libel or slander.

Libel and slander are NOT protected under the First Amendment. Once you say or publish these things, you have violated the law, and may be arrested and charged with a crime. It is important to note, however, that one key that many people forget about in libel and slander is that the information must not only be false, the speaker/publisher must KNOW it is false, and thus knows that speaking/publishing it will have the potential to cause the libeled/slandered party harm.

No, the goverment can't prevent you from saying it (or publishing it), but once it's out of your mouth, they can charge the hell out of you for it. Technically, no goverment can stop you from speaking your mind, it's what they do once you do that. In many countries intimidation, torture, and even death can occur, so in this way speech is not truly free. In the U.S., despite the First Amendment, slander and libel are criminal offenses, and as such are not protected under the First Amendment. Make sense?

Hate speech is a relatively new hot potato, but from what I know, it can't really be banned. Many have tried, but if such cases find their way to the higher courts, these bans are almost always struck down.

Let me make two things very clear. Fist, I despise hate speech and those that spew it, and find such behavior repulsive. Secondly, I absolutely believe that even such vile speech should be protected under the First Amendment. How can it not? It is someone else's belief, and as such, we can't limit it. Hell, these haters may themselves find my commentary on Rachel Ray's cooking technique offensive, but under the First Amendment, I can still deliver said commentary.

My basic point is that we should not toe that very murky line of "We protect free speech....except THAT opinion."

Benajmin Franklin said it very well when he opined that "without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech."

As to those who would try to limit free speech with laws designed to make us feel safer or more comfortable, since we wouldn't have to listen to the hatemongers, for example, Mr. Franklin also had an opinion, one I've quoted for years:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety..."