Topic for debate: Do we really have freedom of speech? The way I see it, no we don't. A freedom is something with no restrictions on it whatsoever. With slander laws, we don't have it.

I completely agree, in todays politics, members of both parties usually support freedom of speech in general but whenever it is a racist remark of some sort they take that back and critizice people using their freedom of speech. It is my opinion and that of the writers of the Constitution that people have the freedom to express themsleves through speech and writing even if it is deemed inappropriate and hateful towards another person or group of people, whether a race, religion, or a sexual orientation.

Politicians might argue that we cannot have full freedom of speech because it can incite people that we are insulting to commit crimes, and so they take the cheap approach of limiting our speech, instead of placing the responsibility in the people and holding them responsible for anything they do even if they were insulted for any reason by another person.

So no, we do not have freedom of speech as guarenteed by the First Amendment...

The 1st amendment prevents the government from infringing on our desire to speak freely. What's to debate about that? The government doesn't tell us to shut up. We can say anything we want.

The problem is, is that when someone uses that right to cause someone else damage (i.e. yelling "Fire!", slander, etc), people got prosecuted for the damages it causes...not because you said something.

You get punished for the damages. Not for the speech.

Liberty, you seem to be implying that freedom of speech means freedom from criticism in reaction to one's speech, freedom of speech with no social consequences. But if people aren't free to call you an idiot or a bigot for saying something they don't like, then they don't have freedom of speech.

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.

I don't see the government violating this section of the amendment much, and only the government can violate it since it imposes no requirement on anyone else.

Izdaari, I was in no way targeting my statement towards normal citizens, for that would be defeating exactly what I am saying. I am referring specifically to politicians that support laws restricting your freedom of speech.

I agree with you entirely that ones speech, while not having legal consequences most times will have social consquences, which is how a free society works.

I was in some ways referring to issues such as cross-burning, in addition to proposing a hypothetical example of what the government cannot do.

People have the freedom to burn a cross just like they have the freedom to threaten to kill someone. However when the cross burning is an attempt to intimidate someone it creates a victim. We have free speech but we must be responsible for our words.

I think it is clear that there is some governmental restriction on free speech, and that few of us would argue with it. You do not have the right to publish a newspaper article that says "Victoria Silverwolf is a member of the American Nazi Party" because this is a falsehood which causes me harm. In legal terms, this is libel, a form of defamation, and it is illegal. You would have the right to publish a newspaper editorial saying "Victoria Silverwolf's opinions remind us of Hitler" because this would be an opinion, even if it is a foolish one.

Difficulties arise, I think, with the definition of "free speech." Are flag-burning and cross-burning (assuming one does not trespass, harm another's property, or commit any other crimes not related to free expression) speech? Is nude dancing free expression? All have been defended in this way.

I would argue over limiting burning anything even if it is meant to intimidate. I would argue that it is not the position of a government judge to determine the person's intentions, however I strongly believe that if this burning incites an illegal activity they should be held fully responsible.

I'm afraid not. What about if it's slander about a person? Say you call them dirty names in a public article or something of that sort. The government isn't punishing you because you hurt their feelings. When someone gets sued for something they didn't do, their feelings are hurt. Does the government care? No. So, they're persecuting you for what you said, not for what happened. Yelling "fire" doesn't necessarily cause damage, but you'll still get persecuted. This is for what you said, not because of any damage.

Liberty, I'm glad you didn't mean what I thought.

However, allow me to be an ultra-strict constitutionalist here: The First Amendment says freedom of speech, of the press and of assembly. It says nothing whatsoever of symbolic expression. I would argue that what's protected is literally the spoken and written word, not cross burning, flag burning, or any form of symbolic expression.

I'll address libelous speech in a separate post, if indeed I find it necessary to do so.

As an outside observer, it seems obvious to me...

America has complete freedom of speech, of the press, etc., in spite of libel laws and so on. There is no government agency that prevents newspapers from saying what they want, there is merely legal recourse available for people who believe they have been insulted to try to prove it. For example, government limitation on freedom of the press would be, in my mind, if government agents had to vet all printed matter prior to publication - as frequently happens in totalitarian regimes of all stripes. i.e. the right of the press to print what they like would be curtailed, rather than the rights of citizens to demand retribution when they have been treated unfairly by the excercise of press freedom.

It may be a subtle legal distinction, but that tends to be the difference between a law that works and one that doesn't - if Smith says something unpleasant about Jones, the libel and slander laws allow Jones to take Smith to court. At no stage does a case of People vs Smith (or Jones) arise, so the state is adhereing to its constitutional duties.

My understanding of the incitement to racial hatred laws over there is that they are far more lenient than those in the UK, and, like libel & slander, they merely allow insulted parties to pursue their own claims through the courts - the state or federal government do not do the pursuing.

Britain is much the same in this regard, without any constitutional guarantee of free speech, although incitement to racial hatred IS a criminal rather than a civil offence, so it IS the state that prosecutes for this crime over here. In effect, you can say 'nigger' , but you can't say "you should go/let's go beat up some n!ggers!". Most people over here seem to think it works just fine, except the few people who would like to be able to say "let's go kill some niggers" on a public podium with no consequences - but even this does not infringe the right to free speech, it merely defines consequences for saying certain things. For the right to free speech to be infringed, the government would insist on seeing a draft of all public speeches in advance and would edit out anything they didn't like - clearly that doesn't happen.

(Sorry for the use of an emotive word, but it's an emotive subject.)

There is a limit to freedom of Speech but it is because of social norms

swearing, racial slurs, etc is something society doesn't expecty from you, that is where freedom of speech is limited, but for a good reason

I think the government tries to limit "fighting words" to prevent anarchy. Clearly, the "n" word qualifies as a "fighting word."

Conservatives do not appear to like trial lawyers because of the constant civil suits. But making someone hurt by way of the wallet might be a better deterrent than criminal law, I think. Seems like if it costs a person something, s/he is less likely to do it.

On the other hand, people without much money at all will utter fighting words. The threat of jail time might deter some. The jails just seem awfully full these days.

I don't think slander laws are bad things. All I'm trying to say here, is that we don't really have freedom of speech. It's more of a.................... privelege.

I agree, we totally have the freedom to say whatever we want. It's just that most of us dont have the stupidity to do so. Look at the dixie chicks, and their anti-bush statement. Did the government do anything about that statement? No. Did the taxpayers and customers withhold their spending dollars from their record that has now come to ooze anti-Americanism? Absolutely.

i think that you should be able to say anything you want without having to deal with the consequences. The constitution doesn't say that we have the rite of free speech, but we have to deal with the consequences. We should be able to say whats on our minds without being persecuted.

Should it be legal for me to come up to you on the street while you are taking a walk with your daughter, and say, "someone should rape and murder your daughter. You'd better watch out, cuz I will do it as soon as I have a chance."

Should you be allowed to stand up in a movie theater and yell "fire!" when there is no fire?

All action has reaction - this is fundamental. I have the right to punch someone, but there will most likely be a consequence.

Surely, boyscout, there are some things you think should not be allowed to be said without legal consequences.

Possibly some in this thread are using the word "persecuted" when they mean "prosecuted"?
If you mean persecuted, then using inflammatory remarks against others is persecution, and if you don't want to be persecuted in return, don't persecute.
The Freedom of Speech issue has been expanded by some to include rude, crude, and even stupid behaviour, which is not speech, but expression. Even that is not prevented by government.

so are you saying that we shouldn't have freedom of speech? That the government should amend the constitution so that things like name calling and other insults should be illegal? that is the first step. then more and more things are illegal to say. then we are on a one way ride down the slope to censoring.

Yep. You should be able to say whatever you want. Of course there will be negative repercussions (like a boot where the sun don't shine) but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

--cheers

Are you saying that it should be legal for me to call you up every evening and threaten to murder your children? That it should be legal for me to wait outside the elementary school gates and threaten fourth grade girls with rape?

It's all just speech...

I guess it's just the libertarian in me

You're right, it is all just speech. It's what your speech does to another person that lands you in the slammer. Not the speech itself. Ideally anyway.

Slander is illegal because it harms another persons image.

Yelling FIRE in a movie theater is illegal because people get trampled to death in the panic.

Threatening my kids or small school children will land you in prison because it makes them afraid for their life. That, and no one knows what your real intentions are...so error on the side of caution.

The threat itself....the spoken words.... ANY spoken words... should not be illegal.

--cheers

Reminds me of a guy who thought he was a mean dude, until he met someone who really is a mean dude. He now practices his freedom of speech through a lot of busted teeth.

If anyone was to terrorize my grandchildren in the manner presented, I would probably be the one being prosecuted. The ones doing the terrorizing would be in the hospital being treated for severe trauma to the head and crotch. Treatment may include the stitching up of removed personal appendages.
So if you really want total freedom to say what you want, to anyone you want, and any time you want, watch out for the lunatic fringe types who just might not care about your rights as much as his own.

Hmmm- debate took a decidely violent tone LOL

http://www.adn.com/front/story/3544664p-3575681c.html

The above link is to a story that very much made the debate of what free speech was. I am personally hoping that his victims sue him to the point he loses everything, house, car , business and becomes homeless.

Aren't we just arguing semantics here, really? Of course the word "fire" is not illegal to say. It is the circumstance which determines the legality.

Someone calling you up to threaten you every day gets prosecuted because you are in fear for your life. So, I am not arrested for the precise words I say, merely for their specific sequence and circumstance. It amounts to the same thing - while we are "free" to say what we will, there are reasonable legal constraints on the circumstance of those words.

I was responding to boyscout93:


It doesn't sound like you agree with that sentiment, DP. Do you?

If you want to say anything you want, with no consequence, say it to the mirror. As soon as you are around others, your rights become interconnected into context and circumstance.

There are very few people who believe that the "right to bear arms" means that an individual should be allowed to own nuclear weapons or SCUD missiles.

There are very few people who believe that "freedom of speech" includes my examples, or things like threats made on someone's life.

We do have freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean we can say whatever we want to with no consequences. If we slander someone, we have every right to say what we wish, but we are liable for our words.

I most certainly do not Quark.

You should be able to say what you want to WHO you want.... but you must also be prepared for the repercussions. If I were to walk around South Central LA and throw racial slurs out to every black man that I walked past, you had better believe that eventually, I will get the ever living crap beat out of me. (and rightfully so)

I don't have the right to say something without a reaction from the person/people I said it to.

The Constitution gave us every right to say whatever we want. But, as with any right, you are responsible for how you use it. Just like your gun's going to be taken away from you if go on a murder spree, you'll be punished if you say something that threatens harm to another person or defames their character. I don't think that's really to much to ask, it merely comes with the territory. If you accept the right, you have to be willing to use it responsibly, or else you'll pay the price. Besides, libel and slander cases aren't exactly the easiest to win anyway.

I wonder how many people realize that "freedom of speech" applies ONLY to the government's (federal government, that is) ability to impinge upon your speech.

It does not give you any sort of protection against the consequences of your actions.

320 hours of community service for "three misdemeanor counts of harassment and violating constitutional rights" (ie dumping water on someone's head) seems AWFULLY harsh. (Eight weeks, full time)

The judge in this case seems like he needs a refresher course on fair sentencing. Although it seems that someone Alaskans feel that an individual can violate another's constitutional rights. I guess you should think twice before disarming a would-be burgler...you could go to jail.

Here's my two cents. To me, the First Amendment right of free speech means that the federal government (and state governments via the 14th Amendment) can not censor an individual's speech for any reason whatsoever. However, it stops there. You must expect a reaction from any form of speech, especially provocative speech, from whomever hears it whether it be positive or negative. If a white man walks into the projects at night and yells, "I hate niggers!" then he jolly well better expect some seriously violent consequences. If a black man walks into some upscale neighborhood and yells, "I hate honkeys!" then he better expect the police to come rushing in and deal out some consequences of their own. Free speech means that the government can't touch what you say. That does not mean that other individuals or groups are prevented from responding according to how your words strike them. I can sit out on my front porch and say "I hate Bush and everything he stands for," all day long and the government won't be able to do a thing about it. However, my free speech rights will not stop John Q. McRightwinger from walking over and trying to shut me up and censor my speech anyway he can. In a nutshell, we can say whatever we want free of government action, but not free of social reaction.

If state or federal government make the use of the word "nigger" illegal, clearly they would be illegally restricting your right to free speech. (Which is interesting, since it is against federal law to swear on network television, yet nobody seems to think this interferes with freedom of speech!)

If state or federal government make a law that prevents you from inciting others to racial hatred, what you say is more or less irrelevant, but how, when and where you say it, and to whom are the most relevant factors. Depending on the course of the trial, it may turn out that you were guilty or innocent, and therefore just exercising your right to free speech, and the arguments of both sides would almost certainly turn on the interpretation of the First Amendment in that particular circumstance. But the passage of such a law would not necessarily be an infringement of freedom of speech - it would very much depend on how the law was drafted.

Slander laws are no different. The law itself does not infringe freedom of speech - it just says that you can be tried for publicly saying defamatory things about someone that are demonstrably untrue (and they have to demonstrate that the things are untrue to prove you guilty of slander, even though it is their reputation that has been wrongly damaged!). The bold words are the core of the offence, not what you actually said.

Your defence lawyer will almost certainly try to show that you were merely exercising you right to free speech. You wouldn't even have to attempt to show that what you said was true, or even that you thought it was at the time. The jury would then decide.

So I would argue that the laws on slander are not incompatible with free speech, any more than laws against murder with firearms is imcompatible with the right to bear arms (as has been said here already).

There are, in fact, legal consequences for slander, libel, and threatening, boyscout. This doesn't seem to impact on the concept of freedom of speech in the opinion of most rational individuals.

No such law, Julian. The television industry has more or less collectively decided that they would rather have a self-imposed ban on profanity than have the government censor them. The standards of what is considered profane have loosened up over the years, but there are still some words that you won't hear, barring live broadcasts such as award shows and sporting events in which the censors couldn't catch a banned word in time. Had the government enacted such a law, then yes, it would interfere with freedom of speech. This, however, has not yet taken place.

I served a term on the local School Board. I do not know about everyone else, but I always had it in my mind that public boards such as these are very public and ideally very well informed due to access to all areas of a school district, employees, staff, administrators, and the public.

What I discovered was a fairly closed communications operation. Much of this was due to the people involved but not entirely. The laws are written such to discourage open communication. Any thing a board member says can be legally construed to represent the School District. For example, if you make comments to a person who is leaving the district which can be interpreted to indicate any sort of problem within the district or which might imply a negative impression of that person could lead to a lawsuit against the district.

These laws are anti-free speech. I think it would be a good idea for it to be legal for a school board member to be able to discuss school district policies with anyone without fear of a lawsuit for saying something deemed to be illegal via collective bargaining issues or whatever legal precedent. Our present laws discourage public discourse. How opposed to free speech and public accountability can you get?

Does this rise to a level of being a constitutional issue? I doubt it legally would. If a school board member used the defense of free speech I bet it would be ignored. Still, it is kink in our system which must extend to other areas besides school districts. I would rather we err on the side of free speech rather than on the side of building structures to separate and divide people.

Then what is the FCC for?

Regulating the electronic media industry. Check this out for further detail.

We have freedom to speak without government sanctions as long as we don't violate anyone else's rights with our speech. I tend to disagree greatly with liberals about what constitutes a violation, but beyond that, this issue seems relatively agreed upon.