• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Where does free speech end?

Undesired Walrus

Penultimate Amazing
Undesired Walrus
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
11,691
Just a thread to explore the frequent issue of free speech. When should it end? When it incites violence? Surely any fool can be incited to violence, especially if it's related to religion. Should racist banners like 'asians go home" be permitted on the motorway?
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Just a thread to explore the frequent issue of free speech. When should it end? When it incites violence? Surely any fool can be incited to violence, especially if it's related to religion. Should racist banners like 'asians go home" be permitted on the motorway?
Click to expand...
How is that banner incitement?
 
No I don't think "Asians go home" should be banned speech. The best way to deal with that is to confront the issue and make the owner of the banner explain themselves. Inciting a riot is a gray area and should be dealt with as individual cases. That's just my opinion.
 
Free speech should end after a careful examination of the intent of the message. With the goal being if it is designed to cause harm to a group or individual. ( real harm, hurt feelings are something people can deal with.)

A sign like " asians go home" , for all it's bile is just a suggestion. Sure its made with the intent to be offensive, but it is not instructions to anyone to do anything violent. I personally would probably vandalize the sign, but that is just my opinion.

Now if there was a sign that said " kill a (insert your favorite racist term here) improve your country." that is where the line should be drawn. This message is that by killing someone one can improve their country, and while it may not force anyone to do this, it certainly supports the idea of doing it.

To a more extreme extent, if some skinhead wants to talk about how blacks have not invented anything, or how blacks are evil, raping, etc. More power to him. But once he starts outlining actions that could cause harm to others, he should be in some way legally punished.

All this being said, i hold that people should only not be able to say these things on public land. If someone wants to have a rally at their house and plot evil things against good people, more power to them. If they take these actions into the real world they will be punished ( possibly before, considering conspiracy to commit a crime is still illegal. ). But in no way should the state support someone attempting to cause violence.
 
I have problems with "Pro-Life" protesters getting close enough to manhandle patients at 'abortion clinics' and Planned Parenting centers. There is an aura of violence at these places when the two 'sides' meet. Said "Pro-Lifers" should be set a certain distance from the entering patients. "Pro-Lifers" have the right to protest, but not threaten with harm or implied harm. Besides, not all of these patients are abortion patients.
 
I for one am not sure the the first amendment has anything to do with with people just being a-holes, making racist remarks or protesting an abortion clinic.

"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 think it's really about a citizen's grievance against the government and that citizens ability to point out wrong doing, criticize the feds, file and publish grievances in a public forum.
 
I think about the only speech that should be 'banned' should be speech akin to shouting 'Fire!' in a theater when there is no such fire.

Speech that offends, insults, slurs, or otherwise makes people uncomfortable or angry is just fine with me.

Many people are just crying out to be offended. Some are sincerely offended, while others pretend to be so in attempts to control others.

Either way, it does not matter - their feelings are not relevant. Neither are mine.

I don't think that swearing, hate speech, offensive speech, 'blasphemy', obscenity, etc. should be against the law or against college or university regulations.

It is far more important that free speech be protected than that people not be offended.
 
Complexity said:
I think about the only speech that should be 'banned' should be speech akin to shouting 'Fire!' in a theater when there is no such fire.

Speech that offends, insults, slurs, or otherwise makes people uncomfortable or angry is just fine with me.

Many people are just crying out to be offended. Some are sincerely offended, while others pretend to be so in attempts to control others.

Either way, it does not matter - their feelings are not relevant. Neither are mine.

I don't think that swearing, hate speech, offensive speech, 'blasphemy', obscenity, etc. should be against the law or against college or university regulations.

It is far more important that free speech be protected than that people not be offended.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with this, but what about speech that calls to violence against X? I think that too should be at least seriously moderated.

McHrozni
 
So what about '****** children are scum' as a banner?

Please do not circumvent the autocensor. Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just don't know. And if I do think it is legal to do so, I don't know how I reconcile that with my belief that racial discrimination should not be allowed to dominate a business, by refusing to admit or serve blacks, for example.

I just can't bear to say that it should be permitted for a country to be dominated by outrageously racist signs. It's become more real for me since I started my current relationship with a girl who happens to be black, and started to seriously wonder how I'd feel if thousands of signs denounced mixed-race relationships as piss and scum.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I have nothing to argue other than my emotion.
 
Last edited:
As this is discussed, remember that a test must be developed to evaluate all speech. A test that "catches" speech that "deserves" to be censored might also catch speech that you may not think should be censored.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
I just don't know. And if I do think it is legal to do so, I don't know how I reconcile that with my belief that racial discrimination should not be allowed to dominate a business, by refusing to admit or serve blacks, for example.

I just can't bear to say that it should be permitted for a country to be dominated by outrageously racist signs. It's become more real for me since I started my current relationship with a girl who happens to be black, and started to seriously wonder how I'd feel if thousands of signs denounced mixed-race relationships as piss and scum.

I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I have nothing to argue other than my emotion.
Click to expand...

How would you feel about the following signs:

"People who hate black people are scum and their children are sub-human."
 
Undesired Walrus said:
I just don't know. And if I do think it is legal to do so, I don't know how I reconcile that with my belief that racial discrimination should not be allowed to dominate a business, by refusing to admit or serve blacks, for example.
Click to expand...
I agree, I have a hard time reconciling freedom of speech with discrimination as well. However, I don't consider refusing to admit or serve people based on race is a form of speech, it should fall clearly into the discrimination category.

I haven't thought out the matter in detail, but I think banners such as "No Buddhists Allowed" or "Sicilians Go Home" in a public place would be considered discriminatory and should not be allowed, but they can be displayed in private places. The challenge is with the definition of "public" - it should include any area where people would be allowed to travel without obtaining permission, otherwise it would be considered trespassing. Retail stores and restaurants would therefore be considered public areas while members only type clubs would be private. Then we have to consider how to treat private areas that are visible from public areas.

Thoughts?
 
UncaYimmy said:
How would you feel about the following signs:

"People who hate black people are scum and their children are sub-human."
Click to expand...

I think the first part, "People who hate black people are scum", fair game anywhere. The second part, "and their children are sub-human", is objectionable. Why? Because hating black people is a conscious choice, but being the child of a hater is not.
 
Complexity said:
I think about the only speech that should be 'banned' should be speech akin to shouting 'Fire!' in a theater when there is no such fire.

Speech that offends, insults, slurs, or otherwise makes people uncomfortable or angry is just fine with me.

Many people are just crying out to be offended. Some are sincerely offended, while others pretend to be so in attempts to control others.

Either way, it does not matter - their feelings are not relevant. Neither are mine.

I don't think that swearing, hate speech, offensive speech, 'blasphemy', obscenity, etc. should be against the law or against college or university regulations.

It is far more important that free speech be protected than that people not be offended.
Click to expand...

How 'bout laws regarding libel and slander. If I wrongfully state in an article or interview that you did jail time for being a pedophile, would you have no recourse?

Steve S
 
Complexity said:
I think about the only speech that should be 'banned' should be speech akin to shouting 'Fire!' in a theater when there is no such fire.

Speech that offends, insults, slurs, or otherwise makes people uncomfortable or angry is just fine with me.

Many people are just crying out to be offended. Some are sincerely offended, while others pretend to be so in attempts to control others.

Either way, it does not matter - their feelings are not relevant. Neither are mine.

I don't think that swearing, hate speech, offensive speech, 'blasphemy', obscenity, etc. should be against the law or against college or university regulations.

It is far more important that free speech be protected than that people not be offended.
Click to expand...

nicely said. I would tend to agree with this.
 
McHrozni said:
I generally agree with this, but what about speech that calls to violence against X? I think that too should be at least seriously moderated.

McHrozni
Click to expand...


I want to give this more thought, but my first inclination is to say that it should be protected.

If you say, "I want you to kill X and I will reward you for doing so.", I think that should not be legal.

If you say, "I think X should die." or "I think X should pay for his crimes.", I think that should be permitted.

If you say, I want you to kill X." - hmmm. That's one I want to think about. Does the form of expression suggest a command? Is there an implied reward for one who does his bidding?

One further thing - whatever the rules are, they should apply equally to all. No special protections for politicians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom