Free Speech - Is There a Limit?

Ah, free speech, the cornerstone of freedom. Without it, no country can rightly call itself "free" or even civilized, depending on your beliefs.

But free speech is often used a shield, to protect people who probably should be put in jail. People who look at and make child porn, for example, will say that it's just free speech and they shouldn't be arrested for it.

So where is the line? Is there a line? Should there be a line? Where does free speech stop being necessary? Surely, not all information should be unregulated. If I got arrested for trying to buy a hooker, I certainly wouldn't want my next-door neighbor or my child's third-grade teacher to know it. Then again, I would want to know if my state's senator got busted for buying a hooker.

Let us discuss!

i think there should be a limit it just depends on the content and the persons that are involved (for example the hooker and a i don#t know a politic maybe)

WTF does that have to do with speech?

Well, of course there should be a limit, but what asshole gets to decide what we can or can't say?

Shit like yelling out "fire" in a movie theater should be punishable but don't for a second think that you have the right to not have your feelings hurt.

Too fucking bad.

I actually heard that people can sue you claiming emotional distress, just because some guy told the bitch to go kill herself. (Fake example, but the litigation part was true.)

Politicians shouldn't be exempt from being slandered and fucked with verbally either. Another thing I heard(hopefully not true) was that if I see bush, I can't curse at the motherfucker.(That was during his presidency) These fascist cocksuckers should do the world a favor and throw themselves into a lava pit. As you can probably tell from my post, I hate censorship with a burning passion. Then again I curse all the time, which is a very handy element of free speech.

I believe that there should be a line, based on the intelligence of whatever was said.

If every single stupid person on the planet would just shut up, I'd be a much happier person. -_-

It's argued that distributing or possessing pictures is a form of free speech. It's not just child porn enthusiasts who say this, but also fans of lolicon, as has often been seen on the Fakku forums.



I've heard of stuff like this, and that's partly why I made this thread. If there really is free speech, people should be able to say whatever they want, but one person can still sue another for saying something bad about them.



I do know that it is illegal to say that you want to kill the President, even if you're not saying that you are actually planning to do so. That makes sense, but it doesn't. I don't want to go to jail just because I say that the President needs to be killed (which I did say while Bush was in office).



I think people saying stupid things doesn't really hurt anything. As for stupid people shutting up, it depends on your beliefs. Some that think conspiracy theorists are crazy and should shut the fuck up, while others believe that have merit.

:lol: - seriously, who wouldn't be?
Every "sane" person should realize that there's a fine line between expressing oneself and sprouting nonsense. That's already a given.

They're doing it wrong. Argue instead on why you should have the freedom(not freedom of speech) to view something that doesn't even hurt the real world. Lolicons aside, those who argue child pornography is part of freedom of speech should learn that what they're doing is way beyond the limits of speech.

Nice topic :) neutral information should be free and uncensored, in the case of personal information: it should be each individual's right and privilege to privacy. They can give their personal information to who they want. In the case of child pornography, that cannot be tolerated, as it often exploits children. But lolicon is fine as it does not harm anyone.

On the whole subject of suing people over receiving information or being told something then suing someone for it, I find that ridiculous, (though I am against the notion of property) people should strive to attain as much knowledge as possible, so that their views hold more weight. Ignorance should not be applauded.

Generally the rule of thumb as far as I'm concerned is, if the information is that information procured at the expense of people or against their will, such as via torture/child porn, whatever - should not be in anyone's hands: not the public or the government.

Of course there have to be limits. That being said, we simply have to adopt a very cautious stance when enforcing them. Generally, the burden should be on the person who claims a certain incident of speech does not qualify as protected speech to prove that. Examples of things that should not be considered free speech.

-Seriously threatening to kill someone
-Revealing sensitive government/military secrets that endanger the public welfare
-Knowing and malicious slander
-Child pornography
-Using speech to endanger the public welfare in a tangible manner(the classic "Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater")
-Vandalism and violence
-Expressing yourself in a way that harasses the public around you(such as standing on a street corner, grabbing anyone who passes and shaking them while attempting to convince them of government conspiracy X by screaming in their face.)
-attempting to indoctrinate/incite minors to commit violent acts

Things that should be protected

-Flag burning
-insults that aren't serious slander
-reporting true but damaging information about someone
-nonviolent protests
-general instances of lying that do not involve breaking contracts, legal oaths, or constitute malicious slander

It's hard and the goal is to preserve as much freedom as possible, but society wouldn't function if everyone was simply allowed to do anything they wanted with no limits. A workable concept of free speech has to reflect this.

As for Shaggy's hooker: sorry, but if you did it an someone found out, they have a right to share that information with whomever they deem fit. In order for them to be using unprotected speech, you would have to show that their accusation is untrue and that they knew it was untrue when they made it.



That part about not being allowed to curse Bush is completely untrue. You aren't allowed to make threats against his life, but anyone can curse him, and many high profile individuals did so publicly.

Some good points made there however; I disagree, based on my own political views, with the points that I have put in bold.

I don't believe that threatening to kill someone should be prohibited, actually killing someone should be. A lot of things can be said in the heat of the moment, in the past I have threatened to kill someone and meant it - but in the heat of the moment. The only way you can feasibly "seriously threaten to kill someone" is to actually kill them after you have threatened them.

On the subject of revealing sensitive government/military secrets on the grounds that it may endanger public welfare. I do not believe that the government should have any secrets from the public. But then again I don't believe in a central government "governing" me anyway. The same goes for military secrets, considering that in my opinion - there should not be any military in the first place.

I agree with you to a certain extent about the knowing and malicious slander, I don't agree with it - nor do I agree with any harmful act one human can take against another. But I would not want someone to be punished just because they made up lies about me. What is a suitable punishment for breaking these rules?

I think that vandalism is one of those that could go either way, graffiti which has artistic merit, I support; destruction for the sake of destruction, I do not. This is certainly one of those which would have to be dealt with delicately.

Laws against flag burning are ridiculous as things are. Nationalism is one of the great boundaries that separate nations. We are all humans, it is my hope that eventually people will be able to live in this world free of national boundaries, with equal rights and opportunities for everyone.

Justice is something that, in my opinion, should be the end aim of freedom of speech, to bring light to the truth and be able to act righteously as a result.

I skimmed the thread and I have to say we need to "feed" a good topic like this. The poor thing is starving.

Simple rule of thumb for me on the freedom of speech.

"Anything goes unless it infringes on the constitutional rights of another person"

Note: by Constitutional rights I mean the rights given to us by the founding fathers with the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence.

The problem with "restricting" rights is who gets to decide? You? Me? Obama? Bush? Palin? Beginning to see my point? Currently, the freedom of speech is already under assault. From bills like the "fairness doctrine" that in the past restricted the freedom of conservatives and Liberal radio personnel to express their opinions (You can claim Obama doesn't suppose the fairness doctrine but, he'll just Cloak & Dagger it in under a different name, mark my words). To the general attitudes in the political world. I'm all for people burning the Israeli flag on college campuses in California but, they shouldn't scream bloody murder when the Palestinian flag is also burned by counter-protesters.

As for art; if a painting of the virgin mary smeared in elephant dung can be called "art" and is protected, then my drawings of loli should be as well.

About the prostitute; Dude, I don't see anything anywhere that says that you have a right to keep people from knowing that your Johnson was in a hookers mouth. That would be censorship and what do we say to censorship?



I'll just close with this which really contributes nothing to the argument but, highlights my views very well.

This can be looked at in two ways. First, if you threaten to kill someone and get taken seriously(and thus get arrested or whatever), it is your own fault, just as someone who walks around in an airport talking about hijacking planes and gets arrested got themself into that mess.

Secondly, making a serious and credible threat to kill or injure someone without killing them is perfectly possible. If you threaten to kill someone and draw a gun, you have established intent and capability to carry out your threat, even if you don't actually kill them. Generally such actions are a type of intimidation that falls under harassment.



I suppose it's a nice sentiment, but wholly unrealistic. Considering a pragmatic approach, it simply cannot be protected speech to make public secret weapon designs, expose the identity of operatives thus putting their lives at risk, publish details on military operations before they are carried out, etc. All these actions involve endangering the lives of others and the public safety in a very real way.



You can use lies to ruin someone's life. There was an instance of a teacher who was falsely accused of sexual harassment by two students, and basically he could never get a job teaching again, even after the students came out and admitted they made the whole thing up. However, slander has to be knowing, and the burden of proof is upon the person who believes themself damaged. Thus, it's not simply as easy as being able to sue someone who said something dubious about you. You have to show that their slander damaged you in a tangible way, and that they knew it was slanderous.



To put it simply: you can destroy or damage your own property for the sake of art, or whatever, but destroying or damaging the property of others for the sake of self expression is not and should not be protected speech.


@Fiery - I think your definition of what should be protected speech is in the right spirit, but in practicality, it is too broad. The constitutional rights in the Bill or Rights are mainly intended to protect citizens from the government. The Declaration of Independence isn't a legal document at all and is very general and vague. For example, simply going by a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights allows one to say that burning down one's neighbor's house in the name of "self expression" should be protected speech, since the Bill of Rights provides no clause concerning protection from one's neighbor destroy one's property, and the Declaration merely says that everyone should have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." It doesn't really provide a way to judge whose pursuit of happiness should take precedent here.

Really, it has to go back to the idea that freedom is good, but simply letting everyone do whatever they want is not a viable form of society. Looking at social contract theory, we surrender certain freedoms we might have in exchange for protection from others using those freedoms in ways that harm us. Thus, while the constitution says nothing about a right not to be killed be fellow citizens, this follows generally from the idea that speech/expression should not be protected if it harms someone in way equivalent to an action that would otherwise be illegal. These definitions of which harmful things one person inflicting on another can be deemed illegal ultimately go back to English common law and Judeo-Christian moral theory.

there is a limit, but there shouldnt be.


you are allowed to say what you think, think what you want (and want what the media tells you to)


many people argue against free speech on the basis that it could be hazardous to society at large.

they didnt consider that a society which truly embraces free speech would maintain a higher standard of doubt.
basically, lies and slander would be so common place that no one would believe it without further prove.

Concerning threats to kill someone, I believe it's illegal for protection purposes. If Billy Badass says he'll kill me, I can call the police and have him arrested, before he actually does kill me. The point is to prevent the murder before it happens.

Another free speech topic - where is the line between "expressing yourself" and "hurting another person"?

What if I have a bumper sticker on my car that says, "Fuck people"? That may offend people, and it will no doubt piss off parents whose children can clearly see the word "fuck," but should there be laws or regulations prohibiting that sort of thing? It's everyone's right to express themselves, but it's also everyone's right to not see things that offend them. Or is it?

If a person doesn't want to see sex or violence, they can turn off the TV or avoid going to the movies, but there's not much a person can do if they're in traffic and the car in front of them has something offensive on it. Or, a more likely scenario, a person cannot keep their child from seeing the offensive bumper sticker, though he/she can prevent the child from seeing sex and violence on TV.

Then again, it's still all the parent's problem. The only thing this parent should be able to do to this offender is have a negative view on them and that's it. If they don't like it, it's their problem. They shouldn't have any right to impose their will on other just because their child saw something they don't approve of. If people's feelings are hurt just because of my bumper sticker and the law would require me to remove it, I will have lost all faith in any sense of the word justice.

Why limit yourself to this? I know it's probably the best sounding piece of paper that has rules on it, but it's just annoying how so many people derive their freedoms form a piece of paper as if it's the infallible word of god.

Fun fact: We we're born with absolute freedom. The government doesn't give rights or freedoms. The only thing it can do is take them away.

Well, on the subject of threatening to kill someone, I have had a knife held to my throat before, so I am not a stranger to this, until a person kills me, I laugh off any threat upon my life. People are stupid, they will say stupid things that they are less likely to follow through on.

Yeah, if you start arresting people for doing stupid things where do you stop? They're not really hurting anyone by threatening to kill you, apart from perhaps distressing you? The fact that it is effectively an act of malice toward another person is why I would not advocate it and will not justify it, but once again I ask: what is a suitable punishment? Since we're talking about free speech; what do you think about people's rights to own weapons (thinking more of guns than frying pans and kitchen knives). I am wholeheartedly against it, no-one should have a weapon for "protection" purposes, a better way to protect yourself would be to ensure that other people do not possess such weapons themselves.

On military and government secrets, again i say that there should be no secrets, no military, no weapons.If I am pragmatic and realistic about this, taking into account human nature - I realize that it may lead to disaster. Especially if these changes were to be implemented today, but my response to this is that you should not have enemies, all humans should live under one secular nation, whose cause is to bring the best quality of life possible to it's people. How to achieve this? Well I'm still working on that one ;)

Ask yourself this; Why do people hate America? As a country not necessarily the people. There would always be opposition even if the world changed, but wouldn't you rather support a cause which was just than one that is not?

So you'd want to sue someone if they said bad things about you, that, say for example; cost you money? If all businesses and jobs were government controlled, then these kinds of things could be avoided. In that, the case would be investigated, but when it came to light that he had done no wrong: the gentleman in question would have no trouble returning to his job. I do not agree with the notion of property, so I don't really see how suing someone is going to solve anything.

In the end justice would be that the people did not do bad things to you in the first place. I understand how spreading malicious rumors can harm someone, that was not my problem with your statement, what I wanted to know was what you suggest as a suitable punishment?

On the subject of vandalism, I believe that if it is all public property then it depends on the merit of the vandalism. :)

Consider this then. What if the police and the army were ordered to turn against you. Since soldiers have no individual thoughts and are simple pawns, they'd attack the citizens if given the order by their arbitrary masters. This is entirely possible looking at what happened to countries with dictators who wanted to silence others. This country has also done this in the past, sending cops to attack a peaceful protest even though it is our right to assemble. How would we protect ourselves from the assholes who where given guns but we weren't allowed to have any?

It's a "rule of thumb" for good reason. A more specific view would be the freedom of speech is

The right to seek information, opinions and ideas;
the right to receive information, opinions and ideas;
the right to impart information, opinions and ideas.

I can't see how child pornography could be protected by that as fucking a child is not seeking,receiving or imparting information, opinions or ideas. While saying that you want to fuck a child would be protected as nobody is harmed. While calling fire in a crowded theater isn't an expression of one of the above three either. The freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular forms of speech such as saying you want to fuck a kid.

In the end my stance still is that speech should not be censored anywhere. Any and all ideas, opinions and information should be allowed to flow freely.

Then I would die, but I'm not afraid to die for what I believe in. There is no merit in fighting injustice with more injustice. If I lived in a dictatorship, then I would spend a short life working against it. If everyone stood for what was right rather than what was right for them then the world would be a better place. If my death could inspire people to follow in my footsteps then I would be satisfied.