The limits of free speech-If any.

[Mongoose]

what do you think the limits to free speech should be? I think that it should allow anything, but should follow afew rules.

1:No threats

2:No giving knowingly false information about public saftey(RUN!!! THE THETERE IS ON FIRE!!!)


I think i might have missed afew though. Your thoughts?

[Kanamori]

1. Libel
2. When "clear and present danger" applies
3. When the state's compelling interest in children's safety trumps an adults interest in free speech. e.g. child pornography or real sexual depictions of children.

[Mongoose]

1. Libel

Libel?

[Kanamori]

basically slanderous lies, again, there are other competing interests though. such as the presses freedom to print, and a person's right to a fair trial.

[Byzantine Prince]

Libel is a publication that destroys one's reputation. In the case of news reporting this would fall under the category of speach.

Ok people should be allowed to say whatever they want, but they should not be able to publish in any permanent way, anything they want.

[solypsist]

when you want to know:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech

[Kanamori]

I really, really, dislike a lot of the stuff the FCC does.

[QwertyMIDX]

In a world of equal access to the means of communication everyone should be able to say whatever they want. Unfortunatly we don't live in that world so there are some exceptions but the guy standing on a soapbox on a street coner should be able to say whatever he wants.

[Soulforged]

Now while the society in general (as individuals) have total freedom of speech (and it should be of association too, but...), the press has certain caracteristics wich should make it more limited.
The press is just another instrument of society. As such it's limited to what society considers just and safe. The limits may change from time to time, but certainly all this has an essence, and that's basically what Kanamori said. I'll add the damage to honor and to privacy. All other accidents can change, and actually do from epoch to epoch.

[Divinus Arma]

One of our founding father's put it best in regards to all inherent rights and liberties:

The right to swing my fist ends just short of your nose.

[Marcellus]

I think that the limits of free speech are the same as the limits of free choice: when what you say or do will harm others (e.g. threats, inciting violence, libel), then it should not be allowed, otherwise it should.

[GoreBag]

I don't think free speech should have limits. I also don't think child porn is speech and its proponents should cease hiding behind the moniker. Porn's porn's porn.

[TinCow]

People should be free from governmental regulation of their statements and expressions in public places unless it endangers personal safety or national security under a strict-scrutiny style evaluation.

Otherwise, if you don't like it, don't listen.

Slander, libel, etc. aren't limitations on free speech. They are simply ramifications if you use your right to cause various harms. A limitation would be something forbidden by law.

[Kanamori]

Are there any systematic ways you decide when the ramifications accomplish a limitation?

[Ice]

One of our founding father's put it best in regards to all inherent rights and liberties:

The right to swing my fist ends just short of your nose.

Very well put.

[TinCow]

Are there any systematic ways you decide when the ramifications accomplish a limitation?

Sure, when it's criminalized.

Freedom of Speech only applies to governmental interference. That's why these forums can be moderated and Stalinized as much as the admins want without fear of legal action. The government has certain limitations placed upon it that determine when it can interefere in the public's right to free speech. Those limitations are extremely strict and generally only apply to national security and obscenity (which is different from indecency in the legal world).

Everything beyond that is regulated by the civil courts, which have no relation to criminal activity. In those courts you pay when you unfairly screw up other peoples' lives and society decides you owe them. That's a big difference from a limitation on speech.

For the government, they don't care if anyone actually WAS hurt. If you said it, you're guilty. In the civil system, generally you can say what you want, you just have to pay if you injure some and lose in court. Many of us commit slander on a regular basis, but since no one decides to sue us for it we don't even notice.