What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[Redleg]

Freedom of Speech is a concept which allows an individual to speak his mind without fear of prosecution from the government. Freedom of Speech does not remove the responsibility from the individual to insure that his speech is factual. One can not always be predict how people will take their speech - but the government has upheld a few standards that seem reasonable on the surface.

States have upheld that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to speak in such a manner that advocates harm to another person or group. States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority.

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

[Kagemusha]

Freedom of Speech is a concept which allows an individual to speak his mind without fear of prosecution from the government. Freedom of Speech does not remove the responsibility from the individual to insure that his speech is factual. One can not always be predict how people will take their speech - but the government has upheld a few standards that seem reasonable on the surface.

States have upheld that Freedom of Speech does not entitle one to speak in such a manner that advocates harm to another person or group. States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority.

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

Redleg hit the nail in the head.Nuff said.

[Soulforged]

If one has Freedom to Speak their mind - they must also accept the responsiblity that goes with it. This is the dilemia of free speech, most want the freedom but not the responsibility that goes with it.

Evaluating the general situation in your country at the time, would you reasonabily state that there's an ample freedom of speech? I'm just curious about things I've heard about the U.S. in these last months.

I've nothing to add to the topic, you've said it just fine, except for the second part of the second parragraph of your first post, wich I disagree with.

[Redleg]

Evaluating the general situation in your country at the time, would you reasonabily state that there's an ample freedom of speech? I'm just curious about things I've heard about the U.S. in these last months.

The concept of Freedom of Speech in the United States is sound. People are not often arrested by the Government for their speech - only those who advocate violence normally are. The instance where the woman was arrested for her comments toward the Chinese President seem primarily to be an effort to remove her to prevent futher embrassement to both the Chinese President and the current adminstration.

I've nothing to add to the topic, you've said it just fine, except for the second part of the second parragraph of your first post, wich I disagree with.

So do you believe it is okay to shout fire in a club that is crowded so that you can enter?

So do you believe it is okay to call individuals of who happen to have pigment color of brown or black degrading names?

So do you believe it is okay to call for the death of anyone who happens to be a jew?

So do you believe that it is okay to state that Nancy Drew (insert any name instead) is a homosexual when there is no proof that she is?


So which one of those do you agree with and which ones don't you agree with.



With Freedom comes responsiblity - without responsiblity there is no freedom.

[Soulforged]

The concept of Freedom of Speech in the United States is sound. People are not often arrested by the Government for their speech - only those who advocate violence normally are. The instance where the woman was arrested for her comments toward the Chinese President seem primarily to be an effort to remove her to prevent futher embrassement to both the Chinese President and the current adminstration.

Perhaps I'm buying to much american series lately. But weren't there some arrests based on people speaking their mind against Bush? Or some strange concept that I only heard about american policy called "Zone of Free Speech"?

So do you believe it is okay to shout fire in a club that is crowded so that you can enter?

If the people react, no it's not okay.

So do you believe it is okay to call individuals of who happen to have pigment color of brown or black degrading names?

It's not okay. But why should it be illegal? I only think it should be illegal when said in the media, and only if the subjects that felt affected initiate a motion against the subject who provoqued them.

So do you believe it is okay to call for the death of anyone who happens to be a jew?

The same as above.

So do you believe that it is okay to state that Nancy Drew (insert any name instead) is a homosexual when there is no proof that she is?

The same as above.

So which one of those do you agree with and which ones don't you agree with.

I think I was pretty clear, second part of the second paragraph: "States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority." And for the long discussion that we had about this it's amazing that you have missed the point.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Redleg: What you say is true - with freedom of speech comes responsibility. But if someone does any of these things:

- shout fire in a club that is crowded so that you can enter?
- call individuals of who happen to have pigment color of brown or black degrading names?
- call for the death of anyone who happens to be a jew?
- state that Nancy Drew (insert any name instead) is a homosexual when there is no proof that she is?

...should they be arrested and sentenced as criminals for it? Because then you're not talking about free speech with responsibility, but free speech restricted by laws. While I agree none of those things should be said, and perhaps not even allowed to be said (if it's possible to make a proper law against it that doesn't ruin the other free speech abilities), it's necessary to find an exact phrasing of what such statements have in common and makes them punishable, and what differs them from other statements, if you are to have laws - and punishments - for them. So the questions I'd like to ask you are the following:
1. do you think it should be illegal to say any of those things?
2. if yes, how should such a law be phrased, i.e. how can you in an exact way differ between an illegal and a legal statement. I personally find it difficult to find an exact enough phrasing that excludes all forms of responsible statements from being considered criminal and excludes all irresponsible statements from being considered legal (but that doesn't mean I'm against finding such a phrasing, on the contrary I'd be delighted to find one).
3. do you think any forms of verbal protest against a government should be illegal, and if so, how would you define an illegal form of protest against a government?
4. if it isn't allowed by the free speech principle to speak of violence against a government, while at the same time the government withdraws several democratic rights and increase things such as surveillance, it's a very dangerous thing to have rooted into the system that protesting merely in words (note: no action or real violence, only speaking of violence) against the government should be illegal. It's necessary for people to be able to speak warmly about violence against the government if the democratic system is falling apart. The American constitution even calls it a duty rather than a right to carry guns and if necessary use those overthrow any government that would be undemocratic.

[Redleg]

@Redleg: What you say is true - with freedom of speech comes responsibility. But if someone does any of these things:

- shout fire in a club that is crowded so that you can enter?
- call individuals of who happen to have pigment color of brown or black degrading names?
- call for the death of anyone who happens to be a jew?
- state that Nancy Drew (insert any name instead) is a homosexual when there is no proof that she is?

...should they be arrested and sentenced as criminals for it?

Speech that causes the death of others is a criminal act. Shouting fire in a crowded theather or club is a fine examble of that. Most nations and laws happen to agree with that point.

Calling for the desruction of another human being based soley upon their race or religion falls within that same concept.

Slander is a known civil crime that often resorts in torts being awarded against the person who uttered the slander.

Because then you're not talking about free speech with responsibility, but free speech restricted by laws.

Not at all - if you act in a irresponsible matter and it causes the death of another you can be charged with several crimes. The state must prove that your actions caused the events - which is not all that hard in many cases.

While I agree none of those things should be said, and perhaps not even allowed to be said (if it's possible to make a proper law against it that doesn't ruin the other free speech abilities), it's necessary to find an exact phrasing of what such statements have in common and makes them punishable, and what differs them from other statements, if you are to have laws - and punishments - for them. So the questions I'd like to ask you are the following:

Laws alreadly exist for many of the above mentioned questions - that is why I used them. Those laws also have very specific definitions that happen to fit within the scope of the question.

1. do you think it should be illegal to say any of those things?

Yes - irresponsible behavior often has a consequence both civil and criminal. If you decide to shout fire in a crowded bar - when there is no fire - then you get to suffer the consequences of your irresponsible action.

2. if yes, how should such a law be phrased, i.e. how can you in an exact way differ between an illegal and a legal statement. I personally find it difficult to find an exact enough phrasing that excludes all forms of responsible statements from being considered criminal and excludes all irresponsible statements from being considered legal (but that doesn't mean I'm against finding such a phrasing, on the contrary I'd be delighted to find one).

You don't go after the responsible use of speech - the state makes laws against irresponsible use of speech - the shouting of fire is a good case in point, so is hate speech directed at advocating violence against another.

3. do you think any forms of verbal protest against a government should be illegal, and if so, how would you define an illegal form of protest against a government?

Your suffering under the same problem that Soulforged is. Protests against the government falls under Freedom of Speech. Advocating the overthrow of the government through violence - sedition, is not. For instance in the body of the Constitution it expressly states that Congress shall call forth the militia in instances of sedition. Sedition is not protected speech in the United States. Protesting against the governments actions is protected speech.

4. if it isn't allowed by the free speech principle to speak of violence against a government, while at the same time the government withdraws several democratic rights and increase things such as surveillance, it's a very dangerous thing to have rooted into the system that protesting merely in words (note: no action or real violence, only speaking of violence) against the government should be illegal. It's necessary for people to be able to speak warmly about violence against the government if the democratic system is falling apart. The American constitution even calls it a duty rather than a right to carry guns and if necessary use those overthrow any government that would be undemocratic.

Correct - the wording is done to force a constitutional crisis at Congress when the people begin to advocate with force the destruction of the government. The best case in point about Free Speech and sedition is the American Civil War.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Not at all - if you act in a irresponsible matter and it causes the death of another you can be charged with several crimes. The state must prove that your actions caused the events - which is not all that hard in many cases.

I believe you misunderstood my point in that phrasing. I meant that if you restrict freedom of speech by law rather than the individual's responsibility, it isn't full freedom of speech, but (in the ideal case) almost full freedom of speech. It is a phrasing which shows that there's a difference between the two concepts. Real and full freedom of speech doesn't work we both agree to, but we should know that what we have when we pass laws against some kind of talking, we have what is called restricted freedom of speech. Responsibly restricted, but restricted not by the individual but by the law.

Your examples below are good, but I'm afraid I've been able to point out a few loopholes in your phrasings, which still make them unsatisfactory. Let's see if we can correct those loopholes by making the definitions clearer, if I point out the loophole and we try to find out how to close it:

Yes - irresponsible behavior often has a consequence both civil and criminal. If you decide to shout fire in a crowded bar - when there is no fire - then you get to suffer the consequences of your irresponsible action.

Irresponsible behavior is a bit vague. Of course, one could say that shouting fire in a crowded bar is a practical joke. A joke you may pull on your friends. Assume you do, and then some others hear you...

hate speech directed at advocating violence against another

This phrasing is close to lacking loopholes, but the way it's phrased now it would make it illegal to speak in favor of death penalty, or even speaking in favor of prison, which is mental violence. You need to add an exception stating that "except in the case of sentenced criminals", or many in this forum would be criminals (mind you many advocate violence against not yet sentenced people - even people who are later released and shown to be innocent, and another person later got correctly arrested for the crime). But then it becomes legal to advocate violence at an innocently sentenced, or a man who was guilty, but whose crime was mearly shoplifting for 50 pence, so you might need an exception for the exception. So where is the line drawn?

Advocating the overthrow of the government through violence - sedition, is not.

But assume the government removes the right to vote, and the Congress is too scared to advocate the destruction of the government. What should the people do? And if a leader starts wiretapping everyone, and moves innocent people, or people who merely spoke negatively of the regime, to camps where they were kept without a trial. Somewhere there is a line where democracy is lost, and when advocating violence is the only way of expressing your dislike for the anti-democratic movements. If you advocate violence (but do not use it) against a government that removes one democratic right after another, that communicating of anger to them is the only way to make them understand that they need to stop. But you are harmless to the government at that point. Usually when democracy is removed, the state can do whatever it wants, and it takes fifty years or so to assemble are real rebellion to overthrow the government. If you advocate violence the government can leave you alone and you'll still not be able to overthrow it immediately, rather if they sentence you for that speech, you'll be more likely to successfully overthrow them earlier. Also if it would be a democratic and legal government, it would suffer more from arresting and persecuting people who spoke negatively of it, than their advocating violence could ever do.

Let's take an example - assuming you're in the Weimar Republic, and Hitler just got elected. Now during the trip from 1933 to 1945, at which point should it have become legal for a German citizen to advocate the destruction of the nazi government by violence?

[Redleg]

Perhaps I'm buying to much american series lately. But weren't there some arrests based on people speaking their mind against Bush? Or some strange concept that I only heard about american policy called "Zone of Free Speech"?
If the people react, no it's not okay.
It's not okay. But why should it be illegal? I only think it should be illegal when said in the media, and only if the subjects that felt affected initiate a motion against the subject who provoqued them.
The same as above.
The same as above.
I think I was pretty clear, second part of the second paragraph: "States also have in their self-interest (the states interest) limited speech that advocates the violent overthrow of the government authority." And for the long discussion that we had about this it's amazing that you have missed the point.

The concept of anarchy is a non-proven political idealogue that faces many problems.

You have demonstrated often in our discussions about Freedom of Speech. If your unwilling to accept responsiblity for your speech - even anarchy can not function without people accepting responsiblity for the actions.

[Soulforged]

The concept of anarchy is a non-proven political idealogue that faces many problems.

We're not arguing about anarchy, and I never mentioned it. However you didn't answered my first question.

You have demonstrated often in our discussions about Freedom of Speech. If your unwilling to accept responsiblity for your speech - even anarchy can not function without people accepting responsiblity for the actions.

I still cannot understand how do you equate what I'm saying with not accepting responsability... I accept my responsability for advocating the overthrowing of my government... I think you mean consequences, in that case I don't accept them, simple, I can difer on the view that your courts or mine have on the matter, and hell I'll disagree on this matter everytime. But let's take a look at your last post to draw some lines for my ideas:

Speech that causes the death of others is a criminal act. Shouting fire in a crowded theather or club is a fine examble of that. Most nations and laws happen to agree with that point.

There's no speech that causes death. The speech in itself is not a criminal act, the only way in wich it becomes criminal is when there's some result at the end of the events, a disvalued result, like injured people. And that's the principal problem that I've with the interpretation that you defend of texts like the 1st Amendment, I'll say it again, you give to much powers to words, you give them magical properties, without the prejudice of other people doing the same of course.

[Reenk Roink]

Redleg is correct. At least initially, as our founding fathers interpreted it, freedom of speech was to guarantee the right to scrutinize and if need be, protest the government (we were very wary of a powerful government back then). It was not extended so that people could say whatever they wanted, and slander, blasphemy, and indecency were all still crimes.

[Redleg]

I'll say it again, you give to much powers to words, you give them magical properties, without the prejudice of other people doing the same of course.

No magical properties at all. If you shout fire in a crowded Restraunt, Club, theather - it will cause serious harm or death to someone. That is a fact - proven by actual events.

There are other exambles - it seems that your attempting to debunk the postion by ridicule not by fact. Thats to bad - when you get stuck in an untenable idealogue postion and use such terms it demonstrates in itself the weakness of your argument.

I tell you what - come to the United States and walk up to a black man in the inner city and call him a certain term.. You will see a demonstration of the power of a word placed upon yourself.