What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[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.

[Soulforged]

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.

Exactly, that's one interpretation. That's called, in theory, historic interpretation.

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.

The magical properties are in the fact that you seem to see some kind of causal connection between the speech and the result, emptying the affected subjects of will.

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.

Caracterizing positions of idealogue is what's stucking the conversetion, apparently you have a certain taste for attaching arbitrary labels to certain statements made against your possition. And still you don't recognize the interpretation that I proposed as something that reasonabily can be infered. You can throw as much examples as you want, you're ignoring the fact that there's only a very tiny connection between an speech and any given effect as far as human relatioships go (not sure what other effect a voice or a letter can cause). In all the examples that you've provided, except pehaps for one or two occasions in wich the consequences might surpass the line of the reasonable (like punishing someone for denying the holocaust) and in the case of sedition, we're talking about penal cases in wich the persecution begins by a private instance. That's, if there's no result, i.e. person affected, there's no case whatsoever. In the case of sedition this changes, you speak some words and suddenly it's a crime by itself, I don't know why, perhaps you can explain this to me, since I've never understood this quite enough.

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.

I don't need to go to the US for that. And now that you gave me the situation, then ask yourself this: In what manner will that black man respond if I tell him "monkey", for example? Will it be a reaction as in cause-effect, or will it be the result of human interpretation and the conventional use of words working in his brain. Both have different consequences.

[Redleg]

Exactly, that's one interpretation. That's called, in theory, historic interpretation.

Your getting close

The magical properties are in the fact that you seem to see some kind of causal connection between the speech and the result, emptying the affected subjects of will.

No causal connection - a direct causation happens. individual yells fire - panic strikes the crowd - someone ends up hurt or dead. The direct result of the yelling of fire caused the events to happen.

Caracterizing positions of idealogue is what's stucking the conversetion, apparently you have a certain taste for attaching arbitrary labels to certain statements made against your possition.

What do you think the term magic is - don't go attempting to play the maytr when you yourself are more guilty of this.

And still you don't recognize the interpretation that I proposed as something that reasonabily can be infered.

Maybe its because its not something that is reasonabily inferred.

You can throw as much examples as you want, you're ignoring the fact that there's only a very tiny connection between an speech and any given effect as far as human relatioships go (not sure what other effect a voice or a letter can cause).

Death resulting from the irresponsible shouting of fire in a crowded place is not a minor or tiny connection between speech and a given event.

In all the examples that you've provided, except pehaps for one or two occasions in wich the consequences might surpass the line of the reasonable (like punishing someone for denying the holocaust) and in the case of sedition, we're talking about penal cases in wich the persecution begins by a private instance.

Not at all - I clearly have stated that there are both civil and criminal applications.

That's, if there's no result, i.e. person affected, there's no case whatsoever.

Your getting warm.

In the case of sedition this changes, you speak some words and suddenly it's a crime by itself, I don't know why, perhaps you can explain this to me, since I've never understood this quite enough.

Then your attempting to debunk my statements from lack of knowledge - sedition is covered in the United States Constitution as a specific event that the government through Congress has to act on.

I don't need to go to the US for that. And now that you gave me the situation, then ask yourself this: In what manner will that black man respond if I tell him "monkey", for example? Will it be a reaction as in cause-effect, or will it be the result of human interpretation and the conventional use of words working in his brain. Both have different consequences.

It will have the same effect - hate speech is in the preception of the reciever not your intent. The power of the spoken word still exists regardless of your attempt to equate it to "magic."

If your unwilling to accept the responsibility that goes with Freedom of Speech - you are not ready to exercise that Freedom.

[Soulforged]

No causal connection - a direct causation happens. individual yells fire - panic strikes the crowd - someone ends up hurt or dead. The direct result of the yelling of fire caused the events to happen.

Contradiction.

Maybe its because its not something that is reasonabily inferred.

I think I can reasonabely infer advocation of sedition as a derivate of the liberalists principles.

Death resulting from the irresponsible shouting of fire in a crowded place is not a minor or tiny connection between speech and a given event.

Is it just me or did you just found a connection between a cause and an effect just because the effect happens to be "tragic"?

Not at all - I clearly have stated that there are both civil and criminal applications.

Okay, more to my point. All civil cases are private.

Your getting warm.
Then your attempting to debunk my statements from lack of knowledge - sedition is covered in the United States Constitution as a specific event that the government through Congress has to act on.

Just for fun then, can you present me with an hipotetical advocation of sedition right now, one that will fall into the category persecuted by the government. What the Constitution covers, and you've presented consistently is that sedition will be represed by the state.

It will have the same effect - hate speech is in the preception of the reciever not your intent. The power of the spoken word still exists regardless of your attempt to equate it to "magic."

Doesn't answer my question.

If your unwilling to accept the responsibility that goes with Freedom of Speech - you are not ready to exercise that Freedom.

I see that we're stuck on this, as if I denied this to be true. The concept of responsability that you uphold is the one of knowing the legal consequences of such speech and acting in accordance. However that kind of responsability only comes with law... I'm talking about something that goes beyond the law in general, wether I can interprete what I want from your Constitution or not it's irrelevant, I'm talking in general, from morals or ethics (or even law principles or theories if you want, though they constructed to fill the blank spaces on the law), as you like to call it.

[Redleg]

Contradiction.

A direct causation is not a causal relationship.

I think I can reasonabely infer advocation of sedition as a derivate of the liberalists principles.

Sedition is an act against the established government. Liberalists and sedition does not necessarily go hand and hand. One can be a liberal without advocating the violent overthrow of the established authority.

Is it just me or did you just found a connection between a cause and an effect just because the effect happens to be "tragic"?

Must be you - the cause is the speech - using the word Fire when there is no fire.

Okay, more to my point. All civil cases are private.

Civil cases more to point is between individuals who have a disagreement. Slander is a civil case, based upon a public utterance.

Just for fun then, can you present me with an hipotetical advocation of sedition right now, one that will fall into the category persecuted by the government.

The American Civil War. I don't even have to use a hypothecial situation. There is no sedition speech currently that I know of in the United States that is prosecutable by the United States Government. Sedition speech requires the advocation of force to remove the established authority.

What the Constitution covers, and you've presented consistently is that sedition will be represed by the state.

Of course because Sedition is not considered covered under the 1st Ammendment which is often refered to as Freedom of Speech.

Doesn't answer my question.

Then you were not listening.

I see that we're stuck on this, as if I denied this to be true. The concept of responsability that you uphold is the one of knowing the legal consequences of such speech and acting in accordance. However that kind of responsability only comes with law... I'm talking about something that goes beyond the law in general, wether I can interprete what I want from your Constitution or not it's irrelevant, I'm talking in general, from morals or ethics (or even law principles or theories if you want, though they constructed to fill the blank spaces on the law), as you like to call it.

Incorrect - I am speaking of a concept that goes way beyond the law but into how an individual acts. With Freedom comes responsibility is a concept that means you have a responsiblity to your fellow man to exercise your Freedoms in a reasonable manner.

Sedition speech and its prosecution is a matter of law. Behaviors between people is being responsible in your actions toward your fellow man.

[Xiahou]

Freedom of speech? I'll tell you one thing it's not... It's not passing a law that makes it illegal for citizens to publicly criticize elected officials.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

How ironic that Sen. John McCain was heckled during a recent commencement speech. He has worked so hard to suppress others' right to protest and have their voices heard.

McCain was booed and heckled as he delivered a commencement speech at The New School in New York last Friday. The main gripe seemed to be the senator's support for the war in Iraq, which has given the people of Iraq the right to protest and speak freely.

As this was going on, a federal court was telling the Christian Civic League in Maine it can't run a radio ad next month when the Senate is set to take up the Marriage Protection Amendment. Reason: The ad tangentially criticizes Sen. Olympia Snowe, who faces a primary June 13.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, which was supposed to end the alleged corrupting influence of money in politics, makes it a criminal act for any ad to even mention a politician 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election.

The Maine ad that tries to corrupt the political process mentions that Snowe, a co-author of McCain-Feingold, "unfortunately . . . voted against the Marriage Protection Amendment two years ago." The "big money" behind it amounts to $3,992, provided by an anonymous donor who agreed to cover the radio buy.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., ruled that the ad "might have the effect of encouraging a new candidate to oppose Sen. Snowe, reducing the number of votes cast for her in the primary, weakening her support in the general election, or otherwise undermining her efforts to gather support, including by raising funds for her re-election."

Well, duh. Meanwhile, Maine newspapers, radio and TV stations, are free to influence the election, spending their corporate dollars on editorials or news coverage that is often slanted one way or the other. But a group of private citizens banding together in common cause cannot, for they'd be committing the crime of attempting to participate in the political process. link

I hope all American voters remember what McCain and Feingold have done to our freedom of speech when we choose our next president.

[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.