What is Freedom Of Speech ?

[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.