How Far should Freedom of Expression go?

[KarlXII]

If you're using the freedom to charge racial hatred or directly try to offend, then that is where it ends. I doubt this man is in his "freedom of expression" rights, seeing as the Nazi ideology was racial supremecy and the killing of "Undesireables".

[Strike For The South]

If you're using the freedom to charge racial hatred or directly try to offend, then that is where it ends. I doubt this man is in his "freedom of expression" rights, seeing as the Nazi ideology was racial supremecy and the killing of "Undesireables".

If he is not physically harming someone who are you to decide what is right?

[Crazed Rabbit]

If a person isn't saying "We need to kill those [specific] X people" they should be allowed to say it. Saying "We need to deal with X people", or "We need to have Y people as supreme above those evil X people" should be allowed. Inciting hatred should be allowed.

CR

[KukriKhan]

His neighbors should all fly bigger Aussie flags on taller flagpoles. A good political leader would hand hand them out for free.

[Whacker]

A few others have hit the nail on the head. Having opinions should never be illegal, period (no matter how wrong or misguided they are). There is a difference between expression an opinion that could be hateful and inciting people to violence, or something such as libel and slander.

[Mikeus Caesar]

In Adelaide?

Oh god, i've moved to hell. Not only is it full of drunks, tramps and mullets, but now also neo-nazis.

But then, i've had to deal with my fair share of racist skinheads at work. Some fascist came in and was ordering a meal. He had a pretty thick accent and my Chinese friend couldn't understand him, so i came along and took over. Once she'd wandered away, he started muttering rubbish about how 'this should be a job for Australian kids, not them, but people like you, am i right, friend?'.

I was utterly disgusted by this man. So it was quite satisfying when i replied back to him that i wasn't Australian, but British. The smile dropped off his face. My Chinese friend then arrived with his food and a big grin on her face and stood right next to me. He snatched the bag off her and walked out saying something about ' disgusting' while we tried not to laugh.

But yes, racism and white supremacy does appear to be quite a problem in this city. In the 10 months or so i've been here, i've heard more racist bile directed towards the Chinese and other immigrants, than i have in my entire life. It's tainted my entire opinion of this place. It's nothing more than a colonial backwater, full of bloody hicks and rednecks, who can't see past their own ugly inbred noses. Most of the population of this city disgusts me, because they're all such bloody racists and bigots. I can only hope the rest of Australia isn't like this, otherwise i may just change my mind on living in what seems to be an otherwise pleasant land.

[Koga No Goshi]

If he is not physically harming someone who are you to decide what is right?

Um, in a lot of states, including Texas (I am not fully up to date on Texan law but this was the case until relatively recently) there is a qualification on free speech known as "fighting words." In other words, expressing something so volatile and so understood that it will cause immediate violence that it is not considered just an expression of free speech. It is the same reasoning as yelling fire in a theater or inciting a mob to riot or disturbing the peace. You are not free to express yourself any way you like in any context you like until you're blue in the face and you've started a race riot.

This changes from place to place, but in some parts of the U.S. "fighting words" are still on the books as a restriction on pure free speech. It's like putting up a KKK banner in the middle of a black neighborhood in Philadelphia--- if you didn't realize that was going to immediately provoke a destructive reaction, you were criminally stupid. ;)

[Strike For The South]

Um, in a lot of states, including Texas (I am not fully up to date on Texan law but this was the case until relatively recently) there is a qualification on free speech known as "fighting words." In other words, expressing something so volatile and so understood that it will cause immediate violence that it is not considered just an expression of free speech. It is the same reasoning as yelling fire in a theater or inciting a mob to riot or disturbing the peace. You are not free to express yourself any way you like in any context you like until you're blue in the face and you've started a race riot.

This changes from place to place, but in some parts of the U.S. "fighting words" are still on the books as a restriction on pure free speech. It's like putting up a KKK banner in the middle of a black neighborhood in Philadelphia--- if you didn't realize that was going to immediately provoke a destructive reaction, you were criminally stupid. ;)

ok....but thats not how I feel I merely answered the question that was posed.

[Koga No Goshi]

ok....but thats not how I feel I merely answered the question that was posed.

I know, I meant the post in general. People tend to assume Freedom of Speech is absolutely literal. It isn't. You can't play loud music after 11. You can't stand around outside of someone's house yelling obscenities at them all day. You can't lie to Federal investigators. You can't yell fire in a theater. You can't provoke a mob to riot or start flipping over cars. And in some places, hate rhetoric or fighting words (it's the same idea really) known to provoke an immediate and emotionally destructive or violent reaction, either from an individual or a group, is equally not supported under Free Speech.

[Strike For The South]

I know, I meant the post in general. People tend to assume Freedom of Speech is absolutely literal. It isn't. You can't play loud music after 11. You can't stand around outside of someone's house yelling obscenities at them all day. You can't lie to Federal investigators. You can't yell fire in a theater. You can't provoke a mob to riot or start flipping over cars. And in some places, hate rhetoric or fighting words (it's the same idea really) known to provoke an immediate and emotionally destructive or violent reaction, either from an individual or a group, is equally not supported under Free Speech.

well some of those things should be legal.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And in some places, hate rhetoric or fighting words (it's the same idea really) known to provoke an immediate and emotionally destructive or violent reaction, either from an individual or a group, is equally not supported under Free Speech.

The interesting part of this is the case of whether you know that the words could cause a violent reaction, but are not intended to cause one. For example, if you told Mary Daly that you believe that traditional gender roles are best (not saying that I necessarily believe that, that's a debate for another time), she would probably have quite the violent reaction (not that she'd listen to you in the first place since you're a man, but let's presume for a moment that she would). Are you justified in saying this, knowing it would provoke a reaction? If so, where do we draw the line?

[Koga No Goshi]

The interesting part of this is the case of whether you know that the words could cause a violent reaction, but are not intended to cause one. For example, if you told Mary Daly that you believe that traditional gender roles are best (not saying that I necessarily believe that, that's a debate for another time), she would probably have quite the violent reaction (not that she'd listen to you in the first place since you're a man, but let's presume for a moment that she would). Are you justified in saying this, knowing it would provoke a reaction? If so, where do we draw the line?

I think a court in the south would recognize the difference between, let's say, a Swedish tourist who had a local run up and hand him a KKK hat, and the Swedish tourist having no idea what it was, and a local white man walking around the black neighborhood in KKK outfits and then trying to sue the city for 5 million in damages because he got beat up.

[TinCow]

The interesting part of this is the case of whether you know that the words could cause a violent reaction, but are not intended to cause one. For example, if you told Mary Daly that you believe that traditional gender roles are best (not saying that I necessarily believe that, that's a debate for another time), she would probably have quite the violent reaction (not that she'd listen to you in the first place since you're a man, but let's presume for a moment that she would). Are you justified in saying this, knowing it would provoke a reaction? If so, where do we draw the line?

On a legal level, it's called the reasonable person standard. Nearly all US (and probably all UK common law derivative) jurisdictions use this standard in tort, contract, and criminal law. The term comes from a determination as to what the "reasonable" would do under the circumstances. In layman's terms, it's the average person. The court determines whether the person acted in a manner consistent with what the average person would have done.

In this type of situation, the RPS would essentially ask whether a reasonable (average) person would have reacted violently to those comments. If they would have, then the person saying the comments would likely be found to have incited the violence, even if they honestly did not know it would happen. Their ignorance would not be a defense. If a reasonable (average) person would not have reacted violently to these comments, then the person making them would not be found to have incited violence, even if it did occur.

Of course, this is part of state law, and thus it's impossible to state a general rule. Some states will have exceptions that say that even if a reasonable person would not have reacted violently, actual knowledge that this specific person would react violently would be enough. So, if you told someone the sky was blue and that made them punch you, you may still be liable if you knew for a fact that they would punch you if you said that.

However, all this is merely hypothetical, because the vast majority of states do not allow for escalation to physical violence from verbal exchanges, regardless of what is being said. Without knowing a specific state to reference, the odds are that no matter what is said, and no matter how malicious the intent of the words, any violent response will be a criminal act.

[TinCow]

Um, in a lot of states, including Texas (I am not fully up to date on Texan law but this was the case until relatively recently) there is a qualification on free speech known as "fighting words." In other words, expressing something so volatile and so understood that it will cause immediate violence that it is not considered just an expression of free speech. It is the same reasoning as yelling fire in a theater or inciting a mob to riot or disturbing the peace. You are not free to express yourself any way you like in any context you like until you're blue in the face and you've started a race riot.

This changes from place to place, but in some parts of the U.S. "fighting words" are still on the books as a restriction on pure free speech. It's like putting up a KKK banner in the middle of a black neighborhood in Philadelphia--- if you didn't realize that was going to immediately provoke a destructive reaction, you were criminally stupid. ;)

Actually, that's not a restriction on free speech. It's a very liberal allowance for self-defense, which is a very different thing. It follows along with the 'no retreat' rules that I suspect are probably found in the same states you are referring to. The laws don't have any impact in criminalizing or otherwise limiting the offending speech, they simply allow more leniency in dealing with the people who respond to that speech in a physical manner.

[KarlXII]

If he is not physically harming someone who are you to decide what is right?

Should I be able to burn a cross on my neighbours front lawn?

[Strike For The South]

Should I be able to burn a cross on my neighbours front lawn?

Destruction of property and your friend can put slugs in you so I wouldn't recommend it.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Should I be able to burn a cross on my neighbours front lawn?

No, that is destroying somebody else's property. Expressing your views by destruction is wrong, and is, rightly in my opinion, illegal.

In Adelaide?

Oh god, i've moved to hell. Not only is it full of drunks, tramps and mullets, but now also neo-nazis.

Of course in Adelaide, where else? Except for maybe Tasmania.

Jokes aside though...

But then, i've had to deal with my fair share of racist skinheads at work. Some fascist came in and was ordering a meal. He had a pretty thick accent and my Chinese friend couldn't understand him, so i came along and took over. Once she'd wandered away, he started muttering rubbish about how 'this should be a job for Australian kids, not them, but people like you, am i right, friend?'.

I was utterly disgusted by this man. So it was quite satisfying when i replied back to him that i wasn't Australian, but British. The smile dropped off his face. My Chinese friend then arrived with his food and a big grin on her face and stood right next to me. He snatched the bag off her and walked out saying something about ' disgusting' while we tried not to laugh....

I can only hope the rest of Australia isn't like this, otherwise i may just change my mind on living in what seems to be an otherwise pleasant land.

I have to say I have never experianced anything like this in Perth. I mean a lot of the Australians I know personally are a touch xenophobic, and do tend to have a bit of a superiority complex when it comes to 'Poms', and other Europeans, but at the same time it mostly (after knowing them for 4 years) a bit of a joke.

That said, as disgusting as people like the one you met are, it is their right to hold their (fundamentally wrong) opinions, and to express them.

I know, I meant the post in general. People tend to assume Freedom of Speech is absolutely literal. It isn't. You can't play loud music after 11. You can't stand around outside of someone's house yelling obscenities at them all day. You can't lie to Federal investigators. You can't yell fire in a theater. You can't provoke a mob to riot or start flipping over cars. And in some places, hate rhetoric or fighting words (it's the same idea really) known to provoke an immediate and emotionally destructive or violent reaction, either from an individual or a group, is equally not supported under Free Speech.

That is the Question Koga. Not whether he is allowed to fly this flag, but whether he should be allowed to.

[Koga No Goshi]

That is the Question Koga. Not whether he is allowed to fly this flag, but whether he should be allowed to.

Of course. I was responding to a comment that anything that doesn't cause direct physical harm should be allowable. And my response basically was that it isn't and never has been fully allowed.

[Strike For The South]

Of course. I was responding to a comment that anything that doesn't cause direct physical or property harm should be allowable. And my response basically was that it isn't and never has been fully allowed.

Well it should beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[CrossLOPER]

Should I be able to burn a cross on my neighbours front lawn?

You have to do it on your yard. However, you will have to check your county's local regulations concerning burning of "yard waste". There you go.