Should we restrict freedom of speech?

[CountArach]

2. Not all opinions should be protected by law. F.e. libels, fearmongering, flag desecration, perjury.

Well there are many who would disagree with you. Libels are an interesting case, and I at least one far left commentator refuses to sue people for libel. Flag Desecration is something that I have absolutely no problems with. Perjury is interesting, but this is a case where an opinion is at stake, not an out-and-out lie with the intent of defrauding the court system.

[PowerWizard]

Well there are many who would disagree with you. Libels are an interesting case, and I at least one far left commentator refuses to sue people for libel. Flag Desecration is something that I have absolutely no problems with. Perjury is interesting, but this is a case where an opinion is at stake, not an out-and-out lie with the intent of defrauding the court system.

If you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they are not illegal in many countries.

And you're right about perjury but it appears in a form of opinion, how one recalls the events of the past.

[Husar]

How foolish are his followers that they keep stoning people even though they are caught and punished? This seems rather unlikely.

They're all martyrs, or at least they think they are after listening to that head honcho who is protected by freedom of speech. If you think it never happens, think again. Let me give you a hint: 9/11
Now Osama hasn't killed anyone yet as far as I know, he just laid out plans and gave instructions, according to the freedom of speach for anyone with anything attitude he should not be hunted as he is protected by freedom of speech. Same for the mafia boss who tells his henchman to go and kill Proletariat and ATPG, the boss files under freedom of speech and the police should watch the henchmen until after they cut your throats and only arrest them afterwards.

Now that sounds great, doesn't it, it removes all need of police protection because there is no such thing as a threat anymore, it will all be dealt with afterwards.
Sorry, but if someone sends me death threats I'd rather have the police take it seriously and do something about it rather than stand around and claim it's all fine until he has killed me, there are people who aren't right in their heads and the punishment after a deed does not scare them at all.

[CountArach]

If you don't agree with them it doesn't mean they are not illegal in many countries.

Just because it is illegal in many countries doesn't mean I can't disagree with the reasons for its illegality.

And you're right about perjury but it appears in a form of opinion, how one recalls the events of the past.

But it calls into question the very nature of the legal system and is nothing but lies - hence it isn't truly an opinion - it is just a falsehood.

[PowerWizard]

Just because it is illegal in many countries doesn't mean I can't disagree with the reasons for its illegality.

Of course.

But it calls into question the very nature of the legal system and is nothing but lies - hence it isn't truly an opinion - it is just a falsehood.

This is becoming off-topic-ish and theoretical, but I think a false opinion is an opinion too. Opinion and truth are different concepts.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They're all martyrs, or at least they think they are after listening to that head honcho who is protected by freedom of speech. If you think it never happens, think again. Let me give you a hint: 9/11
Now Osama hasn't killed anyone yet as far as I know, he just laid out plans and gave instructions, according to the freedom of speach for anyone with anything attitude he should not be hunted as he is protected by freedom of speech. Same for the mafia boss who tells his henchman to go and kill Proletariat and ATPG, the boss files under freedom of speech and the police should watch the henchmen until after they cut your throats and only arrest them afterwards.

Freedom of speech does not make you free of the consequences of your speech -- it only prohibits the government from taking action to prevent that speech or taking action against you SOLEY for speaking out. You still bear responsibility for the consequences resulting FROM your speech.

[Adrian II]

All the arguments against total free speech are overly complicated ways of adding on to things already illegal anyway.

Even though I agree, I have a slightly different take on the theater thingy, that old hobby-horse* of the censorship crowd.

The right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is the very essence of freedom of speech. If we are not allowed to shout "fire" unless the theater owners (i.e. the authorities) approve of it, we are not free at all.

If someone falsely shouts "fire" (that is, if the malicious intent to cause harm is proven) he should be punished for causing panic. But only then. And only for causing panic. If some panicking punters crush their kids in their haste to save numer 1, it's their fault and not the fault of the one who shouted fire. I hate that sort of escapist thinking.

EDIT
* Alternately known as a 'cock horse', an unintended pun I thought Madam might appreciate.

[Kralizec]

Freedom of expression implies more than the absence of preventive censorship. Like...

You also have a right to say that in society, but you don't have a right to walk free afterwards.

...would stil be a limit on this freedom.

That's a weird distinction. One's alright because the government says so? Good grief.

As for banning incitement to violence; the speech has to directly threaten serious violence, with a real and present danger of occurring.

no, I don't think state sanctioned genocide is better than common murder. The point was that there's a qualitative difference between wanting to change the law and telling people to just break it.

As for the second part, I agree.

[Husar]

Freedom of speech does not make you free of the consequences of your speech -- it only prohibits the government from taking action to prevent that speech or taking action against you SOLEY for speaking out. You still bear responsibility for the consequences resulting FROM your speech.

That was not how I read her post but either way my point stands that it can easily result in unnecessary deaths.
I'm aware you cannot prevent all unnecessary deaths but when someone seriously threatens to kill another person I do not agree that the government should stand idly by and wait until the actual killing has been performed before they do something.

The right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater is the very essence of freedom of speech. If we are not allowed to shout "fire" unless the theater owners (i.e. the authorities) approve of it, we are not free at all.

Arresting someone for simply shouting fire goes beyond seriously threatening a group or individual, don't you think?

If someone falsely shouts "fire" (that is, if the malicious intent to cause harm is proven) he should be punished for causing panic. But only then. And only for causing panic. If some panicking punters crush their kids in their haste to save numer 1, it's their fault and not the fault of the one who shouted fire. I hate that sort of escapist thinking.

Heh, now you open a completely different can of worms.
I'm inclined to agree that running someone down is only the fault of the one doing it but I'm not sure whether panic per definition cannot mean that people sort of snap out completely and go 100% darwinistic if you know what I mean, like being under an influence that they are not responsible for.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

That was not how I read her post but either way my point stands that it can easily result in unnecessary deaths.
I'm aware you cannot prevent all unnecessary deaths but when someone seriously threatens to kill another person I do not agree that the government should stand idly by and wait until the actual killing has been performed before they do something.

Your scenario is as follows:

1. Cleric preaches death on someone
2. Impressionable fools hear it, plan murder
3. Murder carried out

How will arresting the cleric after 1 affect 2 & 3? Until we can read minds (cue techie link from Lemur?) we can't prevent murder by snuffing out "troublemakers" before they commit a crime.

no, I don't think state sanctioned genocide is better than common murder. The point was that there's a qualitative difference between wanting to change the law and telling people to just break it.

There's a qualitative difference between advocating state-sanctioned genocide and advocating murder? What is it?

[Husar]

Your scenario is as follows:

1. Cleric preaches death on someone
2. Impressionable fools hear it, plan murder
3. Murder carried out

How will arresting the cleric after 1 affect 2 & 3? Until we can read minds (cue techie link from Lemur?) we can't prevent murder by snuffing out "troublemakers" before they commit a crime.

Well, that one would go under hardly preventable, so what about me calling the local radio show and saying I want to mrder the president of the USA and that I'm really serious about it. Would noone care? Freedom of speech or would they at least arrest me and search my home? Also should they do that or shouldn't they?

Also while the impressionable fools plan the murder in your example you can do two things:
1) you can arrest the preacher, doesn't have to be long, for calling for murder, that will show him it's not okay and prevent him from calling for more murders before the first one has been carried out.
It may also give you some time to investigate his organization without him doing any further harm.
If the suspect gets killed he is guilty anyway, isn't he?

2) you can give a bodyguard or two to the person he wants murdered, at least for a certain amount of time, cannot protect them for life but you can at least try, if you got the info that the cleric was preaching this then there must be someone among his followers who doesn't seem to agree with him and thinks he is serious, that would at least make the effort somewhat worthwhile. The case needs an investigation and not just wait and see what happens.

Of course there has to be a believable threat, usually there is a judge to decide such things, just like whether police gets a search warrant etc. If the judges are with the executive in opressing the people then you got worse problems than some slippery slope in your freedom of speech.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, that one would go under hardly preventable, so what about me calling the local radio show and saying I want to mrder the president of the USA and that I'm really serious about it. Would noone care? Freedom of speech or would they at least arrest me and search my home? Also should they do that or shouldn't they?

It's hard to tell if someone's serious. I guess it would really depend on if they found out who you were and if you were reported to the Secret Service. Frankly, I don't think anything really needs to be done.

Repost ;)

1) you can arrest the preacher, doesn't have to be long, for calling for murder, that will show him it's not okay and prevent him from calling for more murders before the first one has been carried out.
It may also give you some time to investigate his organization without him doing any further harm.
If the suspect gets killed he is guilty anyway, isn't he?

Who says he's part of an organization? And "if the suspect gets killed he is guilty anyway" is precisely the kind of callous state-first destruction of rights that we want to avoid.

2) you can give a bodyguard or two to the person he wants murdered, at least for a certain amount of time, cannot protect them for life but you can at least try, if you got the info that the cleric was preaching this then there must be someone among his followers who doesn't seem to agree with him and thinks he is serious, that would at least make the effort somewhat worthwhile. The case needs an investigation and not just wait and see what happens.

That's not a violation of anyone's rights (unless the target refuses, I guess) so that's fine.

[Furunculus]

The economist on our current lack of spine re. freedom of speech:
http://www.economist.com/world/inter...tures_box_main

[rvg]

There is no such thing as a "regulated" freedom of speech. Either there is a freedom of speech or there isn't one. "Regulated" freedom of speech == lack of freedom of speech.

[Furunculus]

I can accept where you are going with that idea, but i am happy to ban incitement to violence.

[Husar]

It's hard to tell if someone's serious. I guess it would really depend on if they found out who you were and if you were reported to the Secret Service. Frankly, I don't think anything really needs to be done.

So if they find out who i am, let's say I tell them over the radio, should they do something or should it go under freedom of speech until I have shot the president?
The way I understood prole they should do nothing and then put me on trial for murder after I shot the president. Maybe I misunderstood but I would like to find out.

Who says he's part of an organization?

I did, you can replace it with the people who like to listen to him or whatever if you wish.

And "if the suspect gets killed he is guilty anyway" is precisely the kind of callous state-first destruction of rights that we want to avoid.

What I meant was if the guys who listened to him kill the victim then he is guilty, or isn't he? I wasn't trying to say lynch him on the spot if the person he wanted dead died of cancer.

That's not a violation of anyone's rights (unless the target refuses, I guess) so that's fine.

Yes it is, but it's not the do nothing until someone is dead that I thought I read earlier(not in your post but you seemed to support it) but like I said maybe I misunderstood that at least partly.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So if they find out who i am, let's say I tell them over the radio, should they do something or should it go under freedom of speech until I have shot the president?
The way I understood prole they should do nothing and then put me on trial for murder after I shot the president. Maybe I misunderstood but I would like to find out.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Of course, killing the president is rather difficult. Not to mention a rather uncommon thing to attempt.

Should we arrest the Whitest Kids U Know for their presidential sketch? What if they were actually serious, speaking to terrorist cells in America? I mean, what better place than plain site to hide a conspiracy?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There is no such thing as a "regulated" freedom of speech. Either there is a freedom of speech or there isn't one. "Regulated" freedom of speech == lack of freedom of speech.

If you put it that way then there's no such thing as freedom of speech--because society is self regulating to a certain degree. Government is just an extension of that.

[rvg]

If you put it that way then there's no such thing as freedom of speech--because society is self regulating to a certain degree. Government is just an extension of that.

Self-regulation is absolutely fine. Governmental regulation is unacceptable.

[CountArach]

If you put it that way then there's no such thing as freedom of speech--because society is self regulating to a certain degree. Government is just an extension of that.

As rvg said, the only thing stopping you in this case is your own adherence to societal norms. There is nothing that can stop you saying what you want - only your fear of what society will do to you. For example, using the 'n' word isn't considered acceptable and few people use it regularly, but there is nothing stopping you saying it. In this way society can prove just as, if not more, effective than the government regulating things.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Self-regulation is absolutely fine. Governmental regulation is unacceptable.

That's a kneejerk reaction. Is the societal regulation on free speech is saudi arabia absolutely fine? Is it unacceptable for the secret service to grab some guy at a rally who's screaming about how he's about to kill the president?

The point is, we don't have freedom of speech and never will. So you can't just say that governmental regulation is bad because it takes away free speech.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Is it unacceptable for the secret service to grab some guy at a rally who's screaming about how he's about to kill the president?

It is not unacceptable for them to grab him, that does not violate his freedom to say what he is saying, or to hold him until the President has passed. He can continue screaming all he likes. It is unacceptable for them to arrest him unless they have evidence that he was actually planning to kill the President.

[CountArach]

It is not unacceptable for them to grab him, that does not violate his freedom to say what he is saying, or to hold him until the President has passed. He can continue screaming all he likes. It is unacceptable for them to arrest him unless they have evidence that he was actually planning to kill the President.

It's not often I say this, but EMFM is exactly right. No one is stopping him from saying this - they are just making sure he can't carry out the act itself. Further, once the present danger is passed then he can be allowed to go, and placed on a watch list or something.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's like saying you have the freedom to punch someone in the face because you won't get arrested until you've already done it.

[Proletariat]

According to what you said Sasaki, I thought that was true. Since society (government being a mere extension) can't stop you in time from punching someone in the face there's no way it's really illegal until you've done it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

That's like saying you have the freedom to punch someone in the face because you won't get arrested until you've already done it.

What do you prefer, Minority Report? Proletariat made an excellent post.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

According to what you said Sasaki, I thought that was true. Since society (government being a mere extension) can't stop you in time from punching someone in the face there's no way it's really illegal until you've done it.

I guess your definition of freedom is different than mine. If the government shot anyone who said the word peanuts you wouldn't be free to say the word peanuts in my book.

[Proletariat]

Of course I agree there. I just don't see eye to eye with you that society necessarily equals governmental self regulation. The first can only treat you with laughter or scorn when you rant against it, the other could kill or imprison you without total legal free speech.

Edit: tl:dr The government shouldn't be allowed to shoot anyone for saying anything ever, even if it's just the word peanut.

[Husar]

Yeah, that sounds about right. Of course, killing the president is rather difficult. Not to mention a rather uncommon thing to attempt.

Murder in general is hard in many ways and a rather uncommon thing, should we make it legal?
And killing the president is only hard because when you want to get close to him, the secret service, police etc put a lot of restrictions on you, I don't think they will grant you the freedom to bear arms and the freedom to proclaim you will shoot him when you are 10m away from him and then just put a bodyguard betweeen you and him to catch the bullet in case you pull the trigger because everything else you do is perfectly fine and legal.

Should we arrest the Whitest Kids U Know for their presidential sketch? What if they were actually serious, speaking to terrorist cells in America? I mean, what better place than plain site to hide a conspiracy?

Yes, you should, I don't even know who they are anyway, so why would I care?!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Murder in general is hard in many ways and a rather uncommon thing, should we make it legal?
And killing the president is only hard because when you want to get close to him, the secret service, police etc put a lot of restrictions on you, I don't think they will grant you the freedom to bear arms and the freedom to proclaim you will shoot him when you are 10m away from him and then just put a bodyguard betweeen you and him to catch the bullet in case you pull the trigger because everything else you do is perfectly fine and legal.

You don't see the difference between saying "someone should kill the president" and attempting to do so? The secret service is right to stop someone attempting to shoot the president because it'll be pretty obvious - he or she will be drawing a firearm within range of the president.

Yes, you should, I don't even know who they are anyway, so why would I care?!

Did you watch the video?