I Am A Free Speech Absolutist. Convince Me That I'm Wrong. Or Not.

[Rudy]

Just as it says. I'm feeling pugnacious tonight, so I'm hoping someone will take me up on it.

A Free Speech absolutist thinks that the part of the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution referring to speech cannot be overridden, under any circumstances.

To clear the first objection: "What if someone is inciting violence?"

Well, if violence occurs, then you arrest them for inciting violence. If it does not occur, there is no crime.

Now, come to me! (Please)


1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


EDIT: I should add a clarification. The First Amendment serves as a useful illustration, but my argument is not dependent on it. I am arguing for what I consider to be the best attitude towards free speech in any society, which is absolutely no prior restraint.


EDIT: PLEASE READ

I did a poor job outlining my exact views here, for which I apologize. I have stated more clearly my views in the following post. It would be best to read the whole thread before posting but, even if you don't, at least read the following:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It turns out that I am not a free speech absolutist; I had a misconception of terms. My fault; most sincere apologies. I'd change the title of the thread, except I can't.

[Storm]

Hehe. I'm kind of excited about this but it's almost my bedtime. :(

Ok, here are some questions:

What if the speech in question is defamatory? (Distributing leaflets about granny who lives by herself and doesn't talk to anyone which claim she's a the result of her grandfather having sex with his daughter, and that she regularly does crack and skins cats alive)

What if the violence doesn't happen because the police saw that it was about to happen and interferred first? Surely, you don't want to force police to just stand about and have to wait for the actual violence to occur?

I have more, but I'll leave you with those.

[une fille]

Isn't there something against slander, libel, and uhhhh... Blahblahblah somewhere in those important laws?

[Mozzes]

During a time of war if someone wants to distribute information through the media that may fall into enemy hands and would be detrimental to state security would it be a legitimate action to limit that person's first amendment right? If not, why?

[Storm]

Rudy's not arguing for laws. He's saying we should do away with all laws that regulate speech in anyway what so ever. (This is in reply to post #3)

[Rudy]

What if the speech in questio is defamatory? (Distributing leaflets about granny who lives by herself and doesn't talk to anyone which claim she's a the result of her grandfather having sex with his daughter, and that she regularly does crack and skins cats alive)
Just as I support gun rights, but obviously support punishing people for harming others with their gun rights, so I likewise support such measures with the 1st amendment. If actual damage can be proven, and it can be proven that the speech is false, then the offender should be prosecuted. The important distinction is that it is not because of the speech that he is prosecuted, but because of the damage. If he says something false and defamatory, and no one pays attention because he's a hack, then there is no crime. He cannot be punished for the speech alone.

What if the violence doesn't happen because the police saw that it was about to happen and interferred first? Surely, you don't want to force police to just stand about and have to wait for the actual violence to occur?
If there is convincing proof of intent to do violence, then I consider the requirements of "incitement to violence" met.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 1 minutes and 27 seconds later...

Isn't there something against slander, libel, and uhhhh... Blahblahblah somewhere in those important laws?
I think I covered this sufficiently in my response to Storm's first question. Tell me if you disagree.

[Storm]

Aw, so you don't consider "inciting violence" or "inciting a riot" a speech regulation. That makes things a lot easier for you.

[une fille]

Rudy's not arguing for laws. He's saying we should do away with all laws that regulate speech in anyway what so ever. (This is in reply to post #3)
His first post bases his beliefs off of the First Amendment, which is a law...

[Rudy]

During a time of war if someone wants to distribute information through the media that may fall into enemy hands and would be detrimental to state security would it be a legitimate action to limit that person's first amendment right? If not, why?
It is legitimate to limit a person's first amendment right if they agree to have it limited. Thus, people entering the armed services may be forced to agree not to spread classified information, and it is not a violation of their first amendment rights, since no one is forcing them to enter the service.

[Storm]

Oh, sorry, should have been more clear. All statutes and common law which regulate speech.

[Rudy]

Aw, so you don't consider "inciting violence" or "inciting a riot" a speech regulation. That makes things a lot easier for you.

I suppose so. Maybe I have a different definition of what a first amendment absolutist is, but from my discussions with other such people, it comes down to "no prior restraint." You can be punished for the results of your speech, but not the speech itself.

[Storm]

What about symbolic speech such as nude dancing?

[Mozzes]

It is legitimate to limit a person's first amendment right if they agree to have it limited. Thus, people entering the armed services may be forced to agree not to spread classified information, and it is not a violation of their first amendment rights.

I never said anything about being in the military. It's not unheard of for classified information to leaked to journalists. I'm asking about the person who wants to distribute the information, not the person who leaked it.

[une fille]

I think I covered this sufficiently in my response to Storm's first question. Tell me if you disagree.
It covers your position on it, but the logic is a bit circular.
*shrug*
Good enough, for now.

What about perjury?

[Rudy]

What about symbolic speech such as nude dancing?

No objection. I'm opposed to public decency laws.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 0 minutes and 49 seconds later...

I never said anything about being in the military. It's not unheard of for classified information to leaked to journalists. I'm asking about the person who wants to distribute the information, not the person who leaked it.
Then you prosecute them for treason, if it can be shown that the leaking of the information did measurable harm.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 1 minutes and 8 seconds later...

What about perjury?

Perjury is a situation where, as mentioned before, an individual agrees to give up their free speech to a degree. They agree to give up their freedom to lie. If they perjure themselves, you punish them not for lying, but for violating their agreement not to lie.

[Storm]

So you're totally fine with an adult bookstore opening up right next to the elementary school?

[Rudy]

So you're totally fine with an adult bookstore opening up right next to the elementary school?
There is no need for government intervention. The local community would insure that the store went out of business very quickly, through picket lines, or what have you.

[firebee]

So you're totally fine with an adult bookstore opening up right next to the elementary school?

Unfortunately, they probably won't let the kids in -- so it's a wash.

[Rudy]

Isn't anyone going to ask an interesting question, like: "Well, Rudy, what if a long period of hate speech ferments violent urges towards a minority within the community that ultimately results in violence that cannot be linked back to the original speaker?"

[Mozzes]

Would laws which restrict your potential audience be considered subversive to free speech? For example, would a law prohibiting distribution of pornography to children be an infringement of free speech?

[Storm]

There is no need for government intervention. The local community would insure that the store went out of business very quickly, through picket lines, or what have you.

Really? There's a rally at the local abortion clinic every single Thrusday with militant protestors, and it's still there.

[une fille]

HITLER!

Hitler's speeches were the fire to anti-Semitic feelings that ultimately led to the Holocaust.
C'mon.. 6,000,000+ dead..?

[Rudy]

Really? There's a rally at the local abortion clinic every single Thrusday with militant protestors, and it's still there.

That's because the abortion clinic does not have the simple option of moving down the street. If that would stop the rallies, it would move.

No porn store would put up with the cut to its business caused by placing itself next to an elementary school, when it set up somewhere farther away and avoid the problem.

[JohnDoe]

Then you prosecute them for treason, if it can be shown that the leaking of the information did measurable harm.


This is a bigger issue. How do you prove material harm from leaking classified information? The people who will be exploiting the information will probably keep their exploits secret, so there will be no evidence. I generally agree with you except here, where I advocate a zero tolerance policy. There is not an excuse for leaking classified information. I would support a more transparent way to request declassification though, if that would be an acceptable compromise.

Edit: This is not an excuse to declassify everything under the sun. But right now your generally looking at lawsuits to get anything declassified, so I might be willing to entertain a special court to speed up the process.

[Ntwadumela]

Generally speaking, I believe in "freedom-to's" as opposed to 'freedom-from's".

Sign me up next in the petition.

[Rudy]

Would laws which restrict your potential audience be considered subversive to free speech? For example, would a law prohibiting distribution of pornography to children be an infringement of free speech?
Nope! That's because children are under an umbrella from their parents, to an extent. If the parents don't want their children to see pornography, then by giving the pornography to the children it is comparable to forcing someone to watch something against their will, because the parents do not want their children to see it. A law restricting people from giving pornography to children even with the permission of their parents would be illegitimate, however, it would have to allow for parental permission.

[firebee]

Isn't anyone going to ask an interesting question, like: "Well, Rudy, what if a long period of hate speech ferments violent urges towards a minority within the community that ultimately results in violence that cannot be linked back to the original speaker?"

Naw, because that's not a terribly interesting question and it's one I'd expect a "free-speech absolutist" to have a pat answer to.

HITLER!

Hitler's speeches were the fire to anti-Semitic feelings that ultimately led to the Holocaust.
C'mon.. 6,000,000+ dead..?

Every conversation is better with Hitler! He must have been great at parties.

But seriously, anti-Semitism and eugenics were rampant in the time leading up to World War II, and Germany was in a position that was just begging for further violence. If not Hitler, it would have been the next loudmouth down the pipe -- and who's to say what the results would have been? Among other things, we're fortunate that Hitler was more of a fruitcake than he was a strategist.

[Rudy]

I generally agree with you except here, where I advocate a zero tolerance policy. There is not an excuse for leaking classified information. I would support a more transparent way to request declassification though, if that would be an acceptable compromise.

I have a zero tolerance policy towards people leaking the classified information, because they have agreed not to. They should be shot. When I talk about prosecuting people for treason, I am referring to the media people to whom the information is leaked. They are not "leaking" anything by sharing it, because they did not agree to keep it a secret.

[Storm]

Ok, one more question to clarify your position. What about reasonable restrictions on the press in a courtroom? Such as no cameras. What if the press is interferring with the right to a fair trial (a la OJ). Would it be within the rights of the Court to close the trial to the public?

[Rudy]

Naw, because that's not a terribly interesting question and it's one I'd expect a "free-speech absolutist" to have a pat answer to.

Shucks. *snaps fingers*

But seriously, anti-Semitism and eugenics were rampant in the time leading up to World War II, and Germany was in a position that was just begging for further violence. If not Hitler, it would have been the next loudmouth down the pipe -- and who's to say what the results would have been? Among other things, we're fortunate that Hitler was more of a fruitcake than he was a strategist.
True, but the question of anti-semitism is relevant to this issue, and I'm typing up an answer...

[une fille]

Every conversation is better with Hitler! He must have been great at parties.

But seriously, anti-Semitism and eugenics were rampant in the time leading up to World War II, and Germany was in a position that was just begging for further violence. If not Hitler, it would have been the next loudmouth down the pipe -- and who's to say what the results would have been? Among other things, we're fortunate that Hitler was more of a fruitcake than he was a strategist.
That's no defense against the types of speeches Hitler made though..

[JohnDoe]

I have a zero tolerance policy towards people leaking the classified information, because they have agreed not to. They should be shot. When I talk about prosecuting people for treason, I am referring to the media people to whom the information is leaked. They are not "leaking" anything by sharing it, because they did not agree to keep it a secret.

Ok as long as we are on the same page with shooting the people leaking it.

[Mozzes]

Nope! That's because children are under an umbrella from their parents, to an extent. If the parents don't want their children to see pornography, then by giving the pornography to the children it is comparable to forcing someone to watch something against their will, because the parents do not want their children to see it. A law restricting people from giving pornography to children even with the permission of their parents would be illegitimate, however, it would have to allow for parental permission.

So basically what you're saying is that it's OK for a parent to subvert a child's access to first amendment rights?

[firebee]

A Free Speech absolutist thinks that the part of the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution referring to speech cannot be overridden, under any circumstances.

...

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What about outside the United States?

[Rudy]

Ok, one more question to clarify your position. What about reasonable restrictions on the press in a courtroom? Such as no cameras. What if the press is interferring with the right to a fair trial (a la OJ). Would it be within the rights of the Court to close the trial to the public?

A courtroom is not a public platform. Free speech gives you the right to express ideas in the public arena; it does not give you the right to speak wherever you want to. A university is well within their rights to refuse a holocaust denier from giving a talk, for example.

The courtroom issue is a matter of freedom of the press, not free speech. No one is being restricted from speaking their mind and, even if they were, it would not be a violation because it is not a public platform. A private owner may choose to limit what is talked about on his private property. The government may choose to limit what is said on governmental property, such as in courtrooms.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 1 minutes and 13 seconds later...

So basically what you're saying is that it's OK for a parent to subvert a child's access to first amendment rights?
Yep, just as we limit their second amendment rights, their right to vote, etc. We grant full rights to adults.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 0 minutes and 55 seconds later...

What about outside the United States?

I would like it if the same policies were enacted everywhere. I base the position on the first amendment because I think it is great, not because it's part of my country's constitution.

[Mozzes]

I don't think the first amendment says anything at all about only applying to adults.

[JohnDoe]

Yep, just as we limit their second amendment rights, their right to vote, etc. We grant full rights to adults.



This is outrageous. Why should minors not deserve full 1st amendment rights (At least the right to speak).

[Storm]

A courtroom is not a public platform. Free speech gives you the right to express ideas in the public arena; it does not give you the right to speak wherever you want to. A university is well within their rights to refuse a holocaust denier from giving a talk, for example.

The courtroom issue is a matter of freedom of the press, not free speech. No one is being restricted from speaking their mind and, even if they were, it would not be a violation because it is not a public platform. A private owner may choose to limit what is talked about on his private property. The government may choose to limit what is said on governmental property, such as in courtrooms.

Oh so close. I was hoping you'd address the issue on the freedom to listen.

[firebee]

Okay then, so this is not a matter of interpreting US law (btw, compelling as it is to Americans, citing a section of an arbitrary country's laws does not necessarily a compelling argument make).

From what principle, aside from "Wow, the bill of rights is shiny!" does this point of view derive?

[Mozzes]

This is outrageous. Why should minors not deserve full 1st amendment rights (At least the right to speak).

Children do have full 1st amendment rights, as far as know, but my argument is void; it contains a fatal flaw because it would be the child's parents and not the government limiting access to those rights.

The 1st amendment doesn't say anything about individuals limiting other individuals freedom of speech, etc.

[Rudy]

That's no defense against the types of speeches Hitler made though..

Here's the key problem with prior restraint. Who is to decide? Who is competent to decide, in advance, what speech is harmful, or who is the harmful speaker? To whom would you give this job? I guarantee you, no matter what types of speech you limit, there will always be a way to incite violence.

The damages such a thing would cause are great. One is, of course, that it's a slippery slope. The second is from the law of unintended consequences. Let's say you decided, as many European countries are now doing, to criminalize criticism of religion, and religious groups. Now people start preaching from St. John's gospel, about how the Jews demanded that the blood of Christ be on them, to the remotest generation. Talk about you incitement to anti-Jewish hatred. But you wouldn't be able to criticize such talk, because it would be criticizing religion. Your hands would be tied.

Problems at the level of Hitler cannot be solved by laws, and its naive to think that they could be. That level of antisemitism is a social ill, that has to be solved at the social level. One cannot make a law saying not to hate Jews.

[Storm]

Okay then, so this is not a matter of interpreting US law (btw, compelling as it is to Americans, citing a section of an arbitrary country's laws does not necessarily a compelling argument make).

From what principle, aside from "Wow, the bill of rights is shiny!" does this point of view derive?

I was just about to leave this thread and go to bed when this little gem was posted.

The freedom to speech is one the most fundamental rights in a free society, espeically one where the government represents the people, because it allows for people to not only criticize, and thus improve, their government and prevent tyranny, but it also allows for free discussion in the market place of ideas. All ideas are allowed to presented, and all opposers are allowed to talk back. Thus, society can progress. Sure, it doesn't always work. But I don't trust the government to decide what should and should not be considered.

Edit: In a representative democracy, the government is suppose to be the voice the people. So it doesn't make sense to try and silence them.

Edit: Please look up the word "arbitrary." There is a reason why America was chosen in this thread, and there is a reason why free speech is so highly valued.

[Rudy]

This is outrageous. Why should minors not deserve full 1st amendment rights (At least the right to speak).

Is your position, then, that parents may not punish children for saying something? I just want to be sure that I don't misrepresent you before I argue against you.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 4 minutes and 43 seconds later...

Oh so close. I was hoping you'd address the issue on the freedom to listen.

The freedom to listen only applies to those who want to be heard. You do not have the right to listen to those who do not wish their speech to be heard. For that reason, you'd have to get every person speaking in the courtroom to agree in order to allow the press full access.

[firebee]

The freedom to speech is one the most fundamental rights in a free society, espeically one where the government represents the people, because it allows for people to not only criticize, and thus improve, their government and prevent tyranny, but it also allows for free discussion in the market place of ideas. All ideas are allowed to presented, and all opposers are allowed to talk back. Thus, society can progress. Sure, it doesn't always work. But I don't trust the government to decide what should and should not be considered.


Why does free discussion of ideas result in progress in society?


Edit: Please look up the word "arbitrary." There is a reason why America was chosen in this thread, and there is a reason why free speech is so highly valued.

The fact that parts of US law attempt to implement a principle doesn't necessarily tell us what that principle is, or the reasons why it is valuable. Hint: If articulated, this idea might apply to broader matters than the relationship between the government and the people.

Mind that, unlike a lawyer, I am not necessarily asking questions that I already know the answer to.

[une fille]

Problems at the level of Hitler cannot be solved by laws, and its naive to think that they could be. That level of antisemitism is a social ill, that has to be solved at the social level. One cannot make a law saying not to hate Jews.
I'm not saying that there should be a law against hating Jews. I threw Hitler into this because he's one of the most memorable and destructive orators in history.. If someone had silenced him or refused to let him hold speeches in public areas, then his words would not have reached the masses who, as was pointed out earlier, were ready for a place to direct their anger and dissatisfaction.
Your first post attempted to clear away the arguments about inciting violence, but I don't think the logic that was offered applies to this case.


I'm about to go to bed, so excuse what will most likely be a lengthy delay in reply.

[JohnDoe]

Is your position, then, that parents may not punish children for saying something? I just want to be sure that I don't misrepresent you before I argue against you.


Well, it sounded to me a bit like free speech could be illegal if the parents didn't agree with it. Parents are free to ground as they like, but minors should enjoy full free speech rights (from the government).

[Rudy]

I don't think the first amendment says anything at all about only applying to adults.

We don't allow children first amendment rights right now, because their parents can punish them for what they say.

Again, though, I am arguing for this because I think it is the best path for a society, not because I am a strict adherent of the constitution. It happens to be a good way to illustrate the point, but I am advocating absolute free speech everywhere.

[Storm]

The freedom to listen only applies to those who want to be heard. You do not have the right to listen to those who do not wish their speech to be heard. For that reason, you'd have to get every person speaking in the courtroom to agree in order to allow the press full access.

Using this logic, all government activies could be closed to the public. Trials and criminal records are generally open. It is important that governmental proceedings be conducted in the open, including trials, so that the public can trust or disagree with how things are being conducted. The government is not separate from the people.

If you are in a public place and talking, anyone can listen to you. There is no permission that needs to be gotten.

I think the freedom to listen is inherent in the freedom to speech.
And looks like I just became more radical than you. Weird how that turned out.

[Rudy]

Well, it sounded to me a bit like free speech could be illegal if the parents didn't agree with it. Parents are free to ground as they like, but minors should enjoy full free speech rights (from the government).
No, the government has no place in limiting the speech of minors.

[JohnDoe]

No, the government has no place in limiting the speech of minors.

In particular it is my view that say the bong hits for jesus ruling was wrong. I see you agree. But I'm just pointing it out.

[Rudy]

Using this logic, all government activies could be closed to the public. Trials and criminal records are generally open. It is important that governmental proceedings be conducted in the open, including trials, so that the public can trust or disagree with how things are being conducted. The government is not separate from the people.
I agree that government records should be open, but that is not an argument based on free speech.

If you are in a public place and talking, anyone can listen to you. There is no permission that needs to be gotten.
You are making the choice to speak in public, aware that you may be overheard. Contrast this to people putting wiretaps on your home.

I think the freedom to listen is inherent in the freedom to speech. And looks like I just became more radical than you. Weird how that turned out.
I agree that it is inherent. When you deny the right of another to speak, you deny yourself the right to hear something. But, again, it depends on the willingness of the speaker to be heard. You do not have the right to listen to anything (again, such as listening in on people in their homes.)

[Storm]

I agree that government records should be open, but that is not an argument based on free speech.


You are making the choice to speak in public, aware that you may be overheard. Contrast this to people putting wiretaps on your home.


I agree that it is inherent. When you deny the right of another to speak, you deny yourself the right to hear something. But, again, it depends on the willingness of the speaker to be heard. You do not have the right to listen to anything (again, such as listening in on people in their homes.)

I agree with all this. I think you misunderstood my position. I do think that attending trials and other government activies does fall within freedom to speech since freedom to speech includes freedom to listen so that one can critic the government. And freedom to listen includes attending government activities/obtaining records so that one knows what's going on.

[firebee]

No, the government has no place in limiting the speech of minors.

Should parents limit the speech of their minor children?

To avoid triviality, I'll say "Excluding shouting MEAN MOMMY MEAN MOMMY in the middle of the grocery store."

Using this logic, all government activies could be closed to the public. Trials and criminal records are generally open. It is important that governmental proceedings be conducted in the open, including trials, so that the public can trust or disagree with how things are being conducted. The government is not separate from the people.


I think this is a separate issue from freedom of speech, but no less important.


I think the freedom to listen is inherent in the freedom to speech.


Ooh, the role of the listener! Nice.

Here's a concept to shred: People don't just have a right to speak; they have a duty to consider ideas that may be useful. (Mind that here I am not talking about something enforceable by legislation.)


And looks like I just became more radical than you. Weird how that turned out.

I might turn out even more radical, depending on my mood (I'm not feeling terribly rigorous tonight, so maybe not).

[Rudy]

I agree with all this. I think you misunderstood my position. I do think that attending trials and other government activies does fall within freedom to speech since freedom to speech includes freedom to listen so that one can critic the government. And freedom to listen includes attending government activities/obtaining records so that one knows what's going on.
Government trials should be open because the government is beholden to the people, not because of free speech. You mentioned closing a trial because it could interfere with the fairness of the trial. Forgive my ignorance, but how would that be the case?

[nacht]

Well, if violence occurs, then you arrest them for inciting violence. If it does not occur, there is no crime.


The Supreme Court disagrees with you in this.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942):


There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.


So it is clear that "free speech" doesn't refer to any "utterance" according to the Supreme Court, see also, "Fighting Words Doctrine."

Let's play this out: What is your opinion on libel?

I'd also be curious on your take on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) if KKK violence had later occurred.

[Rudy]

Should parents limit the speech of their minor children?

To avoid triviality, I'll say "Excluding shouting MEAN MOMMY MEAN MOMMY in the middle of the grocery store."
Should they? Not beyond teaching them basic decency, in my opinion.

Should they have the right to? Yes.

Here's a concept to shred: People don't just have a right to speak; they have a duty to consider ideas that may be useful. (Mind that here I am not talking about something enforceable by legislation.)
Unenforceable by law. No one can be made to consider anything. There should be societal pressure to consider ideas, but it is not something that can be legislated.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 2 minutes and 6 seconds later...

The Supreme Court disagrees with you in this.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942):

So it is clear that "free speech" doesn't refer to any "utterance" according to the Supreme Court, see also, "Fighting Words Doctrine."
I'm aware of what the law is. I'm arguing what I think the ideal law should be.

Let's play this out: What is your opinion on libel?
I think I answered that with my first response. Tell me if my answer there was unsatisfactory.

I'd also be curious on your take on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) if KKK violence had later occurred.
*Goes to read court case, will be right back*

[firebee]

Should they? Not beyond teaching them basic decency, in my opinion.


What is the basis for your opinion?


Should they have the right to? Yes.


Why? And does this reason extend to minor children not their own?


Unenforceable by law. No one can be made to consider anything. There should be societal pressure to consider ideas, but it is not something that can be legislated.

Note the sentence, which you included in your quote, just after. The fact that a ethical standard or useful guideline cannot and should not be legislated doesn't make them unimportant.

[Rudy]

I'd also be curious on your take on Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) if KKK violence had later occurred.

Okay, brilliant decision by the court.

The point is, perhaps, that by allowing such speech, violence may happen that could otherwise be prevented? Well, that's true. Undeniably, absolutely true.

My argument is that the attempts to limit speech do far more damage. My first question is always who is to decide which speech foments too much hatred? Who is to decide, in advance, who needs to be quieted? This is too much arbitrary power to give to anyone, or any committee. The second problem is that it is too hard to draw lines. Is "The Jews suck," okay but "I wish someone would do something about the Jews," not okay?

There's always the law of unintended consequences as well, which I addressed above with an example.

Finally, it's a dangerous precedent whenever you limit speech; I don't think I need to explain that to you.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 3 minutes and 1 seconds later...

What is the basis for your opinion?
I think children grow most intellectually when they are permitted to express any thought that comes to mind, without fear of reprimand.

Why? And does this reason extend to minor children not their own?
Primarily because telling parents that they cannot limit the speech of their children is completely unenforceable. Secondarily because parents have a right to instill their values in their children, as long as they do no permanent damage to the child. No, it does not extend to minors beyond their own.

Note the sentence, which you included in your quote, just after. The fact that a ethical standard or useful guideline cannot and should not be legislated doesn't make them unimportant.
I completely missed that... *is an idiot*. My apologies. I agree with you on the importance of the principle.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 10 minutes and 15 seconds later...

I'd like to give another illustration for my point of view. Most people have probably heard of the argument that it is not alright to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, if there is no fire.

That statement was made by Oliver Wendel Holmes, heading the Supreme Court, which was ruling on Schenck v. United States. The defendants crime was to spread literature encouraging people to oppose the military draft in the United States during World War I. I would guess that anyone reading this would say that such literature should be allowed. And yet, it was forbidden, and compared to "shouting fire in a crowded theater."

The point is, when you allow the banning of things that seem reasonable, be careful of what that might lead to. Reasonable restrictions lead very quickly to unreasonable ones.

[nacht]

I think I answered that with my first response. Tell me if my answer there was unsatisfactory.


From your replies, I would say that you are not an absolutist on free speech as it was meant in the first amendment.

You are for interpreting it your way. So let's continue to play this out and see where it leads.

What if the words themselves do not directly incite violence, but show a clear and present danger?

[Rudy]

From your replies, I would say that you are not an absolutist on free speech as it was meant in the first amendment.
Storm mentioned this as well. My understanding of the term was that a free speech absolutist was once who opposed absolutely all prior restraint, which I do. I got this understanding from speaking to others who referred to themselves as such. If I misled you, my apologies.

You are for interpreting it your way. So let's continue to play this out and see where it leads.
Sure. Again, I don't really care even a little bit what the constitution says for the purposes of this. That's why I titled the thread "Free Speech Absolutist," as opposed to "First Amendment Absolutist." The amendment serves as an illustration, that is all. I am arguing for what I believe to be the ideal attitude towards free speech in society.

What if the words themselves do not directly incite violence, but show a clear and present danger?
Only evidence of specific intent may be used to prosecute the speaker. That's my position.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 1 minutes and 15 seconds later...

I admit that I should have been more clear on the Free Speech v. First Amendment distinction in my first post. I'm going to add an edit now...

[nacht]

Storm mentioned this as well. My understanding of the term was that a free speech absolutist was once who opposed absolutely all prior restraint, which I do. I got this understanding from speaking to others who referred to themselves as such. If I misled you, my apologies.


Justice Hugo Black was considered an "absolutist" on free speech, but narrowly defined "speech" and drew a line between "speech" and "action." He did not believe that flag burning constituted "speech" and his dissenting opinion in Cohen v. California (1971) stated that wearing a jacket that said "fuck the draft" "was mainly conduct, and little speech."

Thus let's continue this further: Where is the line between "speech" and "action" and why is your definition correct? Is burning draft cards an expression of speech? How about crosses? Is wearing protest t-shirts at school protected?


Sure. Again, I don't really care even a little bit what the constitution says for the purposes of this. That's why I titled the thread "Free Speech Absolutist," as opposed to "First Amendment Absolutist."


You quoted the first amendment in your opening post and bolded the "abridging the freedom of speech" part. It is somewhat expected that people would be arguing in terms of the constitution.


The amendment serves as an illustration, that is all. I am arguing for what I believe to be the ideal attitude towards free speech in society.


Yet you seem to have been avoiding stating why this is true and why, for example, hate speech should be protected.



Only evidence of specific intent may be used to prosecute the speaker. That's my position.

You have neatly avoided my question. I am speaking of the words themselves posing a clear and present danger with intent.

[Rudy]

Thus let's continue this further: Where is the line between "speech" and "action" and why is your definition correct? Is burning draft cards an expression of speech? How about crosses? Is wearing protest t-shirts at school protected?
"action" is when demonstrable damage is done. This is because that is the point at which you can show that the individual is violating the rights of others. Burning a flag is fine, assuming the individual owns the flag, because you cannot point to and demonstrate any damage. Are draft cards considered government property? Because, if so, that could be like burning a library book, which would be destruction of property. Schools set many limitations that go beyond what is acceptable for the general populace. This is acceptable because schools are not a public speaking area. Free speech guarantees expression, it does not guarantee expression in any location.

You quoted the first amendment in your opening post and bolded the "abridging the freedom of speech" part. It is somewhat expected that people would be arguing in terms of the constitution.
You're correct. I apologize again for this. I have added an edit to the original post. Due to where I live, I tend to use "The First Amendment" and "Free Speech" interchangeably in my head. I do need to be more careful about drawing a distinction.

Yet you seem to have been avoiding stating why this is true and why, for example, hate speech should be protected.
I didn't avoid that at all. I said:

The point is, perhaps, that by allowing such speech, violence may happen that could otherwise be prevented? Well, that's true. Undeniably, absolutely true.

My argument is that the attempts to limit speech do far more damage. My first question is always who is to decide which speech foments too much hatred? Who is to decide, in advance, who needs to be quieted? This is too much arbitrary power to give to anyone, or any committee. The second problem is that it is too hard to draw lines. Is "The Jews suck," okay but "I wish someone would do something about the Jews," not okay?

There's always the law of unintended consequences as well, which I addressed above with an example.

Finally, it's a dangerous precedent whenever you limit speech; I don't think I need to explain that to you.



You have neatly avoided my question. I am speaking of the words themselves posing a clear and present danger with intent.
Sorry, avoidance was not my aim; you didn't supply intent in your original question. If someone were to say, "I'm going to kill this person, at this time," then that would be prosecutable as intent. Does that answer it? If not, could you give me an example of what you mean?

[nacht]

HITLER!

Hitler's speeches were the fire to anti-Semitic feelings that ultimately led to the Holocaust.
C'mon.. 6,000,000+ dead..?


The world didn’t suffer because too many people read Mein Kampf. Sending Hitler on a speaking tour of the United States would have been quite a good idea.


(Harvey A. Silverglate)

[Rudy]

If your argument is: "Hitler", then I briefly responded here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you could address what part of that argument you would like me to elaborate on, I would appreciate it.

[nacht]

You have only answered half of my questions. I did not just ask you what your beliefs are, but why they are correct.

Are draft cards considered government property?


Not last I checked, but their destruction does lead to problems with "the smooth and proper functioning of the system."

Schools set many limitations that go beyond what is acceptable for the general populace. This is acceptable because schools are not a public speaking area. Free speech guarantees expression, it does not guarantee expression in any location.


Thus you disagree with the court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines?




Sorry, avoidance was not my aim; you didn't supply intent in your original question. If someone were to say, "I'm going to kill this person, at this time," then that would be prosecutable as intent. Does that answer it? If not, could you give me an example of what you mean?


Again, I am not interested in a restatement of your beliefs. I want to know why you think they are correct.

[Rudy]

I will elaborate on one part without prompting. The idea that something of the level of Hitler could be prevented by hate speech laws is absurd. The level of unrest and discontent that was fermenting in Germany at the time would have allowed the overturning of any such laws. They would have been ignored in favor of someone who inspired the populace (and inspire he did) during a time of such desolation. Social problems of that level cannot be legislated away.

[nacht]

If your argument is: "Hitler", then I briefly responded here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

Kneejerk reaction much? The comment you are replying to wasn't aimed at you and, in fact, would agree with your basic position.

[Rudy]

You have only answered half of my questions. I did not just ask you what your beliefs are, but why they are correct.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. This is a utilitarian argument. I'm interested in what creates the most free, most happy, most progressive society. I'm not arguing based on "rights."

Answering other questions...

[firebee]

Hitler's been brought up in the thread, but nobody's brought in kiddy-fiddling. This is an oversight.

Here's something I'll throw out for you: Awhile back, I read an assertion that US law enforcement dominates the market for child pornography. They have an archive of images that have been confiscated -- and a lot of it, apparently, is old French postcards and the like -- which are used in sting operations. And guess what: There is no way for anyone not affiliated with law enforcement to tell whether this is true or not without coming into possession of child pornography themselves, which is illegal. In fact, as I understand it, conducting and publishing virtually any study of the child pornography trade puts one at substantial and ugly legal peril.

So we might be propping up a market... which can't be studied... the existence of which informs dialog that is quite pointedly related to freedom and justice... inconvenient, ne?

[Rudy]

Not last I checked, but their destruction does lead to problems with "the smooth and proper functioning of the system."

Hmm... well, this is muddled for me, since I think the draft is bogus. If we regarded the draft as legitimate, then the crime would be draft dodging. However, I don't regard the draft as legitimate, so I don't consider it a crime.

[nacht]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. This is a utilitarian argument. I'm interested in what creates the most free, most happy, most progressive society. I'm not arguing based on "rights."

Answering other questions...

You have continued to assert this, but you have yet to indicate how the first ("most free") leads to the second ("most happy, most progressive society").

If you want to argue that absolute freedom of speech is necessary for a society to maximize freedom, then you are merely begging the question

You want people to argue against you, but all you have are assertions: you have not provided an argument for why your position is correct.

[Rudy]

Thus you disagree with the court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines?

Yes, I suppose that I would. I'm not sure why the court allowed it in this case, if it was considered disruptive, as all other sorts of disruptive speech is forbidden in schools. I don't see how you can allow schools to have dress standards, but not allow this. Children have a right to protest, but not on school property. If they were wearing them outside of schools, and punished for that, that would not be alright.

[firebee]

No, the government has no place in limiting the speech of minors.

Children have a right to protest, but not on school property.

Minors are not allowed to protest while on the property of schools which are run by the government?

[nacht]

Yes, I suppose that I would. I'm not sure why the court allowed it in this case, if it was considered disruptive, as all other sorts of disruptive speech is forbidden in schools. I don't see how you can allow schools to have dress standards, but not allow this. Children have a right to protest, but not on school property. If they were wearing them outside of schools, and punished for that, that would not be alright.

So, in short, the government may dictate that students must have patriotic displays only, so long as they keep it within the confines of school?

[Rudy]

You have continued to assert this, but you have yet to indicate how the first ("most free") leads to the second ("most happy, most progressive society").

The idea that freedom leads to happiness is far beyond the scope of this thread, and was never intended to be argued. I'm not saying I won't, but it's not part of this thread.

The goal of this thread is to argue that any infringement of prior restraint on free speech is either ineffective, or does far more damage than it prevents. I intended people to challenge this idea with examples, which they have very graciously done, and the back and forth with them has been quite a bit of fun. I have no intent, nor desire to turn this into a debate as to why freedom is fundamentally a good thing, nor will I debate on that point here.

In this thread, I am only interested in combating the notion that one can trade freedom for safety, and get a good deal in the bargain.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 4 minutes and 21 seconds later...

Minors are not allowed to protest while on the property of schools which are run by the government?
Free speech is not independent of location. The government is right in only allowing public gatherings and protests in public areas (protesters cannot, for example, march through the lobby of Congress.) This is not infringing on people's free speech. Students protesting in schools is analogous. If schools do not have the right to prevent student protests, then they neither have the right to prevent profanity, or wearing halter tops, or any of the other things that they do, in fact, prevent.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 0 minutes and 58 seconds later...

So, in short, the government may dictate that students must have patriotic displays only, so long as they keep it within the confines of school?

The school board could, in theory, but I guarantee that the populace would oust them very quickly for that. Pressure from the voting public is a powerful tool.

[firebee]

Finally, it's a dangerous precedent whenever you limit speech; I don't think I need to explain that to you.

...

The point is, when you allow the banning of things that seem reasonable, be careful of what that might lead to. Reasonable restrictions lead very quickly to unreasonable ones.


Free speech is not independent of location. The government is right in only allowing public gatherings and protests in public areas (protesters cannot, for example, march through the lobby of Congress.) This is not infringing on people's free speech. Students protesting in schools is analogous. If schools do not have the right to prevent student protests, then they neither have the right to prevent profanity, or wearing halter tops, or any of the other things that they do, in fact, prevent.

So, just to be clear, you do believe that students should be restricted in their symbolic speech while at school?

[Rudy]

So, just to be clear, you do believe that students should be restricted in their symbolic speech while at school?
If it is supported by the school board, yes.

Why?

These policies are decided by politicians who are elected by the parents of the children in the schools. It is the voters who are responsible for these policies. If they vote in politicians who want to limit symbolic speech in schools, then they are, as a group, making this decision for their children. It would be nicer if each parent could decide for their child individually, but such a thing is not possible.

In general, they are deciding that they want for their child being taught in an environment without distractions of short skirts or protest speech. If this is what they want, then it's their decision.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 1 minutes and 28 seconds later...

And with that, I'm going to bed. I'll respond to any further posts tomorrow.

Sorry for not actually being a free speech absolutist. It was a misunderstanding of terms on my part, not intent to deceive.

[nacht]

If it is supported by the school board, yes.

Why?

These policies are decided by politicians who are elected by the parents of the children in the schools. It is the voters who are responsible for these policies. If they vote in politicians who want to limit symbolic speech in schools, then they are, as a group, making this decision for their children. It would be nicer if each parent could decide for their child individually, but such a thing is not possible.

In general, they are deciding that they want for their child being taught in an environment without distractions of short skirts or protest speech. If this is what they want, then it's their decision.


Wait, so you argue that it is up to the voters in the case of schools, but not up to the voters anywhere else?

[firebee]

These policies are decided by politicians who are elected by the parents of the children in the schools. It is the voters who are responsible for these policies. If they vote in politicians who want to limit symbolic speech in schools, then they are, as a group, making this decision for their children. It would be nicer if each parent could decide for their child individually, but such a thing is not possible.


So the politicians who represent parents of minor children may enact policies that restrict the speech of those minors?


In general, they are deciding that they want for their child being taught in an environment without distractions of short skirts or protest speech. If this is what they want, then it's their decision.


So again -- Tinker proposes a test by which schools can not restrict non-disruptive political speech. You disagree with the majority opinion in this case, and believe that it is in fact valid for the government to prevent students from expressing their opinion because of the possibility, not that it may cause harm to another, but that it may be distracting?

[maxpot46]

From what principle, aside from "Wow, the bill of rights is shiny!" does this point of view derive?In my view, the freedom of speech derives from the axiom of self-ownership. If one owns himself, he also owns his vocal cords and can say whatever he wishes.

However, that one has rights does not permit violations of other's rights, and freedom of speech can be limited by the property rights of others. If one is standing on another person's property, that person has every right to dictate what speech will or will not be permitted. If one has contracted with another to voluntarily limit one's free speech, he can be bound by that contract. If one attempts to use speech to coerce, that can be punished (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater is using fraud to coerce others into potential bodily harm). Libel is also coercion if the accusations are untrue, though not if they are accurate. Children have all the rights associated with free speech as they also own their own bodies, with the caveat that they are wards of their parents until independence is declared.

The freedom to speech is one the most fundamental rights in a free society, espeically one where the government represents the people, because it allows for people to not only criticize, and thus improve, their government and prevent tyranny, but it also allows for free discussion in the market place of ideas. All ideas are allowed to presented, and all opposers are allowed to talk back. Thus, society can progress. Sure, it doesn't always work. But I don't trust the government to decide what should and should not be considered.I don't like this assessment, though I agree with it, because it is a utilitarian view. I do not believe that the ends justifies the means EVER (unlike most who discard this belief in justifying the government activities they support), and prefer to argue from the view of rights and not utility.

[axe rive]

Just as it says. I'm feeling pugnacious tonight, so I'm hoping someone will take me up on it.

A Free Speech absolutist thinks that the part of the First Amendment to the U.S. constitution referring to speech cannot be overridden, under any circumstances.

To clear the first objection: "What if someone is inciting violence?"

Well, if violence occurs, then you arrest them for inciting violence. If it does not occur, there is no crime.

Now, come to me! (Please)


1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


EDIT: I should add a clarification. The First Amendment serves as a useful illustration, but my argument is not dependent on it. I am arguing for what I consider to be the best attitude towards free speech in any society, which is absolutely no prior restraint.

I think you're absolutely absurd and nobody should be allowed to say negative things about other people. The fact that you disagree means you're stupid and I'll say that as often as I please. :wacko:

Hmmm...a case against free speech.... Troop movements are the only thing I can think of that creates a situation wherein free speech could be a serious problem, but that really isn't an issue of citizens' rights. That's more of a command within the military ranks to keep silent. And, of course, when you are in the military you give up certain rights during that time to ensure protection of rights for everyone else. So I don't really think that's much of a problem.

[Rudy]

My Views Clarified

Okay, I'm back. My opinion has been somewhat spread out over posts, which is no one's fault but my own. I think it best that I state my entire view together. This is my view on what free speech should be, not what it currently is.

First point: free speech is not location independent. What do I mean by this?

Well, in my view, there are three types of property (this will get somewhat U.S. centric, but it should be applicable to any democracy.)

1. Private Property - self explanatory I think.

2. Free and open public property - this is public property that basically anyone is allowed to be on, for whatever reason they like. Sidewalks, parks, the national mall in D.C., etc.

3. Restricted public property - this is public property (some might say government property, but the government is owned by the public,) that restricts who may be on it, and for what purpose. This includes schools, government administrative buildings, and military installations.

My view as to speech for each of these locations is as follows:

For 1. A private owner may choose to limit speech on his private property. If a restaurant owner wants to say there will be no antisemitic discussion on his property, he may do so, and expel anyone who violates this rule.

For 2. There should be no restriction on free speech whatsoever.

For 3. Restrictions on free speech should be handled by the relevant officials, who are then beholden to the voters. A school board limits speech for its schools, things like that. These restrictions are what allow things to function efficiently within a location. As my previous example, we do not allow protesters to march through the Senate, nor do we allow them to march through high schools.

Beyond these restrictions, government may not enforce prior restraint on speech of any kind. For example, government may not dictate anything regarding what may not be said on the first two types of property listed. For the third type of property, it may not make rules except those decided by the officials in charge of the property. The only thing the government can do beyond this is punish the results of speech, not speech itself. Damage from libel, slander, if proven to be false and proven to be damaging, may be prosecuted. Inciting violence may be prosecuted, if violence or clear intent to violence is caused. The words themselves are never invalid.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 3 minutes and 40 seconds later...

You disagree with the majority opinion in this case, and believe that it is in fact valid for the government to prevent students from expressing their opinion because of the possibility, not that it may cause harm to another, but that it may be distracting?
Yep. Again, for the exact same reason that short skirts are not allowed. The focus in school should be learning, not protest or sex (except for sex ed.)

[INTJRyan]

Beyond these restrictions, government may not enforce prior restraint on speech of any kind. For example, government may not dictate anything regarding what may not be said on the first two types of property listed. For the third type of property, it may not make rules except those decided by the officials in charge of the property. The only thing the government can do beyond this is punish the results of speech, not speech itself. Damage from libel, slander, if proven to be false and proven to be damaging, may be prosecuted. Inciting violence may be prosecuted, if violence or clear intent to violence is caused. The words themselves are never invalid.



You paint yourself into an untenable corner by claiming absolutism on one hand and then setting up vague exceptions to the absolutism on the other. Punishing the effect of speech rather than the speech itself is a distinction without a difference because the end result, a curtailing of speech, is the same.

I'm not sure what the validity of words has to do with the argument at hand, especially when considered in light of your example of slander and libel, whereby the truth of the words spoken/written is a defense to the charges.

[Storm]

2. Free and open public property - this is public property that basically anyone is allowed to be on, for whatever reason they like. Sidewalks, parks, the national mall in D.C., etc.

My view as to speech for each of these locations is as follows:
For 2. There should be no restriction on free speech whatsoever.



This sounds dandy until you get into symbolic speech. Suppose that a group of activist, in order to highlight the homeless problem in a city, decide to sleep en masse in the city park? They set up tents, cook, etc. The city has an ordinance against camping in the park because of the litter, crowding, and danger of open flames. What do you do?

[Rudy]

You paint yourself into an untenable corner by claiming absolutism on one hand and then setting up vague exceptions to the absolutism on the other. Punishing the effect of speech rather than the speech itself is a distinction without a difference because the end result, a curtailing of speech, is the same.
If you mean it is going to curtail speech in the sense of "Gee, maybe I better not give a speech encouraging people to go out and lynch black people because then they might do it and I would get arrested for inciting murder," then yes, it would curtail speech. It would not curtail speech to the same extent, however. The amount of curtailment is certainly not the same.

I've said several times now that I was incorrect to use the label "absolutist." I am interested in determining what the ideal attitude towards free speech is. I think that part of it is absolutely no prior restraint.

The key difference in punishing results and punishing speech is that, with the later, you need to delegate to some entity the power to determine what speech is harmful and what is not, before the results of the speech are seen. This is too much arbitrary power.

I'm not sure what the validity of words has to do with the argument at hand, especially when considered in light of your example of slander and libel, whereby the truth of the words spoken/written is a defense to the charges.
Allowing harm to come from truthful words, whereas it is criminal to cause harm with untruthful words, is a utilitarian argument. It is not beneficial for people to be afraid of speaking the truth.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 3 minutes and 29 seconds later...

This sounds dandy until you get into symbolic speech. Suppose that a group of activist, in order to highlight the homeless problem in a city, decide to sleep en masse in the city park? They set up tents, cook, etc. The city has an ordinance against camping in the park because of the litter, crowding, and danger of open flames. What do you do?
I don't view "symbolic speech" as having the same blanket protection. People do not have a right to destroy public property as part of free speech. For another example, they can burn a flag, but only if it is their flag, and only if they are not endangering others with the flames. The ordinances against sleeping en masse would be based on damage to public property, not restriction of free speech.

[RBM]

There is not an excuse for leaking classified information.

And if the classification process has been corrupted ?

[Rudy]

And if the classification process has been corrupted ?

Could you clarify or give an example? "Corrupted" is a very vague term in this case.

[Arminius]

By and large I am a supporter of free speech, but the devil is in the details.

Some of these details, and how I think they should be dealt with:

Extremist organizations: Ie nazis, terrorists, anarchists ect... Assuming they maintain order, and do not assault passers-by, they should be permitted to speak. Vague threats and pronouncements of hate against a group in general will be tolerated. Such action, while permitted will place the group on list of potential threats, and as such, they should be covertly investigated by whatever government org is responsible for internal security. By this, the history of group leaders and members should be examined for legal issues and possibly overlooked crimes. The group, especially leaders and meeting places should be kept under surveillance. If any crimes are committed by any group member, or if the group is collectively planning crimes they should be arrested.

Military security, sedition: By and large, I think it is the duty of any government to maintain it's own position, both internally and abroad. Classified materials willfully released without authorization should be considered treason and punished accordingly. Sedition will be treated in similar manner as extremist organizations. If they call for overthrow of government, ie, by coup or revolution, this will also be considered treason. If they just do not like a government action and are only voicing their displeasure, as long as they maintain order, this will be tolerated.

Threats: By this I mean direct threats to injure, kill, or destroy the property of an individual. People making these should be arrested.

libel/slander: These sorts of things should be dealt with in civil courts. General guidelines are to restrict such matters to serious matters and serious statements. Obvious jokes and parody should not count. To be honest, this sort of thing really needs to be evaluated on case by case basis.

Private property: You can say what you please on private property, but the owner of said property has the right to evict you if he doesn't like it. On private property, you are a guest of the owner, and as such your presence is at his pleasure.


General Rules for protest/demonstrations:

Marches on the street will require a permit and planning. Disruption of traffic is not to be permitted.

Demonstrations may be held in public parks and other public spaces. People should not assault, throw stuff on, intimidate, or otherwise harass passers-by. They may speak with passers-by, hand out pamphlets, carry around signs, give speeches, ect. Demonstrators will be expected to clean up after themselves. In addition, as long as the demonstrators are behaving, they should be protected from people attacking them.


Symbolic speech:

Nudity will not be permitted in public, barring situations where it is necessary. If you are running about naked, it had better be because you were attacked by ninjas while in the shower, not because you have some kind of "point" to make. That said, in private or before private audience, you can dress as you please. Just give warning, so people who don't want to look at it can avoid.

Flag burning/willful desecration of national symbols: Illegal, regarded as treason. Yes, they are just symbols, but symbols mean things. That is why we have symbols. Burning your own national flag is symbolic of rebellion, so unless you think you can take on the army, don't do it. Once again, as with the nudity situation, use some common sense. Flags get old and need to be replaced, in this case it is permitted to burn, though it should be done privately and with respect. Also, if emergency situation hits and you need bandages, and a flag is all that is handy, feel free to use it. Basically, it is not so much destruction of national symbols as the reasons behind it. Politically motivated flag burning strikes me as treasonous.(As you can probably guess, I'm an American)

As per the city ordinance/camping in the park example: The protesters should comply with the ordinance, but do the sleeping without tents, camp-fires ect.

In summary, most of my thought is geared towards maintaining public order. The problem is maintaining such order without crushing the notion of free speech. In general, I think it is better for people to speak their mind, that is the true point of free speech. This is why I would let extremists give their opinions, wrong or even depraved as I may consider them. And in truth, I think democracy is meaningless if people cannot speak freely on their opinions. At the same time, it is foolish not to recognize the potential danger extremists hold, and as such they should be watched, and if they stray from the straight and narrow, they should be punished.

In general, people need to use their heads. We do not live as computers, we do not follow strict programming to the letter. Life is too complex for the legality of everything to be clearly established. Enforcement and legal profession needs to use their heads, as do the people following them.

And if you've managed to wade through this incredibly long, poorly written, and probably boring post:
Have a cookie!:)
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Maybe to Dream]

Why are you against public deceny laws?

[Arminius]

Why are you against public deceny laws?

How do you mean? I'm not against public decency laws.:huh:

To quote from my post:

Nudity will not be permitted in public, barring situations where it is necessary. If you are running about naked, it had better be because you were attacked by ninjas while in the shower, not because you have some kind of "point" to make. That said, in private or before private audience, you can dress as you please. Just give warning, so people who don't want to look at it can avoid.

[Rudy]

Extremist organizations: Ie nazis, terrorists, anarchists ect... Assuming they maintain order, and do not assault passers-by, they should be permitted to speak. Vague threats and pronouncements of hate against a group in general will be tolerated.
Agreed.

Such action, while permitted will place the group on list of potential threats, and as such, they should be covertly investigated by whatever government org is responsible for internal security. By this, the history of group leaders and members should be examined for legal issues and possibly overlooked crimes. The group, especially leaders and meeting places should be kept under surveillance. If any crimes are committed by any group member, or if the group is collectively planning crimes they should be arrested.
I agree in the sense that such speech gives a motive for keeping a closer eye on a group. I do not agree if you are suggesting that it gives law enforcement a right to violate rights that the group would otherwise enjoy, such as the right to plant wiretaps on the group and whatnot, where such wiretaps would otherwise be forbidden. I'm not sure if that is what you are suggesting.

Military security, sedition: By and large, I think it is the duty of any government to maintain it's own position, both internally and abroad. Classified materials willfully released without authorization should be considered treason and punished accordingly.
Agreed.

Sedition will be treated in similar manner as extremist organizations. If they call for overthrow of government, ie, by coup or revolution, this will also be considered treason. If they just do not like a government action and are only voicing their displeasure, as long as they maintain order, this will be tolerated.
No. If they actually make motions towards the act of revolution, that is one thing. Voicing the need for revolution, however, is an important check on governmental power than needs to be protected. The rights of the people trump the rights of the government, and one of the functions of free speech is to pave the way for revolution, if and when it becomes necessary.

Threats: By this I mean direct threats to injure, kill, or destroy the property of an individual. People making these should be arrested.
Again, only if there is demonstrable intent. People say "I'm going to kill you," all the time without real intent to do it. That is not sufficient for a criminal charge.

libel/slander: These sorts of things should be dealt with in civil courts. General guidelines are to restrict such matters to serious matters and serious statements. Obvious jokes and parody should not count. To be honest, this sort of thing really needs to be evaluated on case by case basis.
Mostly agree. I'm in line, I think, with the current laws on this in that for something to be prosecutable, it must be demonstrated that harm was done, and than the information was not true.

Private property: You can say what you please on private property, but the owner of said property has the right to evict you if he doesn't like it. On private property, you are a guest of the owner, and as such your presence is at his pleasure.
Agreed.

Marches on the street will require a permit and planning. Disruption of traffic is not to be permitted.
Agreed. This is justified based on the fact that harm is being done to people attempting to use the street, at minimum through disruption of their livelihood against their will.

Demonstrations may be held in public parks and other public spaces. People should not assault, throw stuff on, intimidate, or otherwise harass passers-by. They may speak with passers-by, hand out pamphlets, carry around signs, give speeches, ect. Demonstrators will be expected to clean up after themselves. In addition, as long as the demonstrators are behaving, they should be protected from people attacking them.
Agreed.

Nudity will not be permitted in public, barring situations where it is necessary. If you are running about naked, it had better be because you were attacked by ninjas while in the shower, not because you have some kind of "point" to make. That said, in private or before private audience, you can dress as you please. Just give warning, so people who don't want to look at it can avoid.
I've been thinking about it, and I think I will have to slightly change a position I stated earlier against public decency laws, and agree with you here (see, I can change my mind!) Public decency laws can be justified is public areas on the basis that you are forcing people to see something that is arguably damaging against their will. (Does this make sense? I'm honestly hashing this out in my head...)

These decency laws should not, however, extend to any private property, whatsoever. If a corner restaurant wants to allow nudity, it should be allowed to do so, no matter where the restaurant is, because any person may choose not to go into the restaurant. I'm not sure what the current laws on this actually are.

Flag burning/willful desecration of national symbols: Illegal, regarded as treason. Yes, they are just symbols, but symbols mean things. That is why we have symbols. Burning your own national flag is symbolic of rebellion, so unless you think you can take on the army, don't do it.
Nonsense. Our national identity is defined more by our freedoms than our symbols. Preventing someone from burning a flag that they, themselves, own, is doing far more damage to our national identity than allowing it is. Do not misunderstand me. I love my country, and I would personally despise anyone who wanted to burn a flag, but I would fight for their right to do so, because anything less would be a betrayal of their freedoms, which I also claim for myself.

As per the city ordinance/camping in the park example: The protesters should comply with the ordinance, but do the sleeping without tents, camp-fires ect.
My objection to the camping is based on damage to public property. If the camping can be done without such damage, then fine.

In summary, most of my thought is geared towards maintaining public order. The problem is maintaining such order without crushing the notion of free speech. In general, I think it is better for people to speak their mind, that is the true point of free speech. This is why I would let extremists give their opinions, wrong or even depraved as I may consider them. And in truth, I think democracy is meaningless if people cannot speak freely on their opinions. At the same time, it is foolish not to recognize the potential danger extremists hold, and as such they should be watched, and if they stray from the straight and narrow, they should be punished.
"public order", in my mind, is always secondary to freedom. That is where most of our disagreement stems from.

In general, people need to use their heads. We do not live as computers, we do not follow strict programming to the letter. Life is too complex for the legality of everything to be clearly established. Enforcement and legal profession needs to use their heads, as do the people following them.
There will always be gray areas, no matter what, but the legality of most things can be clearly established.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 2 minutes and 32 seconds later...

Why are you against public deceny laws?

I think the question is addressed to me.

As said in my last post, I've been forced to partially revise my position on public decency laws as they apply to public property. I confess I'm now quite uncertain on this aspect, and am trying to hash out a proper position now. I gave a shot at it in my last post, if that addresses your question at all.

[Arminius]

I agree in the sense that such speech gives a motive for keeping a closer eye on a group. I do not agree if you are suggesting that it gives law enforcement a right to violate rights that the group would otherwise enjoy, such as the right to plant wiretaps on the group and whatnot, where such wiretaps would otherwise be forbidden. I'm not sure if that is what you are suggesting.
It depends on the scale of the group to be honest. If it is just a handful of people, it probably isn't worth the trouble. But on larger groups, I think we shall have to agree to disagree. Since I do favour surveillance of such groups. My thinking is, any organization with an ideological base can be counted on to try and carry out it's ideology to it's logical extent. In groups such as Nazis and Islamic extremists, this will necessitate "fighting the enemies of the white race", or "fighting the infidels". White supremacists regard the current government as dominated by either Jews or Jewish puppets. In the more harmless members, all this translates to is survivalist mentality, others advocate guerrilla war against government, Jews, basically everyone on the hit-list. If people believe something strongly enough, they will do it. That can be counted on. I would rather know about this before hand than wake up one morning and find my neighbors have been murdered or a building blown up.

No. If they actually make motions towards the act of revolution, that is one thing. Voicing the need for revolution, however, is an important check on governmental power than needs to be protected. The rights of the people trump the rights of the government, and one of the functions of free speech is to pave the way for revolution, if and when it becomes necessary.
This is kind of a grey area. On one hand, yeah, I think it is good to voice the need for governmental overthrow. On the other hand, I don't like stuff that promotes instability. You are probably right on this one though. In theory such speech will be unnecessary in a democracy, since there are peaceful ways to change the government. But things don't always go according to theory in real life.

Again, only if there is demonstrable intent. People say "I'm going to kill you," all the time without real intent to do it. That is not sufficient for a criminal charge.
I agree with this.

I've been thinking about it, and I think I will have to slightly change a position I stated earlier against public decency laws, and agree with you here (see, I can change my mind!) Public decency laws can be justified is public areas on the basis that you are forcing people to see something that is arguably damaging against their will. (Does this make sense? I'm honestly hashing this out in my head...)

These decency laws should not, however, extend to any private property, whatsoever. If a corner restaurant wants to allow nudity, it should be allowed to do so, no matter where the restaurant is, because any person may choose not to go into the restaurant. I'm not sure what the current laws on this actually are.
I gave this some thought as well. I think people should be able to dress as they please on private property, but then there is the trouble of windows and lawns. It is possible for someone to sit about their front lawn in the buff for all to see, and still be on private property. How to deal with this, I'm not quite sure.

Nonsense. Our national identity is defined more by our freedoms than our symbols. Preventing someone from burning a flag that they, themselves, own, is doing far more damage to our national identity than allowing it is. Do not misunderstand me. I love my country, and I would personally despise anyone who wanted to burn a flag, but I would fight for their right to do so, because anything less would be a betrayal of their freedoms, which I also claim for myself.
To be honest, this shouldn't even be a debate. This whole problem stems from people who don't like something the government is doing, and decide to burn a flag, but mean it as an empty show, not an actual rebellion. I guess it is just me being old fashioned. I can't see why anyone would burn a flag for political reasons unless they meant to go to war over it. I understand it, but I don't understand it, if that makes any sense.

"public order", in my mind, is always secondary to freedom. That is where most of our disagreement stems from.
True, however anarchy and civil war are some of the worst things that can befall a nation, and while maybe not as bad a tyranny, are quite close contenders.

There will always be gray areas, no matter what, but the legality of most things can be clearly established.
But it is the details and specific events that cause trouble. In many respects, this was more a comment about the overly litigious nature of our country than anything else. Various strange laws made for special circumstances. I just think a legal system should be clear, but in practice they tend towards the convoluted and Byzantine. It is probably inevitable, but it might not be quite as bad if people didn't keep suing each other over stupid stuff.

[Rudy]

It depends on the scale of the group to be honest. If it is just a handful of people, it probably isn't worth the trouble. But on larger groups, I think we shall have to agree to disagree. Since I do favour surveillance of such groups. My thinking is, any organization with an ideological base can be counted on to try and carry out it's ideology to it's logical extent. In groups such as Nazis and Islamic extremists, this will necessitate "fighting the enemies of the white race", or "fighting the infidels". White supremacists regard the current government as dominated by either Jews or Jewish puppets. In the more harmless members, all this translates to is survivalist mentality, others advocate guerrilla war against government, Jews, basically everyone on the hit-list. If people believe something strongly enough, they will do it. That can be counted on. I would rather know about this before hand than wake up one morning and find my neighbors have been murdered or a building blown up.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it is too arbitrary of a line. If you allow the government to violate individual rights when they perceive a threat, how is this threat to be properly defined?

This is kind of a grey area. On one hand, yeah, I think it is good to voice the need for governmental overthrow. On the other hand, I don't like stuff that promotes instability. You are probably right on this one though. In theory such speech will be unnecessary in a democracy, since there are peaceful ways to change the government. But things don't always go according to theory in real life.
I'm a big believer in T.J.'s thought that: "From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike." I don't think we, as a species, will ever be to the point where revolution is obsolete.

I gave this some thought as well. I think people should be able to dress as they please on private property, but then there is the trouble of windows and lawns. It is possible for someone to sit about their front lawn in the buff for all to see, and still be on private property. How to deal with this, I'm not quite sure.
This is an easy one, actually. The "speech" in these cases is being projected outside of private property onto public property, so it's no go. Restaurants would have to close the curtains of windows facing public property, and so forth.

To be honest, this shouldn't even be a debate. This whole problem stems from people who don't like something the government is doing, and decide to burn a flag, but mean it as an empty show, not an actual rebellion. I guess it is just me being old fashioned. I can't see why anyone would burn a flag for political reasons unless they meant to go to war over it. I understand it, but I don't understand it, if that makes any sense.
I agree that I find their reasons baffling, but that is not sufficient to condemn it.

But it is the details and specific events that cause trouble. In many respects, this was more a comment about the overly litigious nature of our country than anything else. Various strange laws made for special circumstances. I just think a legal system should be clear, but in practice they tend towards the convoluted and Byzantine. It is probably inevitable, but it might not be quite as bad if people didn't keep suing each other over stupid stuff.
I agree with you in general, but people resorting to suing each other over everything is just as much a social problem as a legal one. I thought you liked the Byzantines, though. ;)

[Storm]

Agreed.
I've been thinking about it, and I think I will have to slightly change a position I stated earlier against public decency laws, and agree with you here (see, I can change my mind!) Public decency laws can be justified is public areas on the basis that you are forcing people to see something that is arguably damaging against their will. (Does this make sense? I'm honestly hashing this out in my head...)

I too have been thinking about public decency laws. While usually I think the government has no place forbidding how people dress or don't dress on private establishment (so long as minors are excluded), I can imagine that with nudity there may be public health concerns, such as a nude restaurant. In that case the government isn't regulating the speech itself, but is promoting a public concern (sanitation and health).

Nudity in public (which, would include front lawns and other places readily viewable from a public viewpoint) can also be regulated because the public at large does finds the act of nudity shocking - any message of the nudist is irrelevant. Especially since the mere exposure of the body to a child (or even another adult) is a type of sexual harrasment - it goes beyond mere speech at that point and becomes an attack. Laws, at the end of the day, are based upon morality, and if the public at large finds something immoral, especially when it affects their own rights, it can be regulated.

This gets more complicated with artistic representations of the nude body in public. And I think would depend on the community standards. A billboard in NYC of a nude model would probably be ok, a nude billboard in small town Georgia - probably not.

[maxpot46]

This is an easy one, actually. The "speech" in these cases is being projected outside of private property onto public property, so it's no go. Restaurants would have to close the curtains of windows facing public property, and so forth.Not quite so easy to me, unfortunately. This is an example of a negative externality, and we Austrians are suspicious of using externalities as justification for property rights violations. In such a case, we hold that what is proper is for those who are offended to persuade the property-owner to draw his shades.

[Rudy]

Not quite so easy to me, unfortunately. This is an example of a negative externality, and we Austrians are suspicious of using externalities as justification for property rights violations. In such a case, we hold that what is proper is for those who are offended to persuade the property-owner to draw his shades.
My apologies. I don't agree with your interpretation, but I was hasty in saying that it was "easy." I should have said "easy for me," or some such.

Given the situation where a neighbor is playing extraordinarily loud music in the wee hours of the morning, and you are unable to persuade him to stop, what do you regard as the proper response?

[Arminius]

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is too arbitrary of a line. If you allow the government to violate individual rights when they perceive a threat, how is this threat to be properly defined?
Basically, any organization that has an ideology hostile to the lives and property of a group that exists among the government's citizens. It is important to remember, this is not just going around wiretapping random people for no reason. This is specifically restricted to members of organizations like the Nazis, like the Islamists, ect. People who belong to organizations that are either terrorist or have terrorist tendencies. If the organization limits themselves to just ranting about how they dislike "x", then the information will never be acted on, but if they are planning some kind of attack, I think it is best to know it before hand and have a chance of stopping it.


I'm a big believer in T.J.'s thought that: "From time to time the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike." I don't think we, as a species, will ever be to the point where revolution is obsolete.
Sad, but probably true.

This is an easy one, actually. The "speech" in these cases is being projected outside of private property onto public property, so it's no go. Restaurants would have to close the curtains of windows facing public property, and so forth.
Good point.

I agree with you in general, but people resorting to suing each other over everything is just as much a social problem as a legal one. I thought you liked the Byzantines, though. ;)
I do like them. If I remember correctly, the expression was minted before the Byzantines were appreciated as a distinct culture and at the time were simply regarded as a struggling, corrupt, and degenerate holdover.

[maxpot46]

My apologies. I don't agree with your interpretation, but I was hasty in saying that it was "easy." I should have said "easy for me," or some such.

Given the situation where a neighbor is playing extraordinarily loud music in the wee hours of the morning, and you are unable to persuade him to stop, what do you regard as the proper response?Persuade harder, by increasing your offer, or treating him to negative externalities in response. Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)is a paper that outlines the Austrian view.

[Rudy]

Persuade harder, by increasing your offer, or treating him to negative externalities in response. Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)is a paper that outlines the Austrian view.

I read the article. It definitely made me think, and I'll be reading it again. It makes a decent argument as to how it is ridiculous to attempt to measure the damage dealt by a negative externality. However, I am not suggesting some sort of monetary restitution in this case, but rather that certain negative externalities not be allowed, period. I'm not sure how the article applies in this case.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 1 minutes and 16 seconds later...

Basically, any organization that has an ideology hostile to the lives and property of a group that exists among the government's citizens. It is important to remember, this is not just going around wiretapping random people for no reason. This is specifically restricted to members of organizations like the Nazis, like the Islamists, ect. People who belong to organizations that are either terrorist or have terrorist tendencies. If the organization limits themselves to just ranting about how they dislike "x", then the information will never be acted on, but if they are planning some kind of attack, I think it is best to know it before hand and have a chance of stopping it.
My primary fear here is that this would make the possibility of real revolution almost impossible, should it become necessary, as revolutionary groups would be constantly monitored.

[Arminius]

My primary fear here is that this would make the possibility of real revolution almost impossible, should it become necessary, as revolutionary groups would be constantly monitored.
That is actually a pretty good point. I hadn't really thought about it, but this does have quite a bit of potential for abuse. So is there any way to really head this sort of group off, or is it pretty much a matter of waiting for them to strike?

[Nikita]

This is copied and pasted from PMs at RudyHenkel's request:

I think I'd get banned if I posted this in the thread, lol, so I'll just send it here.

WARNING: Vulgar language is contained in the spoiler.

What about speech that would generally be considered inappropriate given the audience. What I am specifically thinking about here is vulgar language directed at children. Note: I do not advocate this type of speech towards children, nor do I advocate what it might incite. Imagine this being said to your sisters.

Announced to children in schools, daycares, tours of government buildings, etc. and with human and video pornographic visual aids, as visual messages are a form of speech: Boys and girls, did you know that you have cocks and pussies? Girls have these ultra fuckable cunts that boys stick their fat dicks in. They pump really hard and fast and they shoot a wad of jizz inside the girl's twat. Who wants to play fuck the teacher?


Shouldn't be illegal but any member of a school board that allowed such a thing to be approved would find himself out of a job very quickly. It would regulate itself in that way.

That wouldn't stop the harm, though. The damage is done as soon as the children hear the words and see the displays. On what basis should the schools regulate something entirely legal? If it were indecent to a reasonable person, shouldn't it be at least regulated in some way by some law?


It would stop the harm, because no school board would allow such a thing to be shown in the first place, knowing they would all lose their jobs.

School regulate entirely legal things even now. They are given more jurisdiction over the content of the schools that is given by public decency laws. These regulations are decided by politicians elected by the populace.

Fair enough. What about daycares, government buildings, newspapers, people on the street, billboards, etc.?

[firebee]

Imagine this being said to your sisters.


One of the nice things about being an only child with no children is immunity to shock horror tactics such as this. I have no seeeesters. Let my hypothetical siblings eat anatomically-correct chocolate cake.


That wouldn't stop the harm, though. The damage is done as soon as the children hear the words and see the displays.


What damage? Admittedly I lost a few brain cells reading that, but once my sweet and innocent hypothetical sister gets to college it'll be deck chairs on the Titanic anyway. Speaking of the Titanic, by the way -- lifeboat philosophy has questionable value.


On what basis should the schools regulate something entirely legal?


Schools, like any other organization, are allowed to have administrative regulations governing the smooth functioning of the school. They are not required to post any billboard including the above, and they are allowed to control who enters the property. None of this is an issue of "free speech". That question might come into play if a student were to recite the above speech, but I imagine it would not pass the Tinker test.

If the speech in question were deemed to be political in nature and not conducted in a disruptive manner, the school would not have a third leg to stand on. As government entities, the schools should not and are not allowed to restrict non-disruptive political speech of their students. Of course, the schools should not be government entities, but that is an entirely other hill to die on.


If it were indecent to a reasonable person, shouldn't it be at least regulated in some way by some law?


Not on that basis alone, no.


Fair enough. What about daycares, government buildings, newspapers, people on the street, billboards, etc.?

What about them?

[Nikita]

The post was made to Rudy who has 2 little sisters he adores more than anything else in this world. It has nothing to do with you. It was posted here only at his request.

[nacht]

The post was made to Rudy who has 2 little sisters he adores more than anything else in this world. It has nothing to do with you. It was posted here only at his request.

Appeals to emotion (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) rarely are good debate tactics, they are fallacious in nature and--while occasionally effective--are poor rhetorical techniques in general.

I have a strong distaste for arguments of the form "imagine if it were your kids..." because in truth it doesn't matter. While such may inform one's opinion, the actual opinion--hopefully being generalized in nature--should be based on factors other than emotional attachment to an individual. All that the argument does is point out potential hypocrisy in the individual (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), which is only so useful.

I would say the point stands, along with the rest of the points which were independent of that one.

[Rudy]

Alright, I'll pick up where we left off which was:

Fair enough. What about daycares, government buildings, newspapers, people on the street, billboards, etc.?

Daycares are likewise regulated without the need for direct laws. Parents would not send their children to places where they are exposed to indecent material. The situation resolves itself there.

Government buildings I think I addressed adequately in my restatement of my position here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. If you disagree, let me know.

Newspapers should be able to print whatever they want, subject, of course, to libel laws. If a newspaper prints obscene material, access to it by children can be restricted, but the newspaper itself cannot be banned. Most stores, of course, will not choose to carry it though.

People on the street and billboards are a more difficult matter, though. I've been partially convinced of the need for public decency laws in the public arena, though I'm still uncertain. Even if a billboard is private property, it projects its message into public property, so it would be subject to such laws... I admit my position on this is not currently set; I need to muddle over it a bit.

[firebee]

The post was made to Rudy who has 2 little sisters he adores more than anything else in this world. It has nothing to do with you. It was posted here only at his request.

The fact that it's a knowingly targeted attempt at manipulation doesn't make it any better a debate tactic.

Edit: That said, I'm more interested in hearing you state your case than defend your methods.

[Rudy]

The fact that it's a knowingly targeted attempt at manipulation doesn't make it any better a debate tactic.

Thank you, but don't worry about it on my account. Nikita was just trying to personalize it for me. I know it doesn't add any logical strength to the argument, but I wasn't bothered by it, and I already answered that part in any case.

[Nikita]

Alright, I'll pick up where we left off which was:



Daycares are likewise regulated without the need for direct laws. Parents would not send their children to places where they are exposed to indecent material. The situation resolves itself there.

Government buildings I think I addressed adequately in my restatement of my position here: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. If you disagree, let me know.

Newspapers should be able to print whatever they want, subject, of course, to libel laws. If a newspaper prints obscene material, access to it by children can be restricted, but the newspaper itself cannot be banned. Most stores, of course, will not choose to carry it though.

People on the street and billboards are a more difficult matter, though. I've been partially convinced of the need for public decency laws in the public arena, though I'm still uncertain. Even if a billboard is private property, it projects its message into public property, so it would be subject to such laws... I admit my position on this is not currently set; I need to muddle over it a bit.

So your absolutism extends only to purely public arenas and not to speech as a whole. There has long been a question of what constitutes indecent language, and the general standard addresses what would be considered indecent to the ordinary or reasonable person. Because "absolutist" is the word of choice, you're faced with the reality that people are not always decent and will not necessarily choose to act in the public interest. At what point do you hold people accountable where there is no violent result? Does accountability exist only for actions and not for mere words? Are words, themselves, not a form of action?

Note: It is not manipulative to take into account a very real possibility that could result from the allowance of vulgar language directed at children. If you ignore the slippery slope, you're ignoring underlying policy upon which current laws have some basis.

[Rudy]

So your absolutism extends only to purely public arenas and not to speech as a whole. There has long been a question of what constitutes indecent language, and the general standard addresses what would be considered indecent to the ordinary or reasonable person. Because "absolutist" is the word of choice, you're faced with the reality that people are not always decent and will not necessarily choose to act in the public interest.
I added to my original post, and have acknowledged, that absolutist was a very poor choice of words on my part based on a severe misunderstanding of the term on my part. I do not truly represent the "absolutist" position in general. As I said in my restatement, I do think that private property owners can limit speech on their property, and that government officials, such as school board members, can limit speech in restricted government buildings, such as schools. I am for absolutely no prior restraint in public arenas, however.

At what point do you hold people accountable where there is no violent result? Does accountability exist only for actions and not for mere words? Are words, themselves, not a form of action?
Well, the harm does not necessarily need to be violent. It could be financial caused by slander, for another example. If there is no demonstrable damage, however, there is no demonstrable crime. I acknowledge that people are not interested in the good of society as a whole, but I challenge the efficacy of limiting speech in any way.





RudyHenkel added to this post, 1 minutes and 39 seconds later...

The key issue, for me, is that while it's all well and good to say "Oh, we can stop harmful speech," how does one decide what speech is harmful before it has occurred? Who can you give this responsibility to? Who would you trust with that much power?

[Nikita]

Well, the harm does not necessarily need to be violent. It could be financial caused by slander, for another example. If there is no demonstrable damage, however, there is no demonstrable crime. I acknowledge that people are not interested in the good of society as a whole, but I challenge the efficacy of limiting speech in any way.

I only brought up violence since you had spoken of speech inciting to violence in previous posts. But there are crimes as to which, regarding specific instances, there has been no damage done though a crime has been committed. An example would be a person charged with possession of an illegal substance. If this person were neither selling the drug nor using the drug, the possession of it would still be illegal and subject the person to criminal punishment. That the possessor of contraband could or might sell the drugs or use the drugs at some point in the future is akin to speech that could or might incite some later harm. But mere possession causes no demonstrable damage.


As to who should have the authority to determine the harmfulness or appropriateness of speech, I don't have a clearcut answer for you. That being said, the government is built around a system of checks and balances for a reason. The legislature makes laws for the benefit of the people (ignoring rampant corruption for a second, lol). The standards used by the legislature are those, typically, of either an ordinary person or a reasonable person. It could definitely be said that the prevailing mores of modern society (modern at the time laws were enacted) have a definite influence on the wording and application of laws, but courts exist to determine constitutionality of laws. Constitutionality is hardly a stagnant determination as viewpoints and arguments change over time. But the design of government was, it seems, fitted to this question. Who should have the authority to determine what is reasonable as to any law that is written? Why stop at free speech?

[Rudy]

I'm opposed to the criminalization of drug use, so there is no contradiction in my position from that, at least.

Even if I was not, however, drug possession can be interpreted as almost certain intent of using or selling the drugs in the future.

[Nikita]

There is a contradiction when you cite "no demonstrable damage" as a reason not to limit free speech.

[Rudy]

Right, but I just said I am against the criminalization of drugs... I don't support the illegality of any "victimless crimes".





RudyHenkel added to this post, 0 minutes and 35 seconds later...

I regard drug use as wasteful and idiotic, but people have a right to harm themselves if they wish.

[Rudy]

As to who should have the authority to determine the harmfulness or appropriateness of speech, I don't have a clearcut answer for you. That being said, the government is built around a system of checks and balances for a reason. The legislature makes laws for the benefit of the people (ignoring rampant corruption for a second, lol). The standards used by the legislature are those, typically, of either an ordinary person or a reasonable person. It could definitely be said that the prevailing mores of modern society (modern at the time laws were enacted) have a definite influence on the wording and application of laws, but courts exist to determine constitutionality of laws. Constitutionality is hardly a stagnant determination as viewpoints and arguments change over time. But the design of government was, it seems, fitted to this question. Who should have the authority to determine what is reasonable as to any law that is written? Why stop at free speech?
The problem is, first, that one can never ignore corruption, or the possibility of corruption, in government. Second, the biggest difference between enacting speech laws and other laws is that there is no way to draw a clear line on what is and is not acceptable speech. It will always have to be up to someone, somewhere, what is "too far," in terms of speech. Third, it's too much of a slippery slope. Free speech is one of our most precious rights, and if we start shutting up the KKK, then next we'll shutting up seditious parties, or those who talk about rebellion, and onward from there. There's no stopping a ball like that once it gets rolling.

To illustrate what I mean about "lines," let's look at another controversial topic: abortion. What my position is on abortion is irrelevant, but consider the possibility that a law is passed that makes abortions before the 4th month legal, and after the 4th month illegal. Society would be torn on this, but that is not the point. The point is that it is a very, very clear line. There is no judicial interpretation involved in whether someone broke the law.

There is no equivalent line that one can draw on speech. Someone, likely a judge, will always have to make a judgment call, and that's too much power for an individual to have over another person's free speech.

[Holiman]

I think the US laws are just fine in regards to free speech it has good and bad decisions but for the most part the pendulum swings in good ways.

My question for Rudy is do you think this is ok

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[firebee]

There has long been a question of what constitutes indecent language, and the general standard addresses what would be considered indecent to the ordinary or reasonable person.


If people want to be inane, let them. Giant animatronic genitalia are expensive and people generally have better things to do than skip down the street chanting "I'm hot for teacher, I'm hot for teacher".


At what point do you hold people accountable where there is no violent result? Does accountability exist only for actions and not for mere words? Are words, themselves, not a form of action?


On an entirely other note... This (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is one of those cases that I think lies better on the border between speech and action -- obviously, there's a fair bit of deniability, but also one can't discount that the message of "oh look, here's the address of a murderer who should get what's coming to him" gets through clearly. Inciting murder on one hand, heartfelt political sentiment on the other. What do you do?

The real world is annoyingly messy.


Note: It is not manipulative to take into account a very real possibility that could result from the allowance of vulgar language directed at children. If you ignore the slippery slope, you're ignoring underlying policy upon which current laws have some basis.

There's a subtle difference between "what if it was your child" -- concerning which I like what nacht said above -- and "think of the children", which I also dislike but for slightly different reasons.

And just what real possibility are we talking about here? That kids are going to get the idea that you can smack someone in the back of the head with an adjustable wrench to get them out of the way for five minutes? Oh wait, we don't seem to have a problem with that...

[The Irish Lands]

I Am A Free Speech Absolutist, too, Rudy. :)

[RBM]

Could you clarify or give an example? "Corrupted" is a very vague term in this case.

Off the top of my head, I would offer that politicizing NIE's as has been done in the recent past is an indication of corruption.

After that, the classics offer plenty of argument in this direction. I think you'd find fertile grounds at say ... LewRockwell.com.

[Holiman]

So Rudy would you also support this free speech?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.