Options
Does free speech have its limits?
![[Deleted User]](https://w4.vanillicon.com/v2/4b221d4528e22523f53c0bb304f0f194.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 441 Forum Member
✭
Not in America, apparently.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12624539
How the Supreme Court could defend the right of these homophobic, religious nut-jobs to harass and verbally abuse people going to a loved one's funeral beats me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12624539
How the Supreme Court could defend the right of these homophobic, religious nut-jobs to harass and verbally abuse people going to a loved one's funeral beats me.
0
Comments
The whole point of free speech is that you allow people to air their views in order for society to judge them. When views are pre-judged by statute, it often lends credibility to those with unwelcome views ("they trying to suppress us, do they fear the truth"etc).
For example, many people think that the BNP and EDL should be banned, but the very fact they've got an open platform means that most can see how idiotic their ideas are. If you banned their right to do this, hey presto, instant angry underground movement.
It's often used to defend groups like the BNP & EDL and controversial figures such as Geert Wilders, but those same people are always up in arms if other controverisal groups exercise their free speech, such as Islam4u or whatever they are called, and extremists like them.
Anyway, my point is that free speech should apply to all extremists or none at all.
I think the problem there is that most of the proscribed extremist groups are actually going beyond seditionary talk (which is legal btw) and start to openly advocate violence against particular groups of people or nations.
As soon as you start saying, "Kill this person," or "Harm them" or whatever, that's when you lose your right to free speech.
They do have free speech. If people ignored them they wouldn't show up as much.
Restricting free speech, for anybody, can lead down a road that most of us don't want to go down. It's a slippery slope.
Yes, but how do you define what is dangerous?
Some of us have probably jokingly said "I'm gonna kill you!" at some point in the past. How does the law define intent? You said it, right, so how can they legally know that you were kidding?
Allowing the government to infringe on free speech is not good, even if the speech is horrible itself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/03/bradley-manning-may-face-death-penalty
Well depending on the complaint, I think that there's enough common sense within the judiciary to differentiate between someone joking with their friends and someone putting a 'call to arms' on Youtube or some such like.
Although there have been a few cock-ups - there was that guy who joked about bombinb an airport on Twitter who got punished in court for it. However, I'd say that incidents like this are so few and far between that it renders consideration of our current system safe enough.
Free speech is absolutely complex. To pick an emotive subject, free speech can mean that paedophiles, for example, are free to talk about their sexual preferences.
It can also mean that people have a right to talk about other taboo issues such as their incest or their love for cannibalism...etc. It raises more questions than answers in my opinion.
Free speech is free speech and so it should remain, unless of course you are in Libya.
If speech has limits it is not free speech, it's restricted speech (obviously)
There is no such thing as full free speech. We have laws in this country that theoretically restrict it.
Our libel laws ensure people cannot make up spurious allegations against someone and damage their reputation without facing the possibility of being punished.
We have laws that recognised that you can be verbally abused as well as physically abused (e.g. nuisance calling, verbal harassment).
We have laws that protect minorities from hate speech.
We have public order laws that mean disruptive people can be arrested.
We have laws that prevent people from revealing government secrets.
We have contract laws that can force people not to reveal information about their employers.
Full free speech is a myth. With rights come responsibilities. There has to be a balance between those who have a right to free speech and those who will be disadvantaged or hurt through those peoples' right to say what they like.
I doubt Westbro Baptist Church's hate speech would have been allowed in Britain, and rightly so.
Which begs the question why are we calling it free speech at all. We have restricted speech, so why do people keep calling it free speech, or even worse free speech with restrictions/responsibilities?
I wish we would adopt the American model. As it is, some in Europe seem to be going in the opposite direction.
The very fact that the court proceedings was reported and publicised shows that there is free speech.
In other courts all over the world proceedings are held in secret and people are sentenced and even executed without anyone knowing why.
The First Amendment says:
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.
Note there's no mention of "Congress can ban free speech if it will hurt someone's feelings".
/ This why I love the US Constitution.
That is exactly what has happened in the UK. First the dreadful hate speech law came in, then followed privacy laws pushed under the radar by the EU and it's only going to get worse.
Say the n-word get arrested. Burn the Koran get arrested. Say group A is racially inferior to group B get arrested. Read from the Bible in public get arrested.
It's absolutely shocking British citizens can be arrested for voicing opinions. Opinions.
And was this ruling really about what they can say, or about where they can say it?
So you would be quite happy for these people to stand outside the funeral of a member of your family and shout their bile and hate at you and other mourners on what will already be an emotionally distressful and upsetting time and the police could do nothing about it?
The fact the US Constitution could allow such a thing is abhorrent!!!
I don't think a group like Westboro would necessarily be banned in the UK. There are, for example, Islamic groups here who do say similar things and aren't banned, despite what some people might think. I don't doubt we are a bit tougher on "hate speech", but plenty of groups know exactly how to stay on the right side of the law.
I don't understand how free speech can be complex. You allow any and all opinions to be stated publicly. If that free speech infringes a more important right the more important right should win.
For example the US Supreme Court says porn can't be banned as it is protected as free speech by the First Amendment. But it allows child porn to be banned as that infringes the child's rights to be free from harm.
On the other hand the US Supreme Court WON'T allow cartoon child porn to be banned because it doesn't hurt anyone so free speech takes priority. I don't see the complexity.
For example, weren't those extremist Muslim protesters at the parade for homecoming soldiers prosecuted for disturbing the peace?
Of course I wouldn't be happy. But if I was American I would respect their First Amendment right. And you know why? So my First Amendment rights would be protected when I need them.
What is important to the ruling as I understand it is that they are not conducting an attack on the individual soldiers but rather on them all collectively and wider American society.