What should be protected under Free Speech?

[LuciferSam]

Almost ever since this amendment was added, there has been debate over what speech qualifies to be given freedom. I just wanted to get your take on this.

Also, keep in mind that certain types of speech are currently considered illegal, such as speech intended to cause unrest, riots, etc., hate speech, spreading false information with the intent to damage reputation, and serious threats.

[Jupiter]

i dont think that threats should be able to be made.

[Kacey]

I think "almost" any post on this site should be protected

[Erasmus]

Im not really sure what the actual question is... Can someone explain what it is please?

[Erasmus]

What things should people be able to say under free speech... i.e. I think that uttering a death threat shouldn't be protected under free speech.

Oh, okay. In that case, i agree with you.

[Professional Russian]

I think nearly everything should be protected, except of course death threats. But I use those alot

[Jean Poutine]

My test is twofold :

A) everything that has a basis in truth should be protected under free speech, ie. apply the truth defense for defamation charges universally.

B) everything that does not cause undue privation of the enjoyment of rights or excessive mental anguish should be protected under free speech.

[Thunduhbuhlt]

Anything non-threatening would be covered under that, or should at least. Everyone is entitled to free speech in this country.

[Weber_Swagg]

I think people should be able to say what they want to say. It'a just words, they only mean what the person let's them mean.

[LuciferSam]

And what if the person intends to use their words to cause cause harm through riots, uprisings, etc. and thereby cause a peaceful and prosperous situation to deteriorate? Should they be allowed to say that?

[LuciferSam]

I think nearly everything should be protected, except of course death threats. But I use those alot

My test is twofold :

A) everything that has a basis in truth should be protected under free speech, ie. apply the truth defense for defamation charges universally.


Defamation is only illegal if it is false. Threats are only illegal if they are honestly meant. If you honestly intend to cause harm, that would be illegal. But if the threats are only made in jest (i.e. if you shout to an opposing football/baseball/basketball/etc. team "Were gonna KILL ya!", but only metaphorically), then they are prefectly legal to say.

[Sugaree]

Anything should be protected under free speech, including death threats. There's no sense in saying everything should be protected EXCEPT FOR whatever you/others may not like.

[LuciferSam]

So you would consider intimidating people into not revealing evidence that may help convict a serial killer to be a moral action?

[Sugaree]

So you would consider intimidating people into not revealing evidence that may help convict a serial killer to be a moral action?

There's nothing to do with morality in this discussion. Suppression of evidence in the way you described is illegal because it violates Miranda rights.

[LuciferSam]

But the two are related. Rules regarding freedom of speech were added to the Constitution before the Miranda Rights were. Plus, all that the Miranda rights do is prevent people from having to incriminate themselves. They have nothing to do with preventing the supression of evidence. In regards to why I brought in morality, you said that we should be able to say anything we want. If we were legally allowed to do that, people would be capable of using speech to incite riots, unjustfully harm others, and , yes, supress evidence, all without punishment. The legality of the issue wouldn't matter, it would just be plain wrong! At least, that's my opinion.

[Thunduhbuhlt]

So, in a more specific sense: Do you think it should be legal to walk up to a stranger and say "I'm going to fucking cut you up and stab you in your sleep tonight" ? Just wondering.

Exactly, that is considered assault (I think). That's not right. I guess it depends on the threat.

Maybe a thread it "I am going to be so nice to you, and I don't care what you do!"

That may be different.

[Sugaree]

So, in a more specific sense: Do you think it should be legal to walk up to a stranger and say "I'm going to fucking cut you up and stab you in your sleep tonight" ? Just wondering.

Exactly, that is considered assault (I think). That's not right. I guess it depends on the threat.

It's only a crime if you go through with the threat. It should be totally legal to say death threats but still make it illegal to actually go through with them.

[MisterSix]

So you could get arrested because people took your words too literally and started a riot?

[DerBear]

Because I don't live in the USA our freedom of speech act is a little diffirent and we don't take it so patriotic like the USA does.

I don't really care to be honest,

[LuciferSam]

So you could get arrested because people took your words too literally and started a riot?

Not exactly. It's known as Inflammatory Speech. For example: say some Neo-Nazi leader makes a speech supporting going out and killing other races and he actually intends to do it. That would be illegal. It is only illegal if the person intends to cause disruption.

[MisterSix]

Not exactly. It's known as Inflammatory Speech. For example: say some Neo-Nazi leader makes a speech supporting going out and killing other races and he actually intends to do it. That would be illegal. It is only illegal if the person intends to cause disruption.

So shouldn't the intention to kill them be illegal, not the speech?

The way I see it, you should be able to say whatever the fuck you want to, no matter how offensive and not get arrested. But when you show you're going to act or are acting illegally, you can be arrested.

Whats wrong with saying "Fuck the Queen. Fuck the Prime Minster. Fuck the President. Fuck my next door neighbor. I'm going to kill them all."?

[LuciferSam]

So shouldn't the intention to kill them be illegal, not the speech?

The way I see it, you should be able to say whatever the fuck you want to, no matter how offensive and not get arrested. But when you show you're going to act or are acting illegally, you can be arrested.

Whats wrong with saying "Fuck the Queen. Fuck the Prime Minster. Fuck the President. Fuck my next door neighbor. I'm going to kill them all."?

How do you know someone's intention without hearing or reading it?

[MisterSix]

How do you know someone's intention without hearing or reading it?

They physically prepare for it?

[Unique Physique]

Everything.. short of:

Bullying / harassment
Verbal abuse
Threats of death and/or harm to a person or property
Intruding on private events or areas (for example, the WBC who maliciously used to protest at funerals)

And situations like, if there's a vulnerable person threatening suicide, and some muppets stand around him/her and start goading him/her to do it.. they should be prosecuted, but that comes under bullying I believe.

Other than that, people have the right to any opinion they have and they have the right to voice this opinion in private and in public protests, even if it's racism or Nazism. The BNP/EDL have every right to protest their views about immigration and Islam, meanwhile those poppy burning Muslims do as well. Suck it up. Don't like it, keep your distance.

[Mortal Coil]

I think nearly everything should be protected, except of course death threats. But I use those alot

Exactly. Maybe I'm a hypocrite, but whatever.
Actually, where I live death threats are illegal, and known as "criminal intimidation" even if you're just chasing your little brother around the house saying you're going to kill him.

[kenoloor]

Anything should be protected under free speech, including death threats. There's no sense in saying everything should be protected EXCEPT FOR whatever you/others may not like.

Agreed; any limits or restrictions that are imposed upon free speech are entirely contradictory to the idea of "free speech."