Should the government allow complete freedom of speech?

Post Reply New Topic

The country I'm in has a constitution that guarantees "the right to freedom of speech". Most people
have told me that it doesn't apply in some situations; however I've been thinking about it a lot and I think that complete freedom of speech could actually be made to work. Does anyone have any arguments against it?

A few situations where freedom of speech wouldn't be allowed or are downright unethical are:

1. Yelling fire in a movie theatre.
2. A delivery doctor telling his patient that her just-delivered baby was born dead, then saying he was just joking.
3. Telling a suicidal jumper up on a roof to go ahead and jump.
4. Someone who isn't black walking up to a group of black people and saying, "Hey, n****rs!"
5. Someone freely and casually using non-pc terms like fa**ot, k*e, jewboy, fatso and ret*d in a public place.

Here's the thing, though.
1. Is it okay for an atheist to walk back and forth in front of a church carrying a sign that says "God is Dead"?
2. Is it okay for pastor Terry Jones from Florida to preach that Islam is a violent religion?
3. Is it okay put up a billboard on the highway that says "Abortion is murder"?

I'm generally in favour of free speech, but not quite unlimited; some restrictions are needed to limit deliberate misinformation, to limit purely or largely malicious speech, and to protect confidentiality. It may also be appropriate to require disclosure of some information in some situations as well, such as citing sources in scientific or technical documentation and indicating potential conflicts of interest.

Personally I think many countries are actually too relaxed when it comes to misinformation. Some of the things businesses and individuals get away with in marketing is already practically lying; the things they imply and the most obvious interpretations of what they say are often meaningless or factually wrong, by design. I don't think the fact that a less obvious, but factually accurate, interpretation also exists makes it any more honest when the intent and expectation are to deceive.

[Moved from Autism Politics, Activism, and Media Representation to PPR]

American Law recognizes eight classes of exceptions to free speech:

1) Incitement. Although a person should be free to express a belief, including advocating the use of violence, a person is not free to incite a person or persons in to direct and immediate violence.
2) False statements. Although a person is free to lie, a person is not free to commit fraud, libel or slander.
3) Obscenity. Controversial, but recognized as a legitimate exception
4) Child pornography. Less controversial, although there are debates about how works of fiction should be treated.
5) Fighting words. Similar but less direct than incitement. Problematic, but still on the books.
6) Threats. Assault, a threat uttered with the apparent means to carry it out, is not protected speech.
7) Proprietary expression. Copyrighted material is owned by the artists who created it.
8) Commercial speech. Commercial speech (i.e. advertising) is subject to far more restriction than individual expression.

While I don't expect that people will universally embrace all of these exceptions, I do think that there are many criminal behaviours that are limitations on "complete" freedom of speech, and properly so.

^
I think we should ditch obscenity, but the others are okay if narrowly tailored.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDKLFn0pty4[/youtube]

Having a security clearance means there are things you can know but cannot disclose them to the un-cleared.
That can bring some prison time in some situations ,depending.

The above are legal utterances. Insults are not illegal per se. However using "fighting words" to whip up a mob is illegal.

ruveyn

I don't think a Doctor telling a woman that her newborn is dead should be illegal. I do think the Doctor should be struck off for misconduct though.

Free speech is the right to yell theatre in a crowded fire...

The basis of whether speech should be illegal should be based on... I'm trying to think how to phrase this. Recklessly endangering other people (fire in a theatre example) and lying in order to gain benefit (lying about a contract, false advertising etc). I can't think of anything else right now.

Would my free speech right currently allow me to pay for billboards showing Surah 9:5 to be put up across America? *I'm* not claiming Islam is a violent religion, Mohammed is...

Double that with a photo of the Boston bombings and you have a metaphorical Molotov cocktail.

Have you never heard of the American Freedom Defense Initiative's posters? Those are legal.

The courts have ruled that fomenting a riot, a panic or an insurrection is not protected speech.

ruveyn

With some exception, namely situational rules for people with clearances, I think free speech should be completely free. Society has been nibbling around the edges for years now. When you give a little, then you will lose a lot. When's the big bite coming?

As for "hate speech"... sack up, people. You don't need the government protecting you from every little offense. If a guy calls you a *Appropriate epithet here* then kick him in the the crotch.

The problem is its a tremendously abstract and organic scale between inoffensive speech and 'inciting a riot'. Who gets to decide what should constitute legal speech and why?

It sounds like many libertarians support free speech only up until the point it doesn't personally offend them.

If you're going to have free speech, you cant have your cake and eat it. You must have Islamic fatwas and all.

I'm fine with that. The people trying to enforce the Fatwa, though, should be aware that they will be crushed, and know that they can't complain if anyone calls for all Muslims to be hunted down and killed.

If Muslim clerics consider it OK to call for all gay people or Jews to be killed, then logically there should be no good reason to stop a Nazi (notwithstanding that Nazism was quite friendly to Islam) preacher calling for all Muslims to be killed.