41% of Americans want to abolish free speech

[Tsing Tao]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

Yeah, so lets examine this.

Listed in that wikipedia, here are the examples of free speech not allowed:

Incitement - already discussed multiple times. You cannot declare you are about to commit an illegal act (murder, rape, etc).

False statements of fact - Covered under libel and slander laws, essentially fraud. You're being punished for lying or fraudulent declaration, not speaking your mind.

Obscenity - The obscenity this is referring to is publications, or other "speech", but it's not really speech. It's more stuff like Hustler and Larry Flynt.

Child pornography - Also not speech. You can argue that this stuff is a form of "Freedom of expression", but it's not speech as in the way "Hate Speech" is being looked at.

Fighting words and offensive speech - The same thing as Incitement. No idea why it is listed twice.

Threats - Check that, three times.

Speech owned by others - This is copyright law, not cramping freedom of speech. It's effectively stealing.

Commercial speech - This has restrictions, ie, you can't mislead consumers, etc. But it's effectively Fraud, not freedom of speech rights.

None of this is really restrictive of Freedom of Speech. A lot of it is restrictive of Freedom of Expression, but that's not the same thing even if you guys want to pretend that it is.

 

[Tsing Tao]

I'm similarly addicted, and I think I should damn well be able to drive my Cold Steel Peacekeeper right through your heart.

Oh, what's that you say? You want to draw a line somewhere before that?

Comparing murder to free speech now and saying there's a line drawn? Are you that desperate in your argument?

 

[dbphoenix]

Hard to believe that some of these people are actually middle-aged . . .

 

[Tsing Tao]

And by the way Frederick Foresite, have you ever posted under any other names here on ET?

Yes, he has.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Hard to believe that some of these people are actually middle-aged . . .

Or in your case, extremely aged.

 

[Ricter]

Laugh at me all you want. I laugh at you everyday. Still stands, you two twats are clueless. Wheres the argument? There's nothing here but your vapid accusations. You an adult or a 5 year old kid.

The argument is this: we can, and we do, draw lines. Curtailing some forms of speech does not mean we have "abolished" free speech. Nor will it ever mean abolishing, so long as reasonable people discuss it. But, "I want to say whatever I damn well want" is not going to fly, never has, never will.

Which part of that do you not understand?

 

[Ricter]

Comparing murder to free speech now and saying there's a line drawn? Are you that desperate in your argument?

Nothing desperate about it. The point is, we're already on a slope, and it aint very slippery.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Regarding the restricted forms of "speech" in the wiki article, I didn't get to finish my thoughts as the wife was making me go get the Chinese food.

But things like Child pornography or other obscene materials are illegal because they are evidence of an illegal act. It isn't speech. If you're the creator of said material, the acts depicted are illegal. You cannot argue it was your freedom of speech/expression. If you are the owner of said material, you are owning illegal contraband, much in the same way a possession of cocaine is illegal.

There's nothing "speech" related at all.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Nothing desperate about it. The point is, we're already on a slope, and it aint very slippery.

There's no slope, yet. As long as speech is free, there won't be.

 

[CaptainObvious]

What good is a debate about hate speech without examples and questions, so here goes. An old white guy says...
he thinks all niggers are worthless and we'd be better off if they were all dead. Is that hate speech? I would guess most if not all would say yes but yet is he free to say it?.
Black guy says he thinks all you white trash cocksuckers are worthless and we'd be better off if they were all dead. Is that hate speech? Many leftists would argue no based on their conclusion that it's impossible for a minority to be guilty of hate speech.
Old white guy says to a gay man, eat shit and die you homo fuck. Is that hate speech?
Gay man says to old white guy, I hate your fucking guts you homophobe shithead and wish you were dead. Is that hate speech?
Sorry to be so blunt about this, but it is hate were talking about and all of the above statements are hate filled. Some have argued lines need to be drawn. Okay, who draws the line? Who decides what is offensive? Some have used the old argument of the Supreme court justice who said he knows porn when he sees it. How long ago was that? Decades. Bet that line is different today than it was then and that's the whole problem with line drawing. What and who gets offended is constantly shifting.
Bottom line for me. Words/speech/deeds, however hate filled, should be protected unless there is a direct threat against an individual or specific group. A direct threat. Saying I wish you were dead is not a direct threat. Saying I'm going to kill you is. Seems clear enough to me, and it's only when people try to blur the obvious is when we get into trouble.