"I support Free Speech, but I do not consider _______ Free Speech."

[cthulu2016]

"I support free speech, but I do not consider _______ free speech."

This all too familiar formulation is a terrible waste of letters.

"I do not support free speech," is a more succinct way to express the sentiment.


"Some of my best friends are free speech," is also a little shorter.

[Snotcicles]

1. "some speech comes at a cost" nt.

[Scootaloo]

2. Slander, libel, intimidation, incitement...

These are forms of speech not covered by the first amendment, owing to the fact they cause harm to others. Interestingly the phrase "hate speech" broadly covers all four classifications, and yet many DU'ers - yourself included apparently - will fall over themselves to defend it at all costs.

Provided it's hate speech against someone they hate.

Good thing this film that you and so many others are rushing around to dry hump targets Muslims, and not Jews or gays or some other group that's not okay to target with hate on DU. If that were the case, you'd all be out on your asses faster than you could blink.

I do not support hate speech. You, and so many others, obviously do.
I do not support bigotry. You, and so many others, obviously do.
I do not support dehumanization of others. You, and so many others obviously do.

And of course, so long as this persists, we have to assume that Skinner, EarlG, and the others all give their heartfelt endorsement of it as well. After all, they're not Muslims, so who gives a shit if DU'ers are running around defending bigotry against them?

Maybe we can do like any other haven for right-wing haters, and start selling DVD's of "Obsession," and books by Daniel Pipes at a nice discount, for people to enjoy?

Why not a few links to Pamela Gellar, while we're at it? I mean if DU posters, and DU's owners are going to be so eager to give their heartfelt, insistent endorsement to blatant bigotry, go all the fucking way right?

[Sirveri]

8. Jury results (I am #4)

At Sat Sep 15, 2012, 06:46 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Slander, libel, intimidation, incitement...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1348107

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Really? Supporting free speech is supporting hate speech? It's over the line,

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Sep 15, 2012, 07:11 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Hard case; close to the line.

1) Initially it seems like a personalized attack on some one, but the OP it responds to is so brief that it's not really personal, per se. Thus it is not "hurtful".

2) The post makes a point, stridently, mockingly, aggressively, excessively. However many other posts are accepted on DU that are more extreme in those ways simply because they target right wingers or Republicans. Thus it is not "over-the-top".

2b) The use of obscenity in the last sentence is not necessary, but so much profanity is thoughtlessly used on DU that community standards are in the gutter in that regard.

3) The answer to this kind of speech in this post is not censorship but more speech.

4) The post is rude but given that the top is precisely free speech versus restraints on speech, it should be given a pass in this case.

Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Well written post, thoughtful, discussing the actual argument - alerted on WHY? Oh, yes, a FREE SPEECH advocate getting his/her butt handed to them in an argument wants this FREE SPEECH hidden. Welcome to other people's opinions - who knew DU was full of them?
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: The accusation that the thread starter hates Muslims, supports bigotry, hate speech, and dehumanization of others, is "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, and over-the-top". All five.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: So the alerter is in support of free speech and shows it by trying to get somebody elses free speech curtailed using the alert system?
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: If you believe in free speech, why are you trying to hide this post?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The poster said they do not support hate speech in the post. And hate speech is not protected by the Constitution. I'm protecting a valid argument.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Having a post hidden is not curtailing anyone's free speech. This is a private website.

And, Juror #6: Hate speech IS protected by the Constitution. Doesn't mean Skinner, etc. can't kick someone out for stuff they say here.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. I've started a thread in Meta-Discussion on this

I was #3, and I'm pretty amazed at the arguments the rest of you guys put forward.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240143802

Do you think all personal insults on DU count as protected free speech? Or just personal insults against people arguing like this OP?

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Some people don't get it. Some people have an agenda, and some don't want to get it IMHO.

I understand you perfectly.

Also, because one can say something under the 1st Amendment doesn't mean DU can't kick them off or hide their post if you say it here. Not the same thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. Exactly

I can get kicked out of the Boy Scouts for burning the American flag but I can't get kicked out of America for burning the American flag.

[parazito86]

122. Spam deleted by Warren DeMontague (MIR Team)

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. You may well not support the OP's position, but that shouldn't be what the jury is about

The alerter pointed out that the thread starter was accused of 'supporting hate speech', which, I would say, is an insult of that DUer. In addition, the post in question explicitly accuses them (plus many other unnamed DUers) of supporting bigotry and dehumanization of others, as well as the 'dry humping' remark you note, and explicitly accuses that DUer of falling over themselves to defend hate speech against someone they hate - ie Muslims.

All in all, this accuses the thread starter not of being wrong about what hate speech is (and they may be wrong), but of hating Muslims themselves, and supporting hate speech, bigotry, and dehumanization. These are, I'd say, serious accusations and insults. And it goes on to say the admins here seem to be fine with the hate the alerter think is being expressed, and DU of being a "haven for right-wing haters".

I'm sure you don't like anyone saying you're "less of a Democrat", and I'm not trying to say that at all. I'm saying the big problem with the alerted post is that it accused the thread starter of being "less of a Democrat" by calling them a hate-speech supporter, Muslim-hater and bigot.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. The ACLU Attorney Who Argued On Behalf Of The National Socialist Party In Said Case Was Jewish

.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. I come from a Jewish family and I had Jewish friends in Skokie in 1977.

I've also been a lifelong supporter of the ACLU. I understand that censoring the Nazis would have been, perversely, a victory for everything they stood for; allowing them the right under the 1st Amendment to be the flaming buttheads they so clearly are, was a loss for them and a win for everyone who opposes fascism and tyranny.

Because the 1st Amendment is the antithesis of everything the Nazis were about. Free Speech is ONLY as good as the right of the most unpopular, obnoxious voice to be heard.

[dogday]

180. Remember muriel

these jurrors vote with their hearts, not by the TOS at all.

[Confusious]

34. I would be embarrassed to admit that

You don't seem to know the first thing about "freedom of speech."

"freedom of speech" only means the government can't censor you.

A lot of tea baggies make the same mistake taking about 'rushbozos' freedom of speech (look it up, apparently you missed it), and they get made fun of mercilessly here, as they should.

Did you skip your civics class?

[Sirveri]

112. I was commenting on the hypocrisy of the alerter.

Not the application of the 1st Amendment.

I'm well aware that the 1st only applies to the US government. However to get on your high horse and claim you're some sort of defender of free speech while trying to simultaneously silence those who disagree with you is bullshit.

Note the you isn't directed at 'you', it's a generic you.

[JonLP24]

116. How do you get all that from the alerter's comments?

Really? Supporting free speech is supporting hate speech? It's over the line,

It seems the alerter had a problem w/ the accusation that the free speech supporter (the OP) supports hate speech.

[Sirveri]

124. Except it wasn't targeted at the OP, but at the concept of unrestricted free speech.

It also could be said to make the argument that one can still have free speech while still having non-odious restrictions.

Bottom line, the post wasn't offensive, it was passionate.

[JonLP24]

146. That's a seperate issue

Either way, what the alerter thought it was directed doesn't indicate the alerter's feelings on free speech.

[Sirveri]

156. Are they going to alert on a post that they agree with?

I'd say that's 10% probability.

[Confusious]

117. It wasn't about disagreeing,

it was about calling people bigots with no proof, which is OBVIOUSLY a violation of the TOS.

OBVIOUSLY, you don't understand that.

As people around here are reminding us, "freedom of speech" doesn't include the right to slander and libel people.

So, again, OBVIOUSLY you don't understand the 1st amendment.

[Sirveri]

120. No it's passionate language used to make a point.

Don't like it, grow a thicker skin or get off the internet.

[Confusious]

129. Repeat.

it was about calling people bigots with no proof, which is OBVIOUSLY a violation of the TOS.

OBVIOUSLY, you STILL don't understand.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards

"It is the responsibility of all DU members to participate on our discussion forums in a manner that promotes a positive atmosphere and encourages good discussions"

The post does neither.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1240

Here's a link to meta discussion. Maybe you can go and spread your wisdom there.

[Sirveri]

131. Well I guess it's too bad it wasn't your call to make then.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. so-called "hate speech" is PROTECTED by the 1st Amendment. Sorry, it is.

And yes, that applies to bigoted speech targeting any of the groups you mention.

Pointing out that the 1st Amendment protects such speech is not even remotely the same thing as defending the speech itself. Again, I can defend the right of the Nazis to make asses of themselves in a march in Skokie, under the 1st Amendment. That doesn't mean I like Nazis or what they have to say. Surely a bright Chap such as yourself understands that distinction.

Simply because many forms of:

A) slander and libel (similar concepts, with specific legal definitions, pertaining to deliberately spreading false public information directly about a real individual- insulting someone's religion or diety would not apply),

B) intimidation, (i.e. harassment and making direct threats against a specific person or persons)

and lastly

C) 'incitement (this one being pretty damn narrow and difficult to apply as a legal standard; you might make an 'incitement' charge stick for someone who was standing with a bullhorn in front of an angry crowd and saying "I want you all to riot right the fuck now!" Sadly, for, as you put it, "many DU'ers", particularly those with a deficient understanding of the 1st Amendment, incitement does NOT mean "saying something that might make some person or group really, really, reeeeeeeeeeallly mad!"

might also fall under the category of "hate speech", does NOT mean that the hate speech itself is what is prohibited. It is the slander, libel, intimidation or (rarely, if ever) "incitement" that is prohibited. Hate Speech", again, in and of itself, is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Other countries; Canada springs to mind, I think- have different interpretations of what constitutes "free speech" and where the lines are.

[Scootaloo]

24. Oh, I'm aware.

I'm making two points, though. One, not all speech is guarded by the 1st amendment, just as not all weapons are covered by the 2nd amendment. These are not absolute, inviolable rules. This seems to be a notion that is being forgotten in DU's sudden rush to embrace Ron Paul logic.

Second, speaking of DU... we supposedly have a set of community standards that cover stuff like this. I say supposedly because, well... I mentioned those groups in particular because bigotry against them seems to be quite acceptable, sometimes even endorsed on DU. DU is, of course a private entity and the 1st amendment only goes where the site owners want it to go - which increasingly seems to include allowing hate speech, but only against select groups. Go figure.

I'm quite aware that hate speech is legal in the US. However, legal does not equal acceptable. It's legal for rapists to seek visitation rights. it's legal for undisclosed donors to give undisclosed amounts of money to political candidates. Owning another human being was legal until the 1860's, and practical slavery through mechanisms of debt was still legal until a century after that. Voter disenfranchisement on basis of political party seems to be legal, as does infringement of 1st amendment rights so long as it's the rights to assemble and associate (and I can't help but notice DU'ers seem happy to deny those rights, while enshrining the rights to dehumanize others. Go figure, again)

There's also the notion that with rights come attendant responsibilities. Not legally-binding responsibilities perhaps, but a civil understanding that the rights you have are for the good of all, and not just yourself. Again, we seem to be embracing the Ron Paul logic that only I matter, me me me me, and any notion of rights coming with obligations for proper use is apparently deeply offensive.

One such responsibility is not pretending to be a different person entirely. Anonymity - including pseudonyms - is accepted practice, though such speech tends to carry less weight than identified speakers. and then... We have Bisseley, who has claimed to be an Israeli-American Jew, funded by "100 Jews" while making this film. Now, you could argue that that's legal. However it seems rather irresponsible to me. How about you? What the fuck is wrong with just following filmmaker tradition and going by "Adam Smithee" if you don't want your name attatched?

Ah well. I'm not arguing that the film should be censored by the govenrment, or that this dude should be dropped into Yemen or something (really, boundaries, people!) However, I do think there is potential for him to face lawsuits from people injured. if nothing else, he's liable for the fraud he perpetrated against the actors, by misrepresenting the project to them and redubbing the project without their knowledge. (If your character is named "George" in the script you're handed, and then in the film becomes "Mohammed, prophet of Islam," after postproduction as was the case here... yeah, I'd say that's grounds for a suit.)

[Warren DeMontague]

81. And you should of course be able to distinguish between defending the right to say something

and the thing itself.

The "film" is crap. It's offensive on many levels, not the least of which (as I noted below) is the idea of calling that thing a "film". Or the absurd notion that someone spent "5 Million Dollars" on it (where'd the other $4,999,980.00 go?) ... lastly, it appears, not just from watching it but from the statements of the people "acting" in the thing, that the cast was duped into thinking they were doing something else; the dialogue that mentions "Mohammed" is crudely dubbed in, for instance. So the "makers" of the "film" lied to these folks and quite probably endangered their lives by sticking them in something they hadn't consented to.

So I'm not defending that turd. The principle of the 1st Amendment, however, is important and needs to be reiterated- that free speech is only as good as the right of the noxious, stupid, and offensive voices to not be censored, otherwise it's not free speech. That is not "Ron Paul Logic".

[Scootaloo]

89. The "Ron Paul Logic"...

Is the belief that the right is infinite in scope (it isn't) and that it comes with no burden of responsible use (it does.) This is a selfish, and frankly childish perception of the notion - I want to do whatever I want and you can't say I shouldn't.

The thing is that this man's freedom of speech is not, and never was in any danger. So when DU - which, I've been told, has absolutely never ever had even the very slightest iota of a miniscule hint of Islamophobia in it, ever, ever, ever, and I'M the bigot for daring to think such a thing, how dare I! - decides that they need to rally around a dehumanizing sack of shit film, in order to "defend" rights that are in no danger... I'm sorry, but that's nothing more than using the first amendment as a smokescreen for what's actually going on.

And yes, this film, this... shining beacon on the hill, this enduring masterpiece and testament to the wonder of the right to free speech... Involved defrauding the actors by misleading them as to what they were putting their names to. That does take it out of the realm of protected speech, just the same as plagiarism and identity theft and other varieties of fraud are not covered - in fact it could be seen as a violation of said rights against the participant in the film, by forcing "speech" into their mouths that was never produced by them at all.

Many DU'ers seem to choose to ignore this though. Why? Like I said, smoke screens. It's not about the first amendment. it's about Du'ers who support the dehumanization of Muslims. They decide to hide behind the bill of rights, to use it as a feel-good cover. Point out what they're doing, and it becomes "GASP! Why do you hate the first amendment?! Why do you hate America?!"

No fucking different than when the right does it, honestly.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. The actors could have a legal case, yes, but that's not the same thing as censoring the speech.

but I don't think anyone on DU has "rallied around" the film. I highly doubt that.

I do think it's legitimate; as many of us are; to be more outraged about people who riot and kill over a film -any film- than to be outraged at the people who made the piece of crap.

If that, to you, is "rallying around" the film or calling it an "enduring masterpiece and testament to the wonder of free speech", I can't help you.

I think people who are so invested in their religious belief system that they feel entitled to kill people who they think insult it, I think they have a mental problem. If that is 'dehumanization' of those people, again, can't help you.

[Scootaloo]

118. And you, like many others, fail to miss the point.

I think people who are so invested in their religious belief system that they feel entitled to kill people who they think insult it, I think they have a mental problem. If that is 'dehumanization' of those people, again, can't help you.

Specifically, the point you miss is that this film is not some criticism of Islam. It's not an attack on ideas or mythology. I mean it does feature that, but there's more to it. If all it were was a film that said "lol, islam is dumb" then I'd be right with you, rolling my eyes at people getting upset about it.

Instead of attacking or criticizing the idea - that is, the religion - it targets the people. To me, that's a crucial difference. it's the difference between saying "Holy shit the Old testament god is a freak of nature" and saying "Holy shit, Jews are freaks of nature!" It's the difference between criticizing "thug" rap lyrics, and applying said lyrics to all black men.

According to this film, Muslims are all inherently evil, mass-murdering savages whose sole existence revolves around exterminating Christians. ALL OF THEM. Every Muslim is a terrorist. They're all rapists, too. ALL OF THEM.

You don't regard that as "dehumanizing," I guess? Very few people on DU seem to consider it so. They'll pretend to be disgusted by the message if called on it.. .and then the next post they make they'll be right back to claiming "lol stupid muslims upset about someone showing mohammed," completely ignoring what they had just been told about the film's content.

It's not that they don't realize it. it's just that they do not care. DU'ers want a story about wild-eyed Muslim fanatics killing everyone. They WANT THAT, so it's the only narrative they will accept. period. No matter how often it's pointed out the attack in Libya was not related to the film, they will parrot the idea that it's a savage horde of murderous irrational Muslims, because that's what DUers want to believe.

And the film just happens to tell them this exact same story. The film that everyone seems to be embracing, and calling "free speech," as if someone's rights to speech were ever actually in danger.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. Did you see the entire film? 'Cuz all I saw was a 14 min. "trailer" that was real fuckin' incoherent

If me saying that it looks like it was made for twelve bucks and had a script that Salvador Dali would have criticized for its non-linearity, amounts to "embracing" it or its "message", well, did I mention that I can't help you?

Beyond that, this is not the only instance of some Islamic fundamentalists engaging in violent rioting over depictions of Mohammed, in recent years. So your argument in that regard falls a bit flat.

[jberryhill]

128. Only because it is not a defined exception

Cyberstalking is the newest accepted member of the catalog of things which have been defined as exceptions.

I have posted a short list of exceptions further downthread, and includes things like copyright infringement, which also collides with free speech from time to time (as does trademark infringement and advertising actions generally).

We have a demonstrated ability to define exceptions. To pretend otherwise is to allow me to be free to print my high quality art reproductions of 100 dollar bills.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. Cyberstalking? In what way? if you're talking about intimidation, threats, harassment, slander or

identity theft, those things are already crimes and not really relevant to a debate which is, again, about whether or not "hate speech" or blasphemy, for instance, can be prohibited by law.

If I was making the argument that the 1st Amendment means you can say anything about anyone, at any time, under any circumstances, you might have a point- but I'm not. Obviously things like threats are not protected speech. Harrasment is not protected speech.

However, the argument some seem deeply vested in making here is that somehow, making a movie -however crappy, or ill-advised- that offends someone's religious sensibilities and which they themselves are under no duress or force to watch, is somehow a direct threat (it's not) a direct legal incitement to riot (it's not) harassment (it's not) shouting "fire in a crowded theater" (its not) or slander or character defamation (it's not). It's also not cyberstalking, copyright infringement, or counterfeiting money.

The question, to my mind, isn't "are there ever exceptions", it's is blasphemy or saying something that someone else finds personally offensive to their belief system, one of those exceptions. It's not, and furthermore I think arguing that it is, is an extremely unwise road to go down.

Furthermore, the reason "hate speech" is not a defined exception, is because it's fairly clear that under the precedence of the past 50-70 yrs of SCOTUS decisions, it would never, ever fly. And a simple walk down that road I mentioned, with the logical eventualities of such an exception, provides a fairly clear set of reasons as to why.

[jberryhill]

148. That's a simplistic answer

You keep using "hate speech" in quotes as if we were discussing some particular definition.

The weird thing is that you accept common law threats as an exception.

Absent an example statutory provision, I don't see how you are categorically ruling it out.

[Warren DeMontague]

152. I'm not categorically ruling it out if it falls under a different category (i.e. it's a threat) ALSO

I keep putting it in quotes because

one) not only is it not defined, I would posit that it's not truly definable under the 1st Amendment, and

two) many people here seem to believe- mistakenly- that it is a legitimate legal category of speech that is in and of itself prohibited by some law or laws in this country.

[oberliner]

19. There are scores of films/videos that mock Jews, gays, and other groups

Many such clips have been up on Youtube and elsewhere for months or years.

To say nothing of what is broadcast on state-run media in numerous other countries outside the US that promote hatred against those groups.

And these are shown on the air to the actual populations of those countries.

Not to mention the very regular spoofing/denigrating of Mormons, Catholics, Scientologists, and others that take place all the time all across the media in the US (South Park, Family Guy, etc).

[Scootaloo]

29. Yes there are.

Don't see DU'ers being very interested in rallying to support them or the people who produce them, however. Generally it seems understood that hate directed towards Jews, gays, and other groups is bad, and shouldn't be tolerated. It's legal, but DU'ers very soundly reject the material and its producers.

As I said before Oberliner. don't try this line unless you want to put your posts where your rhetoric is, and start defending Jud Süß and its creators.

[JDPriestly]

22. Have you actually seen the movie in question?

I haven't. Frankly, I don't want to see it. I don't see how anyone can determine whether it is hate speech or maybe just parody (which is protected speech).

Are you familiar with the decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

in which the S.C. ruled that parody is not libel and that therefore parody is protected by the First Amendment. I'm oversimplifying, but sometimes it is hard to distinguish between hate speech and parody or satire.

Also, think about the decision by Scalia in R.A.V. v. St. Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul

How would you define hate speech?

If you have seen the film, does it exhort people to hate or be violent? Or does it just depict a revered religious figure, a prophet of the Muslim religion as a creep?

Just because people react violently to speech does not mean that it is hate speech.

People can react violently to things that subjectively disturb them but that are not hateful.

What are you basing your post on? A viewing of the film or just the fact that people are rioting?

[Scootaloo]

33. I've watched the clips, yes.

it makes fun of Mohammed, sure. I could care less if someone says shit about a jumped-up oil peddler who's been dead for fifteen hundred years, though.

What bugs me is the rest of it. The crux of the whole thing is that Muslims are inherently evil, subhuman scum. A plague upon the earth, that must be dealt with as such. They are depicted as mindless savages who run around chopping down dewy-eyed Christian innocents with axes, and setting fire to everything in an attempt to exterminate said dewy-eyed Christian innocents. The film's apparent protagonist takes the time to point out to his family - and the audience - that Muslims are all inherently terrorists and murderers, and only by getting rid of them will the world be improved.

That's what so many DU'ers are rallying in support of. No hint of disgust, no iota of "dude, that's not right." Instead, the producer - who, in an attempt to deflect reaction towards Jews, claimed to be an Israeli backed by Jewish investors - wins the hearts and support of many posters here, who are taking a break from denying hte 1st amendment rights of teachers, to defend the first amendment rights of a guy who comitted fraud in an knowing effort to stir up religious hatred.

What a guy!

[napoleon_in_rags]

126. Sorry Scootaloo, but this has revealed a flaw in Muslim culture that can't be downplayed.

Hollywood, mainstream, produced a movie that lampoons everything I believe called "Love Guru". Pointed mocking references to my faith at point after point, yet nothing was burned by my congregation. The same with various movies lampooning all kinds of Christian faith. I will not commit violence about a cartoon of a guru I respect, no violence will be done for a cartoon lampooning Jesus. But the the prophet Mohammed? Murder attempts will be made.

Islam banned graven images, but it has shown itself to be infinitely sensitive to them.

YES, somebody was throwing matches here, knowing the consequences. This was well planned. But we have to question why the gasoline was laying all over the place before those matches were thrown, and frankly that means a real inquiry into Muslim culture. What's going on over there has not been okay.

PEace

[Zalatix]

179. Correction, the movie has revealed a flaw in a bunch of rioting violent fundie maniacs

Muslim culture in general was not responsible for this.

[napoleon_in_rags]

209. I've been laying off the DU lately...

But last time I was here I posted that, and now I came back to see this one as one of my first reads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021440089
Then this response. Point is, there really is a cultural divide we're running up against here bigger than a few rioters.

I think its going to go away though. What's going to happen is movement away from mass media toward customized individual media. The first steps are underway by the big players: I've heard it referred to in private as "have engines", the replacement for search engines. They decide what you want before you want it and give it to you. They satisfy you while exercising subtle control over your information intake. Eventually they will provide individuals with the cultural capital needed to maintain their optimal social spheres, and viral videos will lose propagation power. So free speech won't go anywhere, but people will begin to opt out from listening in favor of more optimal information diets, just like how we opt out of not being tracked by owning cell phones. The whole thing has its own terrible ramifications, but conflicts over offensive free speech going global aren't one of them.

That's my futurism rant for the night.

PEace

[JDPriestly]

133. He is a horrible guy, but he does have First Amendent rights.

And his movie is probably protected, but without seeing it I couldn't say for sure.

I can say for sure that the movie sounds absolutely disgusting, and I don't want to watch it.

Do you have any evidence that the movie was funded by Israelis or is that just an assumption on your part?

I have not actually heard of any specific evidence that the movie was funded by Israelis. That could be as much of an inflammatory lie as the lies in the movie itself.

The movie accuses Muslims without proof. It is important not to compound that error bu also accusing Israelis without proof.

[sabrina 1]

90. Excellent post, thank you. Some bigotry is more equal than other bigotry.

But then it's always been that way until people fight hard to end it. Then we just go ahead and find another 'other'. Well some of us do.

I asked the same question when told it is okay to 'mock' Muslims here yesterday.

I asked then if it's okay to mock Gays or African Americans.. I didn't get an answer.

The point is, imo, it is never okay to mock anyone. With freedom, of speech or anything else, comes responsibility. Even if people are not likely to riot over being mocked, and most Muslims have not done so, why does anyone feel it's okay to hurt other people?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. Who Said It's OK To Mock Some Groups But Not Others?

That's messed up....

[sabrina 1]

106. You mean the way the KKK mocked African Americans and Far Right bigots mock Gays?

Like the way the Rabid Teabaggers on the Right mock President Obama because he is African American?

Who said they are not free to do it? I never saw anyone say they were not free to do it.

Go right ahead if you want to engage in that kind of behavior, it surely isn't new and there's no law against it.

What people are saying is that it is reprehensible behavior which most decent human beings, and certainly I would not expect to see Democrats doing it, refrain from.

You are free to do whatever you like. You are free to drive drunk at one hundred miles an hour, until someone stops you or you do some serious harm.

We have been trusted to use these freedoms wisely.

And every day we demonstrate that maybe that trust was very misplaced.

[Romulox]

141. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." nt

[sabrina 1]

144. The argument isn't whether people have a right to say something, the point is

when the speech is pure hate speech we get to condemn it and decide that the haters and bigots share the blame for any violence that results from it.

If you tell someone it is safe for them to walk where there is quicksand knowing it is not, then you are guilty of intentionally harming another human being. Free to say it, but guilty nevertheless.

[Romulox]

162. There is a clear, legally established standard for dividing incitement from free speech.

The film doesn't cross the line. It would be difficult for any film to cross the line.

If you tell someone it is safe for them to walk where there is quicksand knowing it is not, then you are guilty of intentionally harming another human being. Free to say it, but guilty nevertheless.

"Guilty" is a word used in criminal law. The filmmakers cannot be charged with any crime for the production of their film, so they can't be found "guilty" of anything.

And before we go down this road, I am the messenger, here. I am not an anti-Muslim bigot; I am someone with a basic understanding of the Constitutional law on the matter.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

[sabrina 1]

167. Read the last part again:

The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.

The job of law enforcement is to find out if this was done to deliberately to incite imminent lawless action'. Since the trail from the idiot producer has led to Pamela Geller who we know has been funded by think tanks and supported by other hate groups, an investigation into the origins of this movie is in order.

Who benefits from inciting this kind of unrest across the world now? Whether the producer was just a patsy or not, is something we do not know yet. HE may not be guilty, but if he was used a tool to produce the violence that has occurred, then we cannot say a crime has not been committed until those questions are answered.

[Romulox]

168. "Imminent lawless action" is a legal term of art. The research trail all begins with Brandenburg,

if you're interested.

[Romulox]

140. The concept of a "verbal action" may help you conceptualize the difference. nt

[moriah]

159. Watching the "trailer" online, it seems far more like satire.

Even if the person who made it it is a bigoted asshole.

But did Mel Gibson have the right to market the Passion, when "passion plays" originated as a way to incite bigotry against Jews? No, I didn't pay to go see his movie -- from what I heard, it was torture pr0n, pure and simple, and I'm not very fond of torture pr0n. But did he have a right to make the movie?

Since you are feeling that this is all about which religion a particular movie is targeting, I hope the answer to this question is enlightening.

[snooper2]

174. A Catholic priest, an Orthodox priest, a Protestant minister, a Reform rabbi, a Buddhist monk,

a Wiccan coven leader, a Hellenist oracle, a Hindu priest, a Caodaist giáo tông, a Zoroastrian gabr, an African shaman, a Muslim imam, a Scientologist OT VII, a Cherokee chief, a Sikh guru, a Jain jina, a Falun Gong practitioner, a Sufi mystic, a Shinto kami, a Jedi knight, a Voodoo zombie, a Rasta ras, an Objectivist philosopher, a Mormon elder, a Level 18 cleric, a Pastafarian pirate, and an atheist are playing golf.

These clergymen are getting bogies and double bogies and triple bogies, but the guy playing in front of them keeps getting holes in one.

So the Catholic priest says, “Who does that guy think he is, the Pope?”
And the Orthodox priest says, “Who does that guy think he is, the Patriarch of Constantinople?”
And the minister says, “Who does that guy think he is, Jesus Christ?”
And the rabbi says, “Who does that guy think he is, Moses?”
And the monk says, “Who does that guy think he is, the Buddha?”
And the coven leader says, “Who does that guy think he is, Harry Potter?”
And the oracle says, “Who does that guy think he is, Achilles?”
And the Hindu priest says, “Who does that guy think he is, Vishnu?”
And the giáo tông says, “Who does that guy think he is, Cao Đài Tiên Ông Đại Bồ Tát Ma-ha-tát?”
And the gabr says, “Who does that guy think he is, Zoroaster?”
And the shaman says, “Who does that guy think he is, Tikoloshe?”
And the imam says, “Who does that guy think he is, Mohammed?”
And the OT VII says, “Who does that guy think he is, David Miscavige?”
And the chief says, “Who does that guy think he is, Great Spirit?”
And the guru says, “Who does that guy think he is, Nanak Dev?”
And the jina says, “Who does that guy think he is, Shri Mahavir?”
And the Gonger says, “Who does that guy think he is, Li Hongzhi?”
And the mystic says, “Who does that guy think he is, Uwais al-Qarni?”
And the kami says, “Who does that guy think he is, Amaterasu-omikami”?
And the Jedi says, “Who does that guy think he is, the chosen one?”
And the zombie says, “Who does that guy think he is, Marie Laveau?”
And the ras says, “Who does that guy think he is, Haile Selassie?”
And the Objectivist says, “Who does that guy think he is, Howard Roark?”
And the elder says, “Who does that guy think he is, Brigham Young?”
And the cleric says, “Who does that guy think he is, Garl Glittergold?”
And the pirate says, “Who does that guy think he is, the Flying Spaghetti Monster?”

So the atheist says, “No, that’s Tiger Woods.”

[Scootaloo]

203. "Garl Glittergold?"

What are you, some sort of fucking kobold? You think that's funny? I am SO going to dig up your garden!

[PoliticalBiker]

207. Our constitutionally guarenteed right...

to free speech also comes with the RESPONSIBLITY for its proper use.

Free speech does not mean you can slander, lie, denegrate, defile or belittle without the expectation of consequences.

[eShirl]

3. "money"

[Efilroft Sul]

136. This should've been the end of the thread right here. Winner!

[Confusious]

4. As the saying goes

"I detest what you have said, sir, but I support your right to say it."

Ps. The "detest" part doesn't apply to what you said, it's just part of the quote.

[moriah]

5. There are many precedents about the restriction of free speech in the US.

The standard of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is one such.

There is also the "fighting words" issue. Language that incites violence, whether group violence or individual violence, is not protected speech. For example, under Arkansas law, it is an offense to for anyone to "In a public place, directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response."

Some people might be able to let things roll off of their back. But when someone intentionally provokes another person with language likely to cause a violent response, it is not protected speech. One small example: Most lucky people love their mothers and would protect their honor. (For alerters: the following is an example of improper language to use on DU, but I'm using it to make a point, so please keep it in mind.) Telling someone that their mother is a dirty whore who he plans to fuck that night and inviting them to watch and join in might be laughed off by some, but others might take such offense that they struck the person in question.

In such instances, both parties (if the offended one struck the one mouthing off) are guilty of crimes, and yes, there is a sound reason why such language is not protected speech -- to promote civility, order, and to prevent brawls, or worse, gunfights (given that some of these Supreme Court decisions were made in eras where most citizens were armed).

For example: I despise the Westboro Bapti$t Church's protesting of funerals, particularly military funerals, and eventually someone is going to get beaten or killed as a result without certain restrictions being placed on their right to protest funerals. Hence, I do not object at all to my state's law that demands protests of any funeral be held at least 300 feet away from the entrance or exit to the property the funeral will take place, and cannot be held for 30 minutes before or after the funeral, nor during the funeral. It still lets the WBCers wave their stupid signs and express their opinions, but it keeps an angry family member from shooting one of them -- and wouldn't that be a friggin' publicity goldmine for those asshats? And yes, I can seriously picture it happening. Especially in my state.

(Edit to fix my language, as I insulted the mentally challenged by comparing them to the WBC.)

[Warren DeMontague]

15. The speech itself is not prohibited, that's one important distinction.

In fact, you might notice that to be the way which municipalities and states, etc. have gotten around what is an expansive 1st Amendment that protects, yes, even the most noxious forms of speech (i.e. Phelps); it is far more constitutionally feasable to regulate where something may be said, and in what context, than to regulate the speech itself- this is how we have gotten, for better or worse, the "free speech" or "protest zones" around conventions, etc.

That said, the so-called "fighting words" aspect of limiting the 1st Amendment has been upheld but seriously narrowed over the past 50 years, so as to render it essentially meaningless. And if you think about it, that is right- because in our modern pluralistic society, it IS meaningless. "Saying something that might make an individual or group so angry they might be forced to become violent"? Can't you think of, for instance, gay pride events or speeches that might make raging homophobes so angry they felt "forced" to become violent? Shit, some right wing teabag nutsticks seem to come unglued every time the President opens his mouth. Surely the president can't have his speech restricted on the grounds of "fighting words" just because every time he talks about protecting the right to abortion or contraception, a few crazy clinic protesters turn into the tasmanian devil?

[moriah]

21. In the example I gave, I was referring more toward the usual idea of "fighting words".....

..... directed at an individual, personally, and not as the Snyder v. Phelps case held -- that the Phelps group's hate speech was public speech, not personal speech.

In other words, yes, "fighting words" are held by many states and municipalities as chargeable offenses -- usually harassment, since they are directed at one particular person... and mens rea must be established. If a guy was only joking about screwing your mom, and really didn't mean to piss you off by saying it, in Arkansas it wouldn't be illegal. But calculated speech directly designed to provoke a violent response is not constitutionally protected.

In the case of the video in question, I still like the Onion's take on the matter. I even posted it with a NSFW warning to my FB friends who I let see my political opinions -- particularly because of the line: "Though some members of the Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhist faiths were reportedly offended by the image, sources confirmed that upon seeing it, they simply shook their heads, rolled their eyes, and continued on with their day."

[onenote]

30. In the case of the Arkansas law, the speech isn't protected even if it wasn't designed to provoke

On its face, the Arkansas speech applies to "obscene" speech -- and obscenity in and of itself is not constitutionally protected. So all the Arkansas statute really does if establish another type of offense for unprotected speech. But if instead of telling someone that they are a mother fucker (arguably obscene) in a public place, you called them a mothertrucker, or a MoFo, or an "MF" -- no obscenity, no crime.

[moriah]

48. Mens rea must still be established.

5-71-208. Harassment.

(a) A person commits the offense of harassment if, with purpose to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, without good cause, he or she:

(1) Strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person, subjects that person to offensive physical contact or attempts or threatens to do so;

(2) In a public place, directs obscene language or makes an obscene gesture to or at another person in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response;

(3) Follows a person in or about a public place;

(4) In a public place repeatedly insults, taunts, or challenges another person in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response;

(5) Engages in conduct or repeatedly commits an act that alarms or seriously annoys another person and that serves no legitimate purpose; or

(6) Places a person under surveillance by remaining present outside that person's school, place of employment, vehicle, other place occupied by that person, or residence, other than the residence of the defendant, for no purpose other than to harass, alarm, or annoy.

(b) Harassment is a Class A misdemeanor.

[onenote]

70. Yes, but my point is that even with mens rea, the provision cited only applies

to speech that is not protected anyway. Put another way, a person who, with purpose to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, and without good cause, in a public place directs non-obscene language to or at another person in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response, hasn't violated this provision.

[moriah]

73. Yeah, they did, read the law again, though for non-obscene langugage it must be "repeatedly":

(4) In a public place repeatedly insults, taunts, or challenges another person in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response;

So if a person repeatedly says that someone's father was a hamster and their mother smells of elderberries, farts in their general direction, and taunts them a third time, it is not protected speech.

(Edit for the humor impaired -- obviously those particular insults aren't likely to promote a violent or disorderly response.)

[Warren DeMontague]

75. Has this statute been applied any time recently? I'd be interested to see the real-world

interpretation of what exactly is prohibited.

As onenote mentions, if it were being actually used in real cases it might be in danger of a court challenge and overturning, in light of what the SCOTUS has said recently, I would think.

[moriah]

79. Well, the statute is meant to apply to those who are harassing individuals, not public speech.

In other words, if I was being followed down the street by a guy who shouted out "s***" or "b****", and continued to do it, I'd call 911, and report them for harassment. (Using the obscenity as well as the repeated behavior.)

Or if a guy was following another guy down the street saying "You wimp, l***-w****ed sack of excrement, come back here and fight me like a man!" and continued to follow the person and say such things, I think they would be entitled to press harassment charges as well (used "excrement" instead of an obscenity because... well, I'm not all that practiced at insults, so most of the ones I know would involve obscenities, but giving the alleged harasser the benefit of the doubt that they could have figured out another insult that would not be considered obscene).

Far better than reacting to either with violence, which is why the law is written -- if you allow that kind of behavior, eventually, someone will not just walk away, and it will cause a disturbance of the peace.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. Again, a markedly different situation than making a statement, or a film, that angers other people.

Still as far as the specific statute goes, I'd be interested to see if it's been actually applied lately, and how.

[moriah]

84. And on that note, as I've said a few times, I defer to the Onion:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/

[oberliner]

20. The people in the crowded theatre are forced to hear the shout of "Fire!"

No one is being forced to watch this stupid YouTube video.

[JonLP24]

111. I think the "fire" thing is misused

Well first, the example was first used by Holmes in a case where a group was protesting World War I that was later overturned.

Second, I don't believe even falsely that it is strictly prohibited.

I remember watching a speech on free speech on Youtube by, I believe, Christopher Hitchens who falsely yelled "fire" in a crowded ballroom a few times and wasn't arrested. He acknowledged that it wasn't a theater but the principle is the same

[moriah]

155. The danger, though, is extreme and understimated.

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

"The Italian Hall Disaster (sometimes referred to as the 1913 Massacre) is a tragedy that occurred on December 24, 1913 in Calumet, Michigan. Seventy-three men, women, and children, mostly striking mine workers and their families, were crushed to death in a stampede when someone falsely yelled "fire" at a crowded Christmas party."

There have been changes made to crowd management, but human stampedes have claimed the lives of many.

Just *this* decade:

March 4, 2010: At least 71 killed and over 200 injured at Ram Janki Temple, in Kunda, India, in a stampede after the gates of the temple collapsed.
May 4, 2010: 63 people were injured when a panic-driven stampede broke out during the Remembrance of the Dead ceremony on Dam Square, Amsterdam.
June 6, 2010: 14 people were injured when fans rushed to get inside Makulong Stadium after free tickets were given out to a friendly soccer match between Nigeria and North Korea.
July 24, 2010: The Love Parade disaster, in which 21 people were killed and more than 500 were injured during a mass panic at the Love Parade in Duisburg, Germany.
November 22, 2010: A stampede during a water festival near Cambodia's royal palace in Phnom Penh killed at least 347 people.
January 15, 2011: 102 people died and 100 were injured during a stampede near Sabarimala temple in Kerala State of Southern India.
January 15, 2011: 3 girls died, 14 people injured in a panic-driven stampede in a Budapest discothèque during a party.
November 8, 2011 - 16 people were killed at Haridwar, India during a religious ceremony in the banks of Ganges river.

---------------

And let's not forget a more recent American stampede incident than the one in 1913:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_The_Who_concert_disaster

------

In other words, causing mass panic can lead to people dying, has done so in the past, and despite attempts to design better crowd control, will probably continue to occur.

While Christopher Hitchens might not have been arrested, especially if his shouts of "Fire!" did not lead to deaths, if he HAD caused a stampede and people died, there's no question he would have been culpable in their deaths, and in my opinion, would have deserved punishment even if he felt he was perfectly free to say what he wished....

[Curtland1015]

6. Death threats.

[jsmirman]

7. I have long agreed. This whole credible, actionable threat thing -

I think the current legal standard on this one is stupid.

[Zax2me]

9. EXCELLENT. Applies to freedom of religion as well.

The enemies of freedom and freedom of religion always start off by saying " I support freedom of religion, BUT"

[WCGreen]

12. That's why we have libel laws and defamation statutes.

I believe the intent of the Founders was directed at free political speech given that they had suffered because of people protesting GOVERNMENT activities with the government being Great Britain.

Having said that, what or who determines what is in the realm of Governmental protests?

I think that has been the crux of the debate over the centuries.

Now that we have the ability to speak out to millions through amplified speech via mass media, does that change the intent of the Founders.

[Honeycombe8]

14. America and its states also have laws against certain kinds of speech. ALL speech is not allowed.

People seem confused by the idea of free speech. It does not mean that people can say anything. It means they have a right to say anything...up to the point where it interferes with someone else's rights.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. define "speech that interferes with someone else's rights"

Some people here are "confused by the idea of free speech", absolutely!

Some people here labor under the delusion that there are laws against "hate speech" (there aren't) or that it's a crime to blaspheme someone else's relgion (it isn't) or that somehow there are restrictions on speech that might make some other people really mad (so then why is FOX News still on the air, hmmm?)

[WCGreen]

28. Well with fox it is also the freedom of the press that they bastardize.

It's hard to define "rights" especially when those rights are not defined for a changing world.

Again, if you look at the intent of the Founders, we could easily say that laws regulating the access to firearms were in the content of a militia and not to arm of every man woman and child with automatic weapons.

I think the only "right" that is still directly traced to the intent of the Founders is the freedom of the press.

But the Constitution is a "living" document that was made to be changed so that our society could evolve as situations changed. The times that the Founders lived in were almost as volatile as the times we are in now. The idea of "people" taking the governance away from birthright and shifted to the people was far more radical than most people care to believe.

So we are blessed and cursed with a government that is far more adaptable to the changing times than any other country in the world.

[Warren DeMontague]

76. This is about the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd.

Again, I was looking for a specific answer to that question.

[Honeycombe8]

43. Yes, there are laws in America against certain kinds of speech, although not called hate speech.

The famous example of yelling "fire" in a theater. The call to violence through speech. Certain words cannot be said in a public setting, esp when children are present (lude, obscene, or the like).

[Bluenorthwest]

60. Wrong and a half. There are no federal laws against 'certain words' which 'can not be

said in public'. None whatsoever. Also, no such laws in any State or locality I have ever vistied or lived in in the US.

[JoeyT]

63. There aren't any federal laws, but there are city/municipality ones.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/06/13/middleborough_profanity_ban_touches_a_nerve/

They're usually enacted in small towns where the residents band together to annihilate anything there is for kids to do other than hang out in crowds at the mall/Wal-Mart and aimed at punishing kids for existing rather than actually getting rid of profanity.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. The other poster said 'certain words can not be said in public' and that is bullshit

even in those localities with anti swearing laws, which are exactly as you say they are, they can not shut down political or artistic expression because 'certain words can not be said in public'. I mean, which jurisdictions ban R rated films due to 'certain words'? Any? Would it be legal to do so? Anyplace in the States where cable TV is not allowed? Where they refuse to allow Tennessee Williams or David Mamet plays, by law?

[Warren DeMontague]

78. You know, for all the talk about "yelling fire in a theater", one, I don't think there are actually

any laws about it, and two, I don't think anyone has ever been successfully prosecuted for it.

So it's a goofy example, and it applies, really, to a very specific situation, i.e. giving people false information in a specific situation that could lead directly to a form of bodily harm.

And I'm not even sure it's actually illegal.

Beyond that, putting out a movie that offends someone's religious sensibilities falls under none of those categories, no matter how expansive the definition.

And regulating where something can be said is not the same thing as prohibiting the content of the speech itself.

[Warren DeMontague]

86. So if I say "fuck, I dropped a hammer on my toe", that's interfering with your rights?

That sort of thing?

If I say "God doesn't exist", that's interfering with your rights?

[TheMadMonk]

107. Incidental impingment vs. attack. Big difference.

and it's not so much denial which raises ire to the level of violence, as actual insults directed against their God.

Funnily enough the boffins may very well have found God, pinned him to the vivisection board and are in the process of opening him up and figuring out exactly what makes him tick and why an insult against God is taken so personally.

fMRI & PET scanning have been used to find where god "lives" in our brains by asking 3 basic questions (obviously in a non-basic manner): What do YOU think about X? What do you think ANOTHER PERSON thinks about X? and What do you think GOD thinks about X?

Whether it's YOU or GOD almost identical parts of the brain light up, but when it's another individual, or even an animated cartoon, while there is some overlap, entirely different parts of the brain are also highly active.

Rather bluntly, God is that part of us, which tosses a hissy fit when others fail to behave as a we want them to.

[Warren DeMontague]

108. I don't really care what the psychological or physiological mechanism involved is, although it is

fascinating from a neurological perspective.

My point is, you can't "ban" blasphemous speech under the 1st Amendment. Pretty core concept, IMHO.

[WinkyDink]

184. That is grammatically incorrect and thus erroneous in meaning. It is "NOT ALL speech is allowed."

[Honeycombe8]

13. Reasonable people can differ on the opinion of what is free speech. You know that.

All speech is not free. There are legal limitations. You very well know that.

Once it is admitted there are legal limitations, then a discussion ensues on what those limitations should be. That's called a difference of opinion and is what occurs in a free society. To call the other side names because they disagree with you is NOT part of the democratic process.

[jberryhill]

176. +1

[WinkyDink]

185. US courts have spoken on this issue, and---because let's be honest here---MOVIES ARE FREE SPEECH.

[Douglas Carpenter]

25. I support free speech but I do not consider child pornography to be free speech

Even if it was made without committing any crimes in the process of making it.

I also don't believe providing public incitement to assassinate political figures is free speech.

Following your logic "I do not support free speech," is a more succinct way to express my sentiment.

The fact is there is a point where almost everyone agrees that harm caused by some expressions of "free speech" is great enough that almost everyone supports some restrictions.

.

[oberliner]

26. What about mocking other people's religions?

Where does that fall on your continuum?

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. under the U.S. Constitution - it is legal. Just as Nazis marching though Skokie is legal

But that certainly doesn't mean that either is behavior that should be respected. I can't see a way in which constitutionally the U.S. can ban mocking a religion. But given the explosiveness of the situation and recognizing the consequences - it should be discouraged. I frankly believe that this explosion has more to do with the U.S. and western hegemony in the Middle East. Acts such as this film are lighting a match in a field that is bone dry and ready to burn.

My point above is simply that almost everyone draws a line somewhere. If child porn might lead to child abuse or speeches calling for political assignations might lead to actual acts of murder - it is a legitimate question that when people know for a moral certainty and beyond a reasonable doubt that their "artistic expressions" will be interpreted by large numbers of people as intentional provocation and are certain to ignite outbreaks of deadly violence - Well, there is the reality of recognizing predictable consequences.

[oberliner]

42. In "less explosive" situations the standard should be different?

Mocking Mormons, for instance, is "less explosive" and doesn't generally lead to the sorts of consequence like what we are seeing in reaction to this video.

You think that should figure into what is and is not discouraged?

Or should mocking Mormons, Scientology, the Catholic church, etc. be similarly addressed?

[WinkyDink]

188. What do you refuse to grasp about US law? Seriously. WHY do you keep nattering on, trying to

come up the perfect exception-that-ought-to-be?

[oberliner]

200. Quite a lot - seems like there is a good deal of grey area

I am not "nattering on" about exceptions that out to be - I am trying to get clarity on where the line is with respect to what would be considered incitement.

Does the law really treat mocking Muslims differently from mocking Mormons? If so, I would take issue with that law.

[4th law of robotics]

57. Totally acceptable

and frankly one of the big reasons to keep free speech around.

Faiths need to be mocked to keep them in line.

[WinkyDink]

187. Mockery is not illegal. The US Courts have spoken. Don't like it? TS, Eliot.

[oberliner]

202. When does mockery become incitement?

Is there a line that can be crossed that would make it illegal?

[WinkyDink]

186. You don't have to have any opinion on it; the COURTS have declared child porn illegal.

By the LAW, child pornography IS NOT FREE SPEECH.

[oberliner]

201. That poster does not live in the United States

The US Supreme court isn't the World Court.

[JCMach1]

27. Not a free speech issue- let's talk about the Saudi-supported radical clerics and groups

that are spreading the anti-American rubbish.


So yeah, I guess,... what cthulu said

[99Forever]

51. Ahh...

... you mean the "anti-American rubbish" about us invading and killing hundreds of thousands of their brethren based on lies? Or us still to this day, using drone attacks to kill their families and friends? Or us having used torture and false imprisonment of many thousands of them?

That the "anti-American rubbish" you are referring to?

[baldguy]

31. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

No one has the right to speech whose intent is to incite violence, injury or death.

[renie408]

36. +1000

[Warren DeMontague]

85. So, to your mind, Blasphemy is not protected by the 1st Amendment?

Aside from the extremely tired example of yelling fire in a crowded theater, something no one has ever done AND against which there are no, actual, laws, can you give me specific concrete examples of the type of speech, here, you think are prohibited in this country?

[baldguy]

94. The crime isn't blasphemy. The crime is incitment to riot.

And there are many laws against such behavior.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. There are? What SPECIFIC law do you think was violated, and how would it be prosecuted?

Incitement to riot is extremely difficult case to make, legally, even if you have someone standing with a bullhorn directly in front of an angry crowd, telling them to riot. Which is the ONLY real sort of "incitement" that can be applied, legally.

Again, making a piece of media that makes or might make someone REAL MAD is not "incitement". Do you honestly believe it is? Do you understand that same standard could be used to apply to, say, gay people who kiss in front of a crowd of fundamentalists? "Well, they made us mad. They FORCED us to riot. Arrest them!"

[Bluenorthwest]

142. So how do you prove that magical words 'caused' others to act against their own

will? Please, describe that process in detail.
And it is shitty to say 'your freind Romney' to another DUer. You are attacking our constitutional rights, you should expect strong questioning from doing so, and it is simply lazy to claim that people standing up for their own rights are defending bigotry. A horrid, inaccurate and hateful thing to say.

[friendly_iconoclast]

150. Words cannot 'cause' anybody to do anything. To believe so is to believe in word magic.

[WinkyDink]

192. You are wrong. period.

[JonLP24]

113. It's been done before

but you're right in regards to everything else.

Hitchens falsely shouted "fire" in a crowded ballroom and wasn't arrested.

[Warren DeMontague]

115. Ha! Leave it to Hitch.

Guy could be an ass, but he was sometimes spot on. I have no doubt he got fed up with hearing these exact same arguments against free speech, over and over again.

[WinkyDink]

189. As the US courts long ago ruled.

[renie408]

35. I support free speech. But being a grown up, I also support consequences.

You can say whatever you want, however you want. BUT if you could reasonably deduce that one of the results of the exercising of your free speech is the endangerment of others, then you should face the consequences of your speech.

MY right to free speech does not trump another person's right to life or safety.

[TheKentuckian]

59. So, if some group of reactionaries vow to riot unless women in our media are covered

Then our women must be covered?

Or if some other group vows to riot if gays are portrayed as mainstream or normal?

This logic is weak. No matter what culture or location a human comes from, we know well the danger of fire. An actual uncontrolled fire, particularly in a crowded structure is real and present. As such one is OBLIGATED to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is a fire and by the same token is OBLIGATED not to yell "fire" when no such danger is present.

There is no "fire" in prerecorded media. The prerecorded media can NEVER present a clear and present danger to life and limb and some fool acting a fucking donkey can never alter that reality.

Fire burns whether one sees it or not. A movie can play until the last star burns out without consequence in the physical world. That is the reality and no argument will ever change that.

The prerecorded media can NEVER be reasonably expected to be the source of risk to life and limb because it is an in animate object. Murderous assholes may as well be pointing to a rock or coffee table as the "threat" they are responding to. There is no imminent threat and everyone knows it including the rioters, there is no claim of danger to life and limb or even the perception of such.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Expect zero response....

you are spot on in my opinion.

[TheMadMonk]

110. Remember that thought when a coworker queues up "Thank Heaven for Little Girls"...

...every time you enter the room. Let me absolutely guarantee that, if this were to happen, VERY REAL PHYSICAL CHANGES WOULD TAKE PLACE INSIDE YOUR BRAIN and PHYSIOLOGY. After just a few repetitions, your blood pressure would spike before the first word, and assuming you kept a lid on it long enough, one day the slightest sound coming from your tormentor's direction, may well be enough to trigger uncontrollable murderous rage.

As a thought experiment, take the same type of video: Make it about Christ and drop it into 17th C Europe or 19th C America; The Emperor in Japan prior to WWII; "Yourmum" in any era.

Your basic argument is the even more tired (and in fact disproven) "Sticks and stones, yadda, yadda, yadda."

Names and insults do hurt and if kept up long enough and WILL absolutely provoke irrational behaviour. "Life and limb" is not all there is. Heart and mind also come into it as well.

Pre-recorded media, like a gun, might well be an inannimate object without volition. However, it's authors DO HAVE VOLITION and INTENTION. Of course it's not the source. However, it is the vehicle through which one attacks another.

[TheKentuckian]

154. A gun can fire a bullet which if put into motion by a user presents not only a threat but a

viable, immediate, and deadly one.

A film granting for your repetition to the point of not only physical response but actual harm would still require substantial, consistent, and long term exposer to the person potentially impacted. The film cannot create an immediate threat, despite considerable liberty in determining ANY real world impact AND still accepting the argument would require not only actually seeing the film but further requires some weird "A Clockwork Orange" style force feeding.

This line of argument is barely lucid and highly speculative, like a psychedelic trip or something. Here in the real world a movie has no plausible clear and present threat capability. In the real world the notion is absurd. What a fucking stretch.

[TheMadMonk]

163. Not if they're pre-conditioned and on a hair trigger.

OK, how about a message on your answering machine, offering graphic harm to your family and a knock on the door at the exact moment the message ends.

Or a whispered sledge in a huddle.

There is no substantiative difference. A .45 just makes for more immediate results.

The problem is not the instrument, per se, it's the ACT OF VOLITION behind it.

You don't need a Ministry of Mental Sanitation to force feed images and sounds into a brain. Nor electroshock electrodes hooked to your balls. Just an environment which cannot be easily avoided.

The deliberate production of such a work is not greatly different to niggling annoyances in the workplace, whisper campaigns, or hazing to the point of smearing foreign substances on naked bodies. If the intent is harm, it doesn't matter if it's as direct as a bullet to the brain, or as protracted as six months of derogatory whispering.

Speech intended to cause harm has no business being free.

[WinkyDink]

191. "Offering graphic harm" is the legal definition of "assault." There are laws to cover this.

"The problem is not the instrument, per se, it's the ACT OF VOLITION behind it."
"If the intent is harm, it doesn't matter if it's as direct as a bullet to the brain, or as protracted as six months of derogatory whispering."


COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, INESCAPABLY IN ERROR, PER U.S. JURISPRUDENCE.

[TheMadMonk]

208. Which is why you've got so many "postal" events.

So many schoolyard shootings, so many fuck-heads blowing up abortion clinics, shooting up unitarian churches and movie theatres.

So in your mind bullying, specifically mental bullying, is absolutely permitted under US law. That the instigator can not be held in any way liable for for consequent acts carried out by their victim.

[TheKentuckian]

210. Goofy, now making a movie that offends someone is pretty much the same as

smear foreign substances on their naked bodies (assumably against their will) and six months of a whisper campaign similar to a bullet in the brain.

An environment that cannot easily be avoided? Try not watching the shitty movie. No one anywhere is being forced to watch shit, most haven't even seen it at all.

A bullshit defense of bullshit in the pursuit of bullshit.

[WinkyDink]

190. Your entire argument has been invalidated by the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court.

[2on2u]

37. Do you support what Rush Limbaugh does every day? That is free speech as well and it

sucks.

[Nye Bevan]

46. I don't support it, but I support his right to say it (nt)

[2on2u]

47. Fair enough. n/t

[Marrah_G]

53. I support his right to say it

[freshwest]

100. Since Rush is paid for what he says, I call it commerical speech. And we should look at whose paying

It's not the same as a protestor, or even an honest journalist exercising First Amendment rights. The same corporations that pay Rush, don't support the Fairness Doctrine or what I call 'free speech.' I think we get this confused at times. Just because someone like Rush is heard widely and paid a lot of money, doesn't make his rights of speech more important than others. But the system he's using denies freedom of speech to others by denying them a platform. I think we're not protecting the same thing, and that the Founders wanted everyone to have a chance to affect government and not to call for its demise as RW pundits do. Speaking generally, not referring in total to your comment.

[WinkyDink]

194. Many other Americans think he's the cat's pj's. Ain't the Constitution grand?

[SidDithers]

38. "anything posted at DU"...

I support Free Speech, but I do not consider anything posted at DU to be Free Speech.

Sid

[limpyhobbler]

39. Would people be so eager to defend a hate film against Jewish or gay people based on free speech?

Or pick your group.

The same free speech principle applies.

But people don't usually rush to defend that kind of stuff.

[Marrah_G]

54. Free Speech is most importantly about speech we do not like

Defending free speech is not the same as agreeing with that speech

[DemocratSinceBirth]

65. They Sell "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" On Amazon

I don't see anybody rushing to close down Amazon.

It's just words, albeit hurtful and incredibly stupid ones...

[Bluenorthwest]

66. Where do you live? Such hate films and books are common, and religious haters

(surprised you have not noticed this) regularly line up in public with giant signs saying 'God Hates Fags' and yes indeed, we oppose them in every way but we do not claim they don't have the right to speak.
I can tell you this, LGBT people do the right thing by countering speech with speech, hate with love, and lies with truth. Other groups who feel insulted by strangers in another land and lose all reason, they are doing the wrong thing. Our choice is the better choice.

[limpyhobbler]

103. ohio.

Sorry I should have been more clear. I wasn't defending the violence of the rioters. Rioting is bad.

The film is also hateful, from what I hear.

Just like when the boss of Chick-fil-a says something hateful about gay people, we don't all jump to his defense and defend it just because it is free speech. We condemn it. We understand he is within his rights to say hateful stuff, but we support protest against it.

[Bluenorthwest]

139. We also do NOT attack the principle of free speech we counter Chick fil A with more

speech. No one is defending the ignorant film, but some are attacking the First Amendment claiming the slurs of some Egyptian immigrant prove Americans have too much free speech.
And sorry, but it is deeply out of touch on your part to pretend that such hate filled attacks on others are new, you know you were aware of Phelps and other hate mongers and you know you did not run around claiming the Constitution needs to be shredded because of him because the straight community said and did NOTHING to oppose Phelps, for years and years and years they did not even use their own speech to counter his. So you watched one neighbor slander another, year in and year out, and yet you claim attacks on gays do not exist?
As I recall, Chick Fil A wise, some mayors said they wanted to refuse them permits and the vast majority of Americans said we do not support that sort of thing, we will speak his hate to the ground with word, not moer discrimination. So with Chick Fil A you saw a huge defense of the First Amendment, often by the very people who were libeled by Chick Fil A.
Other than your theory that gay baiting does not exist in the US, you are very wrong to assume we all understand Chick Fil A and everyone else is withing their rights to say what they will. Many posters visiting DU think there should be laws limiting my speech, because of some asshole somewhere might say somethign to offend another asshole somewhere.

[limpyhobbler]

161. OK cousin I think you are confusing me with somebody else.

I never said any of that stuff.

[Warren DeMontague]

114. Do you understand the difference between the principle and the thing itself?

I come from a jewish family who had relatives in the camps. I remember when the Nazis marched in Skokie.

Defending their right to speech is not defending the content of that speech.

Saying that even nazis have the right to express their fucked up opinions, does not MAKE one a Nazi.

[limpyhobbler]

160. Um... yeah. I understand the difference.

I understand -> I disagree with the KKK for example, but they have a right to speak. Got it.

But what I mean is, when the KKK makes a hate video about Jewish people or gay people, we condemn it. We don't trip all over ourselves defending the KKK's free speech.

In fact the "best" of the liberal view is to do both a the same time.

So with this latest hate video, it just sort of seemed to me, that most of what is happening is defending freedom of hate speech, but not so much condemning of the hate speech.

[Warren DeMontague]

165. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I've done both.

The "film" is a piece of crap, and obviously done with the express purpose of inflaming and angering people. From a moral standpoint, inexcusable, especially when compounded by the fact that the producers of this turd apparently lied to the performers, later dubbing in objectionable dialogue pertaining to Mohammed, Islam, etc.

So what they've done is endanger these folks' lives, without their consent. From a legal standpoint, those people might have a lawsuit on the grounds of the project being so blatantly and willfully misrepresented to them.

And then there's the offensive aspect of even calling this a "film". It's an insult to even the directors of the worst examples of Cinema to give it that name; this 14 minute "trailer" which is incoherent and idiotic. Don't crap on the legacy of Ed Wood by calling it a "movie", that sort of thing.

But the 1st Amendment is very important to me. I can defend the principle of Free Speech and simultaneously call the movie crap, AND condemn the people who made it.

[limpyhobbler]

166. I completely agree.

[flobee1]

40. I do not consider buying politicians free speech

money does not equal speech (citizens united)

[davidpdx]

41. I'm getting sick of the free speech threads

People are just pissing on each other over the subject.

Essentially because of freedom of speech we have the right to disagree.

End of story.

[renie408]

45. Then you have the freedom to not post on them.

[davidpdx]

109. And I have the freedom to complain about how silly they are

[Marrah_G]

55. just hide thread then

[davidpdx]

58. No, I don't click on the topic or reply

That's just as good.

[etherealtruth]

52. We have a lot of this going on here

related to a load of subjects ... I believe in (blank), as long as you act within the parameters i have set up.

[4th law of robotics]

56. I support free speech unless I don't like it

the first amendment was never about protecting speech that made people uncomfortable or hurt feelings.

Free speech really should be limited to issues where few if any are going to be offended. The government could research it and issue yearly lists of what are acceptable topics for discourse.

[Nolimit]

62. I hope you forgot your sarcasm tag...

"The government could research it and issue yearly lists of what are acceptable topics for discourse" I'm pretty sure the Chinese government does this.

[Bluefin Tuna]

77. Then it becomes almost impossible to discuss anything.

Quote: "Free speech really should be limited to issues where few if any are going to be offended."


Then it becomes almost impossible to have a discussion about anything - things such as sports teams, gas prices, people's favorite books, movies, shopping, etc. How are Eagles and Giants fans going to avoid offending each other when they discuss each other's sports teams?


What you're proposing is a society in which just about 90% of all speech is banned. That reads like some fictional, authoritarian society.

[Vincardog]

80. Welcome to DU.

[Bluefin Tuna]

82. Thank you.

[4th law of robotics]

137. Wouldn't authoritarianism be preferable?

At least then we'd be safe from violence caused by unkind words and free from being offended.

[Bluefin Tuna]

143. This is sarcasm, right?

[4th law of robotics]

153. Yes, although I've seen a lot of people

express that basic sentiment (worded differently) in earnest.

[WinkyDink]

193. Exactly! The Dept of No Mockery, headed by Sec. Alfred E. Newman.

[Odin2005]

64. I may hate what one says, but I will defend their right to say it.

[Zorra]

68. Money.

Money is not speech, and corporations are not people.

[cthulu2016]

87. Incorrect on both, but the concepts are not absolute

Money.

The government outlaws the Anti-War Party sending out mailers saying it opposes the draft. Court strikes the law down.

Government comes back with, "It is illegal to donate money to the Anti-War Party for the purpose of funding their mailings of anti-draft literature."

Obviously that is just as unconstitutional.

Every time someone gives to an advocacy group like NARAL they are saying furthering the expression of a viewpoint with which they agree.

That does not mean, in my view, that campaign finance laws cannot exist. But the fact that money is part of speech/expression must be taken into account. The freedom of the printing press doesn't mean much if you don't have a printing press and that costs money.

Corporations.

Of course corporations are legal persons for many purposes. If a corporation borrows money and doesn't pay it back, who do you sue? Only a legal person can be party to a lawsuit. So for purposes of debt and liability and such a corporation is a legal "person."

And a corporation does have some expressive rights insofar as, like with the example of NARAL (a corporation, just like DU is a corporation), a corporation is an association of real people joined together for a purpose.

Where corporate person-hood becomes a problem is when, for instance, it is granted the 14th amendment rights of a person.

Corporate person-hood can go too far, and probably has, but the basic centuries old legal fiction of a corporation being a "person" (though not a human being) will never go away. You cannot murder a corporation but you can owe it money.

[Zorra]

92. No; sorry, you are wrong. Those are simply your opinions.

I stated: Money is not speech, and corporations are not people.

None of that doublespeak woo that you threw at me showed any part of my statement to be incorrect.

people - peo·ple (Noun)
Noun:

Human beings in general or considered collectively.
The citizens of a country, esp. when considered in relation to those who govern them.

plural : human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest
2
plural : human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons <salespeople> —often used attributively <people skills>
3
plural : the members of a family or kinship
4
plural : the mass of a community as distinguished from a special class <disputes between the people and the nobles> —often used by Communists to distinguish Communists from other people
5
plural peoples : a body of persons that are united by a common culture, tradition, or sense of kinship, that typically have common language, institutions, and beliefs, and that often constitute a politically organized group
6
: lower animals usually of a specified kind or situation
7
: the body of enfranchised citizens of a state

Just because the law says something is true, it does not make that thing true.

The law once said that black people were not equal to white people.

That did not make this true.

As far as money goes ~

speech/spēCH/
Noun:

The expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.
A person's style of speaking.

a : the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words
b : exchange of spoken words : conversation
2
a : something that is spoken : utterance
b : a usually public discourse : address
3
a : language, dialect
b : an individual manner or style of speaking
4
: the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking

[jberryhill]

204. Okay, so, if your employer refuses to pay you....

...then you can't sue your employer, because they are not a person.

Got it.

No contract you make with a corporation should be enforceable by you, and no sale of property to you by a corporation should be a valid transfer of title.

Furthermore, this website should be subject to government shut down, because Democratic Underground LLC does not have a First Amendment right.

Furthermore, in the Pentagon Papers case, the government should have had the right to enjoin the New York Times Corporation from publishing them, because as a corporation, the NYT does not have First Amendment rights. This goes for every publishing company and broadcasting company.

[MNBrewer]

71. Usually, everything that comes after the "but" is what the person really means to say.

[porphyrian]

72. "Some of my best friends are free speech." Love it. n/t

[rurallib]

88. farts

[arely staircase]

91. kiddie porn, terroristic threats

false medical claims, defamation, perjury. i am sure there are more.

[WinkyDink]

195. Acts already declared illegal should be beyond "opinion"!

[Cleita]

93. Think about this.

How many of us really have free speech in our real daily lives? I spend a good part of the day not saying stuff in order to be polite, mostly, but sometimes to not raise the ire of those who could do me harm. For instance, I don't tell the landlord I think he looks like a frog. He just might find a reason to evict me. If I tell the boss to go fly a kite when he demands something of me, I will most likely be looking for another job.

Yet, when I have to stand up for myself or tell the truth about something even if it will hurt or be explosive, I will if it's necessary but not before. No one does. Free speech is a narrow right. We have the right to stand up for ourself or ourselves collectively as a group or country, when we are being abused and when our human rights are being taken from us. The journalist has a right to criticize those whom he feels deserve criticism. However, I don't believe anyone has a right to incentivize violence and destruction just because they feel that is a free speech right. I don't believe it is.

[progressivebydesign]

98. this is dumb. There actually ARE limits to "free speech" this is flame bait. nt

[patrice]

101. Do you consider Citizens' United free speech? Why not? nt

[cali]

119. I don't. I don't consider money speech.

[jberryhill]

130. So if you want to make a documentary

Then who donates to your project is subject to restrictions.

Is that correct?

You can make whatever film you like, but the government gets to say that this or that group cannot fund you.

And of course, once you print your newspaper, which you have right to do, the government can forbid people from buying it, because that is a regulated act of commerce, and not speech.

In other words, in your first amendment, the government cannot prevent the printing of newspapers, or the circulation of them, but can prevent people paying money for them, because the regulation of what people do with their money is about money, not speech.

Is that correct?

I am sorry to inform you that CU IS a direct result from free speech absolutism.

[cali]

134. I should have said I don't consider money in political campaigns to be speecch

[jberryhill]

149. That was not the actual issue in CU

Do you know the facts underlying the CU case?

Nobody was giving money to a political campaign in CU.

The case was about whether corporations could donate money to a non-profit organization which was producing a movie.

So, for example, you believe that corporate funding of shows on PBS can be regulated.

[patrice]

102. You all are aware, of course, that the ACLU defends Citizens' United? link

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/fixing-citizens-united-will-break-constitution

[cthulu2016]

125. Yeah, fight the power!

Your concern about the ACLU is noted. Repeatedly.

[patrice]

151. Your noting is noted. Is there somekind of politically correct test that makes DUers

"in" or "out"? How very high school!

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am not aware of the ACLU having a level of freedom that enables them to do anything other than that which they deem ideologically "pure".

Pardon me, while I bite the hand that feeds "us". There are no absolutes.

*IF* this is all about freedom, perhaps you recognize that means freedom also from the compulsion to always need to react against __________________ , that is, the ability and personal strength so choose "non-conformity" or "conformity" appropriately for one's self.

[Blue_Tires]

170. not only that, they have doubled and tripled down since then...

[patrice]

171. Someone needs to point out to a few people around here that that's IN. SUPPORT. OF. CITIZENS'.

UNITED, something that they actually recognize to be an impediment to free speech.

[Romulox]

173. LOL. I'm sure people will support PLUTOCRACY if you only explain it a little better.

ALL CAPS with. RANDOM. PUNCTUATION really helps!

[patrice]

177. How. very. PLUTOCRATIC. of. you., but then, perhaps you're just a scared little CONFORMIST bully. nt

[Romulox]

182. I'm guessing you don't know what several of those words mean, as your comment makes

little or no sense in the context of the discussion. YOU, in fact, are the one urging conformity with the status quo, for what's it's worth.

[Romulox]

172. That tends to make me think much more poorly of the ACLU, rather than better about CU.

Also, you might look up "Appeal from Authority"--it's a basic logical fallacy.

[patrice]

178. ??? So now you have your "friendly" hat on. What gives?

[Romulox]

183. Word salad much? nt

[patrice]

198. You couldn't be more obvious. nt

[Romulox]

199. Right. I'm someone AGAINST corporate dollar funded "free speech". You're FOR it. Obvious, indeed.

[Buzz Clik]

104. Democracy has hairy armpits.

Nuf said.

[EX500rider]

105. I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.-Voltaire n/t

[jberryhill]

127. Forgery

Assault

Criminal solicitation

Copyright infringement

Trademark infringement

Calling in a bomb threat to a school

False advertising.

Passing bad checks

Counterfeiting

Cyberstalking

Offering a bribe

Perjury

Slander and libel

All of which can be done with mere speech or writing.

[retread]

145. Yelling "fire!!" in a crowded theater.

[H2O Man]

157. Or "Theater!" in a crowded fire.

[jberryhill]

205. Yes, and that's no joke

Sometimes when disasters happen at entertainment events, people do not react because they think it is theater, instead of an actual disaster.

That reaction was reflected in some of the witness accounts of the Aurora movie theater shooting, in that they initially believed the entrance of the shooter was a piece of entertainment.

Indeed, yelling "theater" in a crowded fire can cause loss of lives. No joke.

[Initech]

147. Do you consider white supremacy free speech?

Do you consider Limbaugh and Hannity free speech?

Do you consider the lying and hate mongering most networks here are guilty of free speech?

Do you consider network censorship free speech?

If you do not, then you do not support free speech either. Just thought I would point that out.

[WinkyDink]

196. I don't have to "consider" anything; I go by the LAW.

[Initech]

197. You do realize that 40 other countries have both free and hate speech laws in effect right?

And so far not a single one of them have been taken over by Taliban-esque governments. And that includes Canada, UK, Germany, Italy, Sweden... You can have free speech and still get rid of the liars, hatemongerers and false prophets. It's entirely possible.

[jberryhill]

206. So, when laws change, your principles do?

[hughee99]

158. Nobody supports hate speech,

unfortunately, there are far too many people who would define "hate speech" as speech that they personally hate.

[Time for change]

164. I support freedom of speech, but I do not consider

The money paid by wealthy individuals and corporations to political candidates and elected officials in return for special favors to be a legitimate form of "speech" that is or should be protected by our constitution.

Nor do I consider incitations to violence or certain other crimes to be a form of speech that should be protected.

[mmonk]

169. $

[LanternWaste]

175. I support nuanced dialog on free speech

I support nuanced dialog on free speech; specifically, a dialog lacking such petulance such as "why do you hate the 1st Amendment", or "speech I hate is akin to yelling fire..."

Unfortunately, there are simply not too many of those particular discussions taking place-- rather, a mere recitation of bumper-stickers. Not very nuanced at all, more's the shame.

[Bucky]

181. "disagreeing with me"