To What Degree Should Free Speech Be Curbed?

None of these options should be construed to refer to broadly accepted legal communications, such as:

* Police saying "stop or I'll shoot"
* An employer telling an employee if they continue to under perform they may be fired
* Promises of defense (ie, a promise to litigate)


That said, most people accept some limits on free speech - slander is illegal, creating a hostile workplace is illegal, and there's the classic yelling fire in a theater.

Where do YOU think the line should be drawn.

That's the standard. You're just going to have to live with it.

I just had a long discussion about this in the other thread with MJ, and the basic gist is that speech is rarely curbed, except in the stated cases above.

Anything outside of those are fair game, excepting inciting a riot, and some guidelines regarding campaign finance, which I don't believe are actually speech issues, but rather money and dissemination issues.

There may be something else, but that's about all I can think of at the moment.

But having those as two separate options is kinda wrong, because they both are and should be illegal.

But we're still left with a bit of a sticky issue: when is threat implied.

Ultimately, there's generally a fine line involved. Restraining orders are specifically for this sort of thing.

The common thread is harm. If a person is forced into a state of emotional distress or suffers negative repercussions because of implied threats or false information, then harm is the result, and that is what is illegal, not actual speech.

You can say anything legally, provided that it is true, unclassified, and not overtly threatening of or intending harm to the person in question.

It's overly-broad and vague. It can't be answered in its present form.

cut-off point that they're choosing.

shouldn't be illegal (until there is ACTUAL retaliation).

Ideally, not unlike affirmative action and equal opportunity laws, it shouldn't be an issue, because any decent and functional workplace or university would already have socially-conscious hiring/acceptance practices and punish sexually degrading conduct.

But since discrimination and sexual degradation are historically significant (yes, huge understatement) and continue to persist, these laws are necessary.

One might be tempted to think (and most Republicans, disingenuously, like to think) workplaces don't need the government to tell them that sexual degradation and a racially-exclusive workplace are unnacceptable, but our society just isn't that far along yet, and doesn't look to be anytime soon.

So sexual harassment, would that companies had the sense to realize it is totally unnacceptable, shouldn't have to be illegal...one should expect to be fired for that kind of conduct.

The fact that for so long no one actually was fired is the reason for the law, which tells you that businesses don't do the right thing unless the government makes them do it a lot of the time.

Republicans like to argue against these kinds of things because they think the government has no business telling people how to conduct themselves in these ways, but American society has proven time and time again that these laws are necessary because businesses only respond to government intervention and successful lawsuits.

I don't disagree with your observations here.

But going back to my point, it wasn't just about sexual harassment - I chose that as a particular example. What surprised me is how many people voted that even threats and intimidation should be protected speech - only the actual follow through on a threat would be criminal.

Whether the threat is part of a sexual harassment case, a threat to kill or physical harm someone, or a range of other types, it seems to me the threat itself should be regarded as criminal.

Some don't feel that way.

I think a lot of people see the current state of government and are falling into libertarian ways of thinking, with a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Basically, radicals who are anti-Bush, but by no means necessarily Democrats, find themselves here. Nothing wrong with that.

Most people read the Constitution but may have a weak understanding of how it has been shaped by precedent and legislation since its inception, both for good and ill.

And some people here are extreme just to be extreme.

I can appreciate a good radical argument now and then, but the right to speech isn't absolute, nor should it be, and that fact is ancient history.

Note that none of those people have spoken up other than with their vote.

"It is no accident that freedom of speech is protected in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The Constitution's framers believed that freedom of inquiry and liberty of expression were the hallmarks of a democratic society.

But historically, at times of national stress -- real or imagined -- First Amendment rights come under enormous pressure. During the Red Scare" of the early 1920s, thousands were deported for their political views. During the McCarthy period, the infamous blacklist ruined lives and careers. Today, the creators, producers and distributers of popular culture are often blamed for the nation’s deep social problems. Calls for censorship threaten to erode free speech.

The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is the solution...."

http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeechMain.cfm


Laws proposing to curb or punish free speech must be extremely narrowly drawn, and must address real dangers, rather than perceived ones. I am very, very, VERY leery of any law curbing the right to speak freely whose sole purpose is to increase a hearer's 'comfort zone' or to protect their 'feelings'.

Free speech is often robust, yet the value of possessing the un-gelded right should be favored, absent a clear and convincing showing of real danger or harm.