The free speech thread

[CapnAwesome]

The freedom of speech ends nowhere. Including incitement for violence against people, the only thing I separate that from is specific plans to murder someone, which has to include more than just speech anyway. Saying that so and so should die, or deserves to die is how our country was founded. Criminalizing calls for violence criminalizes calls for revolution and a change in government if need be. There should be no limit on speech. If you are too stupid to realize that there isn't a fire in the theater, that is your problem.

Ah, but that's not what I was talking about in the slightest. Saying someone should die is not quite what I meant what I said: "explicitly and demonstrably threatens the safety of others." Planning to kill someone and inciting them to kill are more like it. At any rate, the law disagrees with you. Charles Manson never killed anyone. Do you know where he is?

Yeah, we may be talking about different things. I agree that planning someone's murder is (and should be) illegal, whether that is done privately or with public speech. I guess that's where I draw my limit.

[Shell B]

We're in complete agreement there. That is precisely where I draw my limit and my only limit. Even then, I would say that there are always mitigating circumstances. Crimes of passion, mental retardation, etc. Before anyone jumps on me, planning someone's murder can be a crime of passion. It can only take a few minutes, I imagine.

[Aractus]

Wikileaks

---

Releasing information you've come across that may threaten national security
Releasing information you've come across that, if released, will endanger somebody.

---

Wikileaks falls under freedom of the press and not its own category. And so far nothing publicized has threatened national security. [/nitpick]

[Something completely different]

Given the recent threads on porn, left wing censorship, wikileaks, and nazis, I decided to make this thread. Where do you stand? Some areas where people often make exceptions (and some recent/current issues) are included in the spoiler lists, you don't have to go through the whole list btw (Tib there is one for you in the lies section):

Hatred and Violent groups

---

Incitement of hatred
Incitement of violence
Hate speech
Holocaust denial
Nazi parades (also KKK n such)
Forming a nazi party
Televised nazi propaganda
At the time when kids are just getting back from school
And clearly aimed specifically at kids
Saw you're switzerland in WWII (you're surrounded by nazi controlled territory at this point, and you've been bordering it the whole time), do you ban nazi propaganda?
Threats of violence

---

Total ban, hatespeech and incitement to violence cannot be tolerated.

Lies, damn lies, and the media

---

Blatant lies and statements that were not intended to be factual statements.
Fox news, any sanctions? (and can it call itself fair and balanced?) (same goes for msnbc for I guess)
Pretending to be an army vet
Lies in business dealings (so fraud)
-Blackmail (in the case of otherwise legal stuff, not "give me money or I'll tell the cops where you buried the body", so for instance: I see you doing something embarrassing but legal with the neighbour through a window as I pass on the sidewalk. I can tell whoever I want including your partner, I can receive funds for telling the news (particularly if you're famous enough or the story is interesting enough), but I can't ask you for funds for not doing it) Or if I own a billboard near your restaurant, I can put whatever I want up, but it might harm your business... can I ask you for funds (not you coming to me with the offer), and in return I will not put up controversial/nausea inducing stuff? I cannot say these words?: "I saw you doing x, I talked with publication Y, they are offering me 20,000 after I gave them vague details, how much is my silence worth to you?"
-Slander/defamation/libel (I can never remember which is which)
-Slander of a competing business (this one's for tib)

---

Depends on the context.

Slander and blackbiting should be punishable.

Misinforming the public?.?.?. I dont know....... There have to be the institutions which provide clarification eighter provided by state broadcast or independent journalists, aswell as there have to be the methods to call out bullshit. I guess misinforming the public should only be punishable if it actualy causes physical harm to individuals.

Porno

---

Porn
Hard core porn
Porn of young looking adults
Drawn children...

---

FSK restrictions considering that minors shouldn`t watch this stuff.
Other than that I dont see any limits.

Religion

---

Blasphemy
Flag burning
Koran burning
Televised koran burning

---

There is no "blasphemy" in a pluralistic sociaty. What one can and can not publicly say about religion publicly is falls into other categories such as "hate speech"

Citizens united and foreigners

---

Copyrighted material
Corporate speech
Political speech
A real wealthy bastard/group of em paying for ads
Foreigners and political speech

---

The respect for intelectual property is unbreachable to me.

Political speech should only be restricted by the rules on "hate speech"

Money does certainly not equal speech.

Wikileaks

---

Releasing information you've come across that may threaten national security
Releasing information you've come across that, if released, will endanger somebody.

---

Dont know, investegative journalism which can uncover criminal activity within powerfull positions is importent (Watergate).

But some stuff should defenatly not be published, especialy when peoples lives are put at risk or when the right to privacy is breached.

Misc:

---

Free speech zones
Yelling fire in a crowded area

---

?????
Well if one misinformes the public in a way which can lead to physical harm, that should be a criminal offence.

On a related topic, tax-funded speech:

---

-advertisements
-art grants
-professors
-organisations that receive funds
Speech made by individuals who work for the government, but made in their private time...

---

tax funded speech should not be abused to make political advertisment except when given for that purpose to political parties during election seasons.

So, where do you stand? Should we have free speech, or should it have limits? Any of the things in the list causing you to say "woah stue, hold on there"? Where do you draw a line?

I think I mentioned everything above.

[CliveStaples]

We're in complete agreement there. That is precisely where I draw my limit and my only limit. Even then, I would say that there are always mitigating circumstances. Crimes of passion, mental retardation, etc. Before anyone jumps on me, planning someone's murder can be a crime of passion. It can only take a few minutes, I imagine.

What about fraud? Slander? Falsely reporting a crime?

[Shell B]

I don't give a shit about those things, Clive. Every single one of those things is a crime because of a weakness in society, not the strength of the crime. Every single one of those crimes can be absolutely harmless if people bothered to investigate things further. Now, fraud becomes stealing, so free speech doesn't matter there. Stealing is not speaking. Slander is just stupid. Falsely reporting a crime can be considered an action as much as speaking as well. You have to actively go to the police station and bear false witness. It is no longer "free speech" there because you are under an expectation of honesty, by law. You're not just speaking to a group of people or yourself. Still, it is only an inconvenience if police bother to do their jobs properly. So, when you combine speech with another crime, it is no longer about free speech. And . . . free speech is too important a right to have it hindered in more ways than absolutely necessary.

[jonb]

For me, freedom of speech is directly related to how resilient the individual is expected to be. In a society where the individual is expected to react to the slightest remark, There can be no freedom of speech. For instance in the soviet union the individual was expected to follow the orders of the state without discrimination. In other words the individual was not expected to think just react. I think that there is no excuse for attacking somebody because someone said it would be a good idea, so I would say total free speech, but we do not live in a society where the individual is expected to think everything through for themselves. So we do not have total freedom.

[TaraJo]

Personally, I just want to see people held accountable for what they say. If Glen Beck gets some anti-government zealot all excited and he bombs government buildings, I think Beck need to be held accountable (and, yes, if leftist groups get their people all worked up, they should be held accountable as well).

[Darth]

Personally, I just want to see people held accountable for what they say. If Glen Beck gets some anti-government zealot all excited and he bombs government buildings, I think Beck need to be held accountable (and, yes, if leftist groups get their people all worked up, they should be held accountable as well).

Or we could just, you know, hold people responsible for their own actions while letting people speak their minds, there is always going to be a nutter. Not letting someone on fox rant and make diagrams about how harmful the government is isn't going to stop these nutters from picking a target.