Thread: Freedom of Speech

Originally Posted by majurey

-- you can spout racist poison at a demonstration in London, for example, but you'll get arrested for it. That kind of compromises the value of 'freedom' as jockeys describes, to me anyway.

You can spout racist poison at a demonstration in American, for example, but the cops aren't allowed to arrest you for it, because it's not illegal.

So, pretty free here. True freedom of speech, the freedom to be a dick, and liberty in general is pretty important to us bloody colonials.

Originally Posted by jockeys

You can spout racist poison at a demonstration in American, for example, but the cops aren't allowed to arrest you for it, because it's not illegal.

So, pretty free here. True freedom of speech, the freedom to be a dick, and liberty in general is pretty important to us bloody colonials.

During halloween, a man got a visit from the secret service, making him take down the McCain and Palin effigies he had decorated his house with.
Yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre is not allowed either.
Publicly expressing that you want certain bad things to happen will get you a visit from the secret service, FBI, or DHS, depending on what it is you said. And with some bad luck, you are in for a world of grief.

So you are not free at all. You are just un-free in different ways than us.

Originally Posted by Bruno

you are not free at all

The only restrictions we have on freedom are that we can't restrict the protected rights of others. Our Constitution doesn't give or take away rights, it protects rights by keeping you from trying to take mine

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

The only restrictions we have on freedom are that we can't restrict the protected rights of others. Our Constitution doesn't give or take away rights, it protects rights by keeping you from trying to take mine

But the examples I brought up in my previous post are real.

Assuming your government has the legal foundation to act like that, you do not have absolute free speech.
And if they don't have that foundation but you let them act like that, then your freedom is just an illusion, waved in front of your eyes to keep you content.

In both cases, your absolute freedom of speech does not exist.

Originally Posted by Bruno

In both cases, your absolute freedom of speech does not exist.

I don't know of anyone claiming an ABSOLUTE freedom of speech. (Speech meant to incite violence, shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, etc...these are disallowed.)

There is no absolute LEGAL freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by Bruno

But the examples I brought up in my previous post are real.

You're right, I'm not free to violate someone else's freedom. My freedom of speech is protected in that nobody else has the freedom to take it from me. Just because I am not free to take your freedom doesn't mean my freedom is an illusion or that I am "not free at all"!

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I don't know of anyone claiming an ABSOLUTE freedom of speech. (Speech meant to incite violence, shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, etc...these are disallowed.)

There is no absolute LEGAL freedom of speech.

No joke, I'm trying to figure out how not having absolute freedom (what does that mean? anarchy?) is equivalent to not being free at all

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

You're right, I'm not free to violate someone else's freedom. My freedom of speech is protected in that nobody else has the freedom to take it from me. Just because I am not free to take your freedom doesn't mean my freedom is an illusion or that I am "not free at all"!

But how is putting up effigies of Palin and McCain taking away someone's freedom?
Or saying certain objectionable things?

And yet you are not allowed to do so. So the fact you are not allowed to do so has nothing to do with someone else's freedom (this is getting confusing...)

You are not allowed to do so because the law (in the person of the judicial system / government) restricts you.

Btw my 'not at all' was meant in the context of absolute (true) freedom of speech which was mentioned by jockeys, and not in the sense of 'completely none'. Perhaps not the best choice of words...

I am guessing the effigies were (cold be?) taken as a threat of or incitment to violence angainst candidates for office. If this is the case...I could see it being restricted. not saying I agree with it, though.
Even if it is completely innapropriate... Say the person had argued, or refused. Was detained, arrested and charged with some crime. If he was then exonerated by the courts, by upholding that freedom...would he then "have" that freeedom? Even if the system is abused occasionaly, and the rules are broken by overzealous law enforcement, that does not make the freedoms non-existant.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Btw my 'not at all' was meant in the context of absolute (true) freedom of speech which was mentioned by jockeys, and not in the sense of 'completely none'

Ah, gotcha I read it a bit differently

Concerning the effigies, got a link? I found this one Secret Service Says It's OK to Hang Sarah Palin - LAist: Los Angeles News, Food, Arts & Events

Secret Service Says It's OK to Hang Sarah Palin

I'm not sure how absolute that is, but that's what was reported anyway

Originally Posted by Bruno

Btw my 'not at all' was meant in the context of absolute (true) freedom of speech which was mentioned by jockeys, and not in the sense of 'completely none'. Perhaps not the best choice of words...

never said it was absolute, I just said "pretty free here". Which we are. In some states you are a lot less free than in others it seems, but so far mine has been good about respecting personal liberty, including being a racist hate-filled bastard if I want. Or inciting hate. (an emotion)

It's not until I call for violence that I have crossed the line.

Also, law enforecement sometimes does unConstitutional things to people. Sometimes they are punished, sometimes they get away with it. But just because people occasionally get away with breaking the law doesn't mean the law isn't still there. I suspect what was done that halloween night was unConstitutional and should have been thrown out on appeal, but not everyone has the moral courage to stand up to the authorities when they overstep their bounds and threaten liberty.