Free Speech

I'm just glad my country doesn't base all it's politics on an antiquated piece of paper.

Cue flames!

 

In the first case, I fully support the right of the man to paint hate speech on his fence.
In the second case, it's a bit more nuanced (in my opinion) than an examination of the First Amendment. As a legal dilettante, I think that the possession of such material depicting illegal activities should not be illegal, but the sale thereof may be. It is valid to ban the sale of dogfighting footage by those who have organized the dogfights. On the other hand, if a person has infiltrated dogfighting rings and has collected graphic footage for the purpose of a documentary (likely with the intent of calling attention to the travesties), se should be able to profit from that. The line can be drawn between those who did and did not actually commit the crime: those who did shall not be allowed to profit from it, but those who were merely witnesses may do so. I think the connection to Free Speech is tenuous at best.


In general, I need exceptional reasons to advocate infringements upon Free Speech, but I would not declare them nonexistent. There are problems when something that is not primarily intended as "speech" is nonetheless protected under the clause.

 

I can't quantify free speech limitations, I often go by case by case events, and this is how it should be. Is it more complicated? Yes, but it's more thourough and accurate in the end.

With the first article, I really really don't like it. But I fail to come up with a valid reason to remove it other then it's offensive. Just because something is offensive does not give any rise or call to prohibit something. Therefore, this is protected by free speech. The message on his fence is toeing the line though, because it could be interpreted as a threat. That does cross the line of free speech if that is the case, it's illegal to give death threats. However, I don't think that is the case here. Unfortonately people are going to have to live with what he has done. I am sure if people in the town have an issue they can combat it in their own ways (so long as it's legal).

The second one, I am not so sure about, but I am ever so slightly inclined to agree saying that it is free speech to possess animal cruelty videos or photographs (actual production, not so much, that should be illegal). The reason I am inclined to agree with it being free speech, is I think my only adversion to this is coming from this tugging on my heart strings. Again, because of that fair judgement of this would be clouded to base it on something like that. This is simply images (in a very indirect way, it is some kind of artform), and I don't see much of a crime with it.

I think both of these are protected under free speech.

 

No limits at all to free speech, limit criminal behaviours.

 

Nope, in the both cases definitley not. Though I find the second one hard to qualify as speech.

 

Well once again, I am reminded about our responsibilities as well as our rights.

Too often, we fuss and focus on our rights, without considering how our rights etc. might negatively impact others. In both cases, someone or something is being victimized due to one's beliefs as their rights.

I think that ethically, many behaviors are agressive even if passively. However, as it is virtually impossible to go about in life without offending someone or something in whatever way, I'd understand how one might view each link objectively. Still, both bothered me to be honest.

The first one was just someone expressing their "right" to judge other's "rights" to their sexual prefference while using religious means to back it up. (both parties can be hurt by this)

Second link suggests someone wanting the right to tape dogfights, but for what purpose? Why do we need it in the first place? Doing a documentary on it would be good for spreading public awareness etc. but the only thing in my opinion once again that would be good in doing that, would be to show just how rampant this type of issue really is. To be honest though, why document footage? Awareness can be spread without footage, despite it being less of an emotional appeal. Unfortunately, some viewers of this style of documentary would actually become charged, curious and inspired in a negative way, and could be interested in contributing to the problem. For the second link, I see no good coming of it at all. The dogs have rights, but sadly cannot voice them.

 

The freedom of speech should be limited to the extent that:

1. One individual's freedom does not impinge upon the freedom of any other individual or community significantly.

2. The good of one individual does not impinge upon the good of any other individual or community significantly.

For example, hate speech, intolerance, etc. make it more difficult for vilified individuals to function in a community. Such an imposed disadvantage should be prevented.

 

I have been watching a lot of compelling youtube videos lately that I stumble upon on accident by a man who is an ex Jehovah's Witness. In these videos he tends to reflect on his past memories that he had about the watchtower and them being an overall cult.

The most interesting part of this individual's videos would have to be the way that, despite having such bad experiences with brainwashing and the ill-uses of freedom of speech, he defends it so vigorously.

The way that this man has explained freedom in speech has touched me in a profound way that I don't expect it to touch anyone else, but just in case it might, I will share.

[youtube] <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aCK8JJ6fJ4Q&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aCK8JJ6fJ4Q&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always"
allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object> [/youtube]

 

The first one bothers me a little, especially since it's so close to a school. The other problem is that it could be interpreted as a threat, as others had said. I think they should make him change it to "To be Gay = Sin," rather than death. The Bible already says, "The wages of sin is death," so the message would still get across to anyone it mattered to, anyway, without being directly threatening.

The second one sounds like a ridiculous restriction. It's debatable whether animal cruelty should be a crime or not, much less depictions of it.

 

freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to be a jerk. if you're using it to justify saying cruel and offensive things to other people, you're crossing the line. the concept of freedom of speech is intended to allow people with alternative opinions the opportunity to voice them without the threat of punishment. this doesn't equate to having your opinions appreciated or valued, and it certainly doesn't classify everything you say as being worthy of being said. it's a pretty subjective judgment though~ and as such it's probably best left to the individual to discern whether something should be said or not.

 

I think free speech was meant to speak out against the government. I do not think you can just say anything about anyone. There has to be a code of decency. Without one you can say anything without backing it up. You can destroy the world with just words. Adolf Hitler proved that one mans words can change the world. Words are very powerful tools and these days our vocabulary is way less than the founding fathers used. I wish I could speak as they did.

 

Actually, that's exactly what freedom of speech gives. Case in point.

 

No, people give themselves that right, and other people tolerate it. Freedom of speech (in the legal sense of the phrase) gives you no such right.

 

I think that if you limit free speech then you no longer have free speech.

I also think that the speech rights we have in America are not named correctly. IDK what it should be named alternatively though.

 

Actually they prove why there should be a limitation on things said without proof. They are just spreading hate propaganda...

 

But it does prohibit the government from restricting your speech on the grounds that you are saying jerky things.

 

true, and to the extent that it does it 'encourages' jerky behavior. but that's not the same as giving you the RIGHT to be a jerk - that is incidental.

 

You said you were speaking in the legal sense. Legally speaking, it is a right. That's why it is listed first in the Bill of Rights. I don't understand what kind of distinction you're trying to make here.

 

it coincides with an increased prevalence of jerks but the intent of the law is not to do that, that's the distinction i was making. the freedom is not in being able to say things that will hurt others, it's in being able to say things that won't lead to YOU being hurt, which happens to often coincide with others being hurt. i hope that makes sense?