• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which of these is free speech, and which is not? Why?

Viking11

Viking11

Banned
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
174
Reaction score
60
Location
New Hampshire
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
1. Data shows X (group of people) commit more crime.
2. I dislike living around X.
3. X are worthless scum.
4. All X should be killed.
5. Go out and kill X.
 
Viking11 said:
1. Data shows X (group of people) commit more crime.
2. I dislike living around X.
3. X are worthless scum.
Click to expand...

Free speech for obvious reasons. Not infringement of the rights of others.

Viking11 said:
4. All X should be killed.
5. Go out and kill X.
Click to expand...

Not free speech, again for obvious reasons. The infringement of the rights of others.
 
Viking11 said:
1. Data shows X (group of people) commit more crime.
2. I dislike living around X.
3. X are worthless scum.
4. All X should be killed.
5. Go out and kill X.
Click to expand...

All should be free speech in a mature and well educated society. (5.) and to a lesser (4.) have a certain danger in them. I would not want them forbidden under normal circumstances, though, unless the situation were much more strained or they were attached to a bounty or fee.
 
5. Is the only one that is illegal in my eyes... if it's in reference to another U.S. Citizen

#4 is free speech in my opinion... you aren't directly threatening, only voicing you're opinion on what "should" happen.
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
Free speech for obvious reasons. Not infringement of the rights of others.



Not free speech, again for obvious reasons. The infringement of the rights of others.
Click to expand...

They are words not actions nor guaranteed of such.
 
1, 2, 3 should be protected by free speech.
3, 4 should not because it advocates taking the right to life, which includes taking someone's speech (it takes all rights), and so its unethical.

If you want to be free to shout #3/4, but someone takes the action you claim to want, you can't shout #3/4. It would make no sense.

The other ones may offend you, but they largely do not infringe on your rights. There is no right to "not be offended", despite what SJW claim to want, in their ignorance.

Bullying minors, creeps into #2 and #3, but this is in the context of a public school where kids are legally forced to go, and they cannot easily just ignore/get away. These circumstances make it so that we treat students more like we require employees to be treated. With basic courtesy, because they have to go to school...just as people have to work (in large part).
 
Viking11 said:
1. Data shows X (group of people) commit more crime.
2. I dislike living around X.
3. X are worthless scum.
4. All X should be killed.
5. Go out and kill X.
Click to expand...

Wrong question. There is no such thing as "free speech".

Speech is either criminal or not. In civil litigation, it is defamatory or not.

All of them are non-criminal speech.

Item 5 would be only if it rose to the level of conspiracy to commit a felony, such as "kill my wife and here is the grand you asked for".
 
Last edited:
Viking11 said:
1. Data shows X (group of people) commit more crime.
2. I dislike living around X.
3. X are worthless scum.
4. All X should be killed.
5. Go out and kill X.
Click to expand...

1-3 are unambiguously free speech. #4 may be in a gray territory, I don't know. #5 is not protected under free speech.
 
Viking11 said:
1. Data shows X (group of people) commit more crime.
2. I dislike living around X.
3. X are worthless scum.
4. All X should be killed.
5. Go out and kill X.
Click to expand...

1-4 are free speech.
Cant threaten to kill anybody though.
 
legalimmigrant said:
Wrong question. There is no such thing as "free speech".

Speech is either criminal or not. In civil litigation, it is defamatory or not.

All of them are non-criminal speech.

Item 5 would be only if it rose to the level of conspiracy to commit a felony, such as "kill my wife and here is the grand you asked for".
Click to expand...

4 is directly inciting violence...
 
Bodhisattva said:
4 is directly inciting violence...
Click to expand...

I don't agree. It's saying what "should" happen, not what's going to happen. If someone says something like that, I hope they get some real social ramifications... but not legal ones.
 
Bodhisattva said:
4 is directly inciting violence...
Click to expand...

No, it is not. It's an expression of desire and is not even close to a prosecutable felony.

If it were, many black thugs would be serving now for "kill pigs", or "burn, baby, burn".

Or "kill Trump" all over the social media.
 
celticwar17 said:
I don't agree. It's saying what "should" happen, not what's going to happen. If someone says something like that, I hope they get some real social ramifications... but not legal ones.
Click to expand...

My apologies. I meant #5.
 
legalimmigrant said:
No, it is not. It's an expression of desire and is not even close to a prosecutable felony.

If it were, many black thugs would be serving now for "kill pigs", or "burn, baby, burn".

Or "kill Trump" all over the social media.
Click to expand...

I meant #5. My bad.
 
Viking11 said:
1. Data shows X (group of people) commit more crime.
2. I dislike living around X.
3. X are worthless scum.
Click to expand...

All are free speech

4. All X should be killed.
Click to expand...

Questionable based on the context of how/when its being said.

5. Go out and kill X.
Click to expand...

Pretty much in most circumstances no, not free speech.
 
Viking11 said:
1. Data shows X (group of people) commit more crime.
2. I dislike living around X.
3. X are worthless scum.
4. All X should be killed.
5. Go out and kill X.
Click to expand...

It depends. All of them are free speech unless a reasonable person could conclude that incitement to violence was intended and likely to actually produce imminent violence.

#5 said in an unserious way or to people unlikely to act then on the incitement would still be free speech.

So SCOTUS has ruled.
 
Viking11 said:
1. Data shows X (group of people) commit more crime.
2. I dislike living around X.
3. X are worthless scum.
4. All X should be killed.
5. Go out and kill X.
Click to expand...
4. and 5. are not covered if they are being said to get others to kill other people, there are limits to anything, it is governed by common sense.
 
LowDown said:
It depends. All of them are free speech unless a reasonable person could conclude that incitement to violence was intended and likely to actually produce imminent violence.

#5 said in an unserious way or to people unlikely to act then on the incitement would still be free speech.

So SCOTUS has ruled.
Click to expand...

They also rulled that there are limits as you mentioned, someone acts upon their speech and they are guilty of the crime, no different than yelling fire in a crowed theater and people are hurt or killed or a mob boss telling his men that so and so needs to be killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom