View Poll Results: Are there any examples of free speech that you believe fall under restrictions?

Voters
26. You may not vote on this poll
  • Screaming fire and guns in a crowded auditorium/theater/church etc

    25 96.15%
  • Not acting on it yet making a film about the joys of children sexuality

    9 34.62%
  • Writing or speaking reasons why one might want to shoot or kill a candidate running for POTUS

    9 34.62%
  • Speaking inflammatory words to a culture where our troops and tax revenues are invested

    3 11.54%
  • Media produced inciting hatred while troops/citizens in that culturein order to incite violence

    5 19.23%
  • Protesting military funerals by taunting the fallen as our pay back for not being perfect

    5 19.23%
  • Making a film or writing a book about that denigrates women as not worthy except for sex services

    1 3.85%
  • Distributing a film in a country where our troops are stationed saying they represent Satan

    2 7.69%
  • Loudly bellowing sexual, political, and religious insults

    4 15.38%
  • Intentionally speaking of unproven deviant sexual inuendo of another to their community

    8 30.77%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 130

Thread: The First Amendment

  1. #21
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The First Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    The second one, if it actually had pornographic images of children, could be restricted.

    The third one could be construed as a threat.

    The last one could constitute slander.
    Yup, they would each have variants which would be illegal. Child pornography, obviously not supported. Saying "Lolicon is cool" supported. Inciting to violence, if you are telling people to pick up a gun and go shoot a specific person, likely not supported. In general claiming something like "politicians must be wary of how they act as it is the right and duty of the people to dispose of a government, violently if necessary, should the government no longer serve the freedom and liberties of the People", I'd say that should be protected. The last one, yes if you lie about people and that lie causes the individual some measurable harm such as loss of business/profits, etc. then that would be slander. If you just run your mouth about someone and it produces no effect, then it's protected.

    It's as I said, the first is really the only clear cut example of legitimate infringement. The others can, under certain circumstances, constitute legitimate infringement, but it's not innate to the hypothetical.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #22
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: The First Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yup, they would each have variants which would be illegal. Child pornography, obviously not supported. Saying "Lolicon is cool" supported. Inciting to violence, if you are telling people to pick up a gun and go shoot a specific person, likely not supported. In general claiming something like "politicians must be wary of how they act as it is the right and duty of the people to dispose of a government, violently if necessary, should the government no longer serve the freedom and liberties of the People", I'd say that should be protected. The last one, yes if you lie about people and that lie causes the individual some measurable harm such as loss of business/profits, etc. then that would be slander. If you just run your mouth about someone and it produces no effect, then it's protected.

    It's as I said, the first is really the only clear cut example of legitimate infringement. The others can, under certain circumstances, constitute legitimate infringement, but it's not innate to the hypothetical.
    Well, technically even the first one is protected under the circumstance that there actually are guns/fire in the theater.
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  3. #23
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The First Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    Well, technically even the first one is protected under the circumstance that there actually are guns/fire in the theater.
    Ahh yeah, I was hasty in reading that one and took it as the standard "yelling fire when there is no fire". Yes, you are correct and I should not have voted for even that one. It is legitimate if there is a legitimate threat (i.e. actually a gunner or fire)
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #24
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: The First Amendment

    The poll choices do not reflect my opinion, so I will give it here.

    Freedom of speech protects all speech. That is why there is no true sedition law in the US as there are in other countries. The laws that do exist are more in line with libel and defamation.

    All speech is protected. The potential effects of that speech are not.

    In other words, you can yell fire in a theater if you wish, but if a fire is not in fact present in the theater, and there is harm caused to people by them attempting to flee the theater, you can be held liable for the harm by your action.

    So your speech (yelling fire) is protected, but any results of your words are not.

    You can yell 'Kill Him' during a fight between two other people. But if one kills the other and it can be proven that your instruction was a causation of the death, you can be held liable for the death.

    If you stand on a corner in a big city and decry the actions of banks and the 1%, your speech is protected, but if you insight a riot by doing so, or block traffic with the crowd you attract, or insight mayhem by the breaking of windows in adjacent buildings, you can be held liable for the results of your speech.

    You can take pictures of anything you wish and publish them. But if a picture you take is of a child that has been placed into a sexual act, then you can be held liable for the act of placing the child into the sexual act. The picture is just the proof of the crime, and anyone that accepts the picture is as liable for the initial act as the person that took the picture by providing a market that aids and abets the original criminal act.

    There are a plethora of examples, so to summarize, your speech is protected no matter what you say, but you can be held liable for the results of that speech.

    We cannot restrict speech for any reason. There would be no end to the restriction if we do. What is offensive to one is acceptable to another. The definition of offensive is defined by those that have the power to do so, and would only end in the restriction of all speech that is not approved by the powerful. There are hundreds of examples of this occurring all throughout history.

    We in the US cannot take the chance by allowing speech to be restricted for any reason or by any means, no matter how apparently altruistic, even and especially for political correctness, because political correctness is just another name for tyranny of free speech.
    Last edited by Beaudreaux; 09-17-12 at 06:05 PM.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: The First Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    I don't think so. Rights are nut ultimate. You can possess a gun and bring it with you, but you cannot put it at someone's head. The right to bear arms doesn't mean you could do such a thing.
    Did the person in question fire?

  6. #26
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: The First Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Did the person in question fire?
    You think putting a gun to someone's head is allowed as long as they don't fire?
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  7. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: The First Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    The poll choices do not reflect my opinion, so I will give it here.

    Freedom of speech protects all speech. That is why there is no true sedition law in the US as there are in other countries. The laws that do exist are more in line with libel and defamation.

    All speech is protected. The potential effects of that speech are not.

    In other words, you can yell fire in a theater if you wish, but if a fire is not in fact present in the theater, and there is harm caused to people by them attempting to flee the theater, you can be held liable for the harm by your action.

    So your speech (yelling fire) is protected, but any results of your words are not.

    You can yell 'Kill Him' during a fight between two other people. But if one kills the other and it can be proven that your instruction was a causation of the death, you can be held liable for the death.

    If you stand on a corner in a big city and decry the actions of banks and the 1%, your speech is protected, but if you insight a riot by doing so, or block traffic with the crowd you attract, or insight mayhem by the breaking of windows in adjacent buildings, you can be held liable for the results of your speech.

    You can take pictures of anything you wish and publish them. But if a picture you take is of a child that has been placed into a sexual act, then you can be held liable for the act of placing the child into the sexual act. The picture is just the proof of the crime, and anyone that accepts the picture is as liable for the initial act as the person that took the picture by providing a market that aids and abets the original criminal act.

    There are a plethora of examples, so to summarize, your speech is protected no matter what you say, but you can be held liable for the results of that speech.

    We cannot restrict speech for any reason. There would be no end to the restriction if we do. What is offensive to one is acceptable to another. The definition of offensive is defined by those that have the power to do so, and would only end in the restriction of all speech that is not approved by the powerful. There are hundreds of examples of this occurring all throughout history.

    We in the US cannot take the chance by allowing speech to be restricted for any reason or by any means, no matter how apparently altruistic, even and especially for political correctness, because political correctness is just another name for tyranny of free speech.
    That isn't protecting speech at all. Many of those are barely suggestion. The argument is basically suggestion drives people to do crimes and as a result we are holding suggestion as a crime itself. While I know this is a Godwin moment, this is the exact argument made by Europeans today about restricting speech. That Hitlers speech is responsible for killing millions of peoples when in fact his speech didn't kill a soul. Actions kill people, not words. How much more obvious does it need to be?

  8. #28
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: The First Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by MadLib View Post
    You think putting a gun to someone's head is allowed as long as they don't fire?
    Was anyone harmed by the placing of the gun to the head?

  9. #29
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: The First Amendment

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Was anyone harmed by the placing of the gun to the head?
    Do they have to be?
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  10. #30
    Professor
    Bigfoot 88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    12-01-15 @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,027
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The First Amendment

    Protesting military funerals by taunting the fallen as our pay back for not being perfect

    I would say this would constitute harrassment, and also most funerals are on private property so property rights become involved.

    Loudly bellowing sexual, political, and religious insults

    Again, harrassment is not acceptable.

    Intentionally speaking of unproven deviant sexual inuendo of another to their community

    If the intent is to purpotrate fraud, this is not allowed.
    "I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money." -Thomas Sowell

Page 3 of 13 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •