• 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!

The First Amendment

Are there any examples of free speech that you believe fall under restrictions?


  • Total voters
    23
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
No Speech should be regulated
 
Some of these I didn't know what you were saying.

Others are very close to things I would vote for, but probably just because of poor wordchoice in the option, I didn't.

For example, I didn't vote for "Intentionally speaking of unproven deviant sexual inuendo of another to their community" but I would have voted for "Falsely or recklessly accusing someone of deviant sexual conduct, communicated to others in their community."
 
Henrin said:
Every example listed is protected under the first amendment

Lets review it again..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There you go.

This fails to account for the fact that "freedom" meant something different at the time those words were written. "Freedom" was not taken to mean the same as "Liberty," which is what you're suggesting it means. I've said it before: John Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" is the critical piece of writing on the subject--you'll find the relevant discussion in book 2 in the chapter on "power."

Roughly, liberty just meant the ability of a person to do or not do what was in their power to do. However, freedom had a much more restricted application; to sum up a long and intricate discussion, freedom meant the ability to respond appropriately to the call of duty. So, for instance, lying would not be covered. Perjury would not be covered. In fact, most of the options in the poll would not be covered.

That said, we've tended to interpret the word "freedom" as closer to "liberty," and I'm not necessarily against that. However, one shouldn't just ignore these issues. Definitions of words change over time.
 
You really don't see the harm that could be caused by this?

No, I can't. Who was harmed? I can see what "could" happen if a bullet is fired, but I sure can't if a bullet is not.
 
No, I can't. Who was harmed? I can see what "could" happen if a bullet is fired, but I sure can't if a bullet is not.

I think putting a gun to someones head could certainly cause mental harm.
 
The act of running people over is responsible for the deaths. The speech itself is incapable of being responsible for deaths of people. Its also NOT reasonable to panic in such a situation and everyone knows you are supposed to stay orderly in that situation. People that fail to do so and kill people are responsible for the deaths, no one else.

In short, their premise is faulty and they are blatantly violating what is actually written even by pondering it.

Henrin, your premise is flawed. Of course mere speech can kill. If I hire a hitter to take out my business rival, I did so by speaking.
 
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?

If this were true, there could be no conspiracy crimes, no libel or slander, no verbal contracts, no oaths, no perjury, and very possibly, no right against self-incrimination.

The law recognizes that certain kinds of speech should be judged as actions, Henrin.
 
Of course mere speech can kill. If I hire a hitter to take out my business rival, I did so by speaking.

That's why US hate speech legislation requires a real, probable, specific and direct provocation to violence. "I don't like Jews" doesn't count, just like you saying "I don't like him" is not the same as hiring a hitman.
 
That's why US hate speech legislation requires a real, probable, specific and direct provocation to violence. "I don't like Jews" doesn't count, just like you saying "I don't like him" is not the same as hiring a hitman.

There is no "US hate speech legislation", eco. There never could be, as a matter of constitutional law.

In a hate crime, or when a hate crime enhancement is sought alongside an underlying crime, the perpetrator's speech is of evidentiary value. If a white man assaults a black woman whilst screaming "I hate Niggers!", that's some evidence of his intent.

Many people -- including myself -- are uncomfortable even with hate crime laws. But no one in the US would succeed at criminalizing the white man screaming "I hate Niggers!" when he was otherwise behaving in a legal fashion.

 
There is no "US hate speech legislation", eco. There never could be, as a matter of constitutional law.

The "reason why fighting words are categorically excluded from the protection of the First Amendment is not that their content communicates any particular idea, but that their content embodies a particularly intolerable (and socially unnecessary) mode of expressing whatever idea the speaker wishes to convey."[60] Even in cases where speech encourages illegal violence, instances of incitement qualify as criminal only if the threat of violence is imminent.[61] This strict standard prevents prosecution of many cases of incitement, including prosecution of those advocating violent opposition to the government and those exhorting violence against racial, ethnic, or gender minorities.[62]

Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Many people -- including myself -- are uncomfortable even with hate crime laws. But no one in the US would succeed at criminalizing the white man screaming "I hate Niggers!" when he was otherwise behaving in a legal fashion.

To be prosecuted for a hate crime (in the US), one must have (1) no other motive and (2) possession of paraphrenalia or memebership in a hate group. Screaming "I hate black people" while beating someone senseless and stealing their wallet DOES NOT qualify. Even if the attacker does not steal the wallet, it DOES NOT qualify unless the attacker possesses paraphrenalia or membership to a hate group.

Most people have no idea the requirements for hate crime prosecution in the US.
 
Henrin, your premise is flawed. Of course mere speech can kill. If I hire a hitter to take out my business rival, I did so by speaking.

How is speech killing in your example? Is it not the person you hired for the killing that did the act?
 
I think putting a gun to someones head could certainly cause mental harm.

Mental harm? Is that a right violation of some sort?
 
How is speech killing in your example? Is it not the person you hired for the killing that did the act?

I'm providing the inciting incident. Of course, I'm also promising to pay, but that is also speech.
 
To be prosecuted for a hate crime (in the US), one must have (1) no other motive and (2) possession of paraphrenalia or memebership in a hate group. Screaming "I hate black people" while beating someone senseless and stealing their wallet DOES NOT qualify. Even if the attacker does not steal the wallet, it DOES NOT qualify unless the attacker possesses paraphrenalia or membership to a hate group.

Most people have no idea the requirements for hate crime prosecution in the US.

There are a variety of hate crime and hate crime enhancement laws, eco.

Hate crime laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Membership in a hate group would be some evidence of the killer's bias, but it isn't the only type of proof allowed. As you likely know, the feds just convicted a group of extremists here in Ohio for hate crimes against the Amish -- even though they were Amish as well.

 
There are a variety of hate crime and hate crime enhancement laws, eco.

Hate crime laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Membership in a hate group would be some evidence of the killer's bias, but it isn't the only type of proof allowed. As you likely know, the feds just convicted a group of extremists here in Ohio for hate crimes against the Amish -- even though they were Amish as well.



The race/gender/etc of the attacker and the race/gender/etc of the attacked bears no relevance to the charges unless the attacker had (1) no other motive and (2) paraphrenalia or membership to a hate group.

There is no protected race or gender. There have been hate crime convictions (of minorities) committed against white men. It does not vary. It's a federal charge. Thems the law.

It's basically an anti-terrorism law and REQUIRES organizational involvement.
 
The race/gender/etc of the attacker and the race/gender/etc of the attacked bears no relevance to the charges unless the attacker had (1) no other motive and (2) paraphrenalia or membership to a hate group.

There is no protected race or gender. There have been hate crime convictions (of minorities) committed against white men. It does not vary. It's a federal charge. Thems the law.

I disagree that, absent membership in a hate group, no conviction can be obtained under any hate crime or hate crime enhancement law in the US. I don't think you are correct as to the federal law, and you are ignoring all state laws of this kind.

 
I disagree that, absent membership in a hate group, no conviction can be obtained under any hate crime or hate crime enhancement law in the US. I don't think you are correct as to the federal law, and you are ignoring all state laws of this kind.


Membership or paraphrenalia. It's federal law and thus does not vary by state. The crime requires organizational involvement, and it requires that there is no other motive. It's basically anti-terrorism law.
 
Back
Top Bottom