• 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

Turin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
1,479
Reaction score
813
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am going to throw out examples of what some people might view as free speech and ask you if you think they fall under the protection of our first Amendment.

Here is one reference for the First Amendment ... please add others to the thread if you think they might be helpful.

First Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute
 
I am going to throw out examples of what some people might view as free speech and ask you if you think they fall under the protection of our first Amendment.

Here is one reference for the First Amendment ... please add others to the thread if you think they might be helpful.

First Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute

Free speech? Any objections to the list in the poll not being protected by the First Amendment?


The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place

First Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute
.
 
Only the first and the last. The second when children are exploited, but you didn't specify that.

The first because people's immediate and rational reactions can cause unwarranted danger.

The lst because it is libelous, resulting in harm.
 
Screaming fire and guns in a crowded auditorium/theater/church etc

This is the only one I voted for.

The last one seems to be just typical gossip. We're not going to go around arresting people for that. I think slander/libel is a step further than that, like saying "Obama was arrested for child abuse" or something, when knowing it is false.
 
Pat Condell on Islam, America, First Amendment.

October 22, 2009

 
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.
 
By question #:
1. The direct response to this action often results in injury and is meant specifically to cause injury
2. I don't see how such a film would be possible without breaking some other laws that aren't first amendment related
5. The exact same principal as #1. If one is intentionally creating a situation where someone will get hurt or killed, than that person is as responsible for any harms as the people who riot, loot, or whatever. If they cause a riot on accident, than they are not responsible, but just stupid.

I don't think the international situation we are dealing with now is #5 though.
 
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.

Even shouting "Fire" in a theater is protected under the First Amendment?

Rights only go so far as they don't infringe on other people's rights. Shouting "fire" in a theater abridges others of their right to life and limb. That example is actually the definition used by SCOTUS to show that free speech is not infinite.
 
Loudly bellowing sexual, political, and religious insults

This here - why did you group sex, politics and religion together?
 
Even shouting "Fire" in a theater is protected under the First Amendment?


Rights only go so far as they don't infringe on other people's rights. Shouting "fire" in a theater abridges others of their right to life and limb. That example is actually the definition used by SCOTUS to show that free speech is not infinite.

Yes, even shouting fire in a theater is protected under the first amendment. Can you not read what it says?

Anyway, speech in your example is not the act that is responsible for deaths. That would be the idiots that can't handle being orderly. Speech can not kill, sorry.
 
This here - why did you group sex, politics and religion together?

Good question Aunt Spiker ... I was actually being intentionally vague and referencing cases that were impacted by SCOTUS rulings on limitations to the First Amendment.

I was hoping to open an interesting discussion on the first Amendment and now I have invitation to kayak ... so off I go! I might come back to this thread later or let it die. We have a good discussion on another thread and I was going to bring in SCOTUS rulings on the First Amendment into the discussion. Maybe later tonight ...

Yes, even shouting fire in a theater is protected under the first amendment. Can you not read what it says?

Anyway, speech in your example is not the act that is responsible for deaths. That would be the idiots that can't handle being orderly. Speech can not kill, sorry.


Well not exactly. Although ... I agree with you regarding on orderly protests ... if they wanted to peacefully protest against crazy ass hater Jones ... it might gain some respect and yet now they have committed far more despicable actions.

For the record ... here is my post quoted below from another thread regarding Crazy Ass Jones v. Crazy Ass Fundamnetalists.


Originally posted by Dion:


This is how I really feel on this case.

Jones is despicable and should be mocked endlessly.

There are consequences to free speech .... however, excepting certain limited circumstances that are defined as "not protected speech", there is nothing the government can or should do in this case.

Additionally, this situation is not even remotely analogous to "shouting fire". ( I had started another thread with some wild examples on that SCOTUS ruling) . If you applied that standard (SCOTUS) to this situation, every little thing that we believe, or write, or speak that goes against someone's religion could be considered an incitement to violence.

People are responsible for the actions that they take. If the actions involve killing people because they were offended well then they can go **** themselves.
 
Last edited:
Good question Aunt Spiker ... I was actually being intentionally vague and referencing cases that were impacted by SCOTUS rulings on limitations to the First Amendment.

I was hoping to open an interesting discussion on the first Amendment and now I have invitation to kayak ... so off I go! I might come back to this thread later or let it die. We have a good discussion on another thread and I was going to bring in SCOTUS rulings on the First Amendment into the discussion. Maybe later tonight ...

Well - sexual insults: like calling someone a **** . . . or a dick. Yes - that's protected. Unless you're thinking of something else.

Politics - protected.

Religion - protected.

But I don't think taht - to others - all should be considered the 'same thing' - one might be ok but the other not. Like religion VS sexual . . . or political vs religion.
 
I'd protect all but the first, which is definitely NOT protected (looks like a few on the first page were arguing if it was or not...it's not).

The third one is protected too, until they win. It is a federal crime (known as sedition) to directly threaten the POTUS, even if done in jest.

So you don't mind if I tell DP about our night in my back seat in an Arby's parking lot, right Dion?
 
Yes, even shouting fire in a theater is protected under the first amendment. Can you not read what it says?

Anyway, speech in your example is not the act that is responsible for deaths. That would be the idiots that can't handle being orderly. Speech can not kill, sorry.

Not according to SCOTUS, so no. That is actually the exact example they use when restricting other forms of free speech.

The speech is responsible for deaths, since any reasonable person would panic if they thought there was a fire in the theater.
 
Not according to SCOTUS, so no. That is actually the exact example they use when restricting other forms of free speech.

The speech is responsible for deaths, since any reasonable person would panic if they thought there was a fire in the theater.

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.
 
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.

I guess generations of SCOTUS decisions are invalid, then :rofl
 
I am going to throw out examples of what some people might view as free speech and ask you if you think they fall under the protection of our first Amendment.

Here is one reference for the First Amendment ... please add others to the thread if you think they might be helpful.

First Amendment | LII / Legal Information Institute

The first one is the only clear cut case where we can infringe upon freedom of speech. All the others under certain circumstances are OK, and thus it is not innate to that exercise specifically. Though under each, it could be taken to extremes where perhaps infringement is warranted.
 
The first one is the only clear cut case where we can infringe upon freedom of speech. All the others under certain circumstances are OK, and thus it is not innate to that exercise specifically. Though under each, it could be taken to extremes where perhaps infringement is warranted.

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.
 
That is what I'm getting at. :rofl

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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:
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?
 
Back
Top Bottom