What is free speech?

[FreeStorm84]

The government is also responsible to keep people safe.

Safe from what is the question. Speech in and of itself cannot cause harm or violate rights.

 

[Loulit01]

Safe from what is the question. Speech in and of itself cannot cause harm or violate rights.

That's ridiculous. Conspiracy charges are based on speech.

 

[FreeStorm84]

That's ridiculous. Conspiracy charges are based on speech.

No. Conspiracy charges are based on what you are conspiring to do. Can you be charged with conspiracy for secretly planning a birthday party?

 

[prometeus]

No. Conspiracy charges are based on what you are conspiring to do. Can you be charged with conspiracy for secretly planning a birthday party?

Yes it is about what is being conspired, but, it is done bu communication, speech, even if that is telepathy.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

According to the US Supreme Court, free speech is money. LOL.

That just smacks of FrReDuMbZ$™!! Aint nuttin' better than FrEeDuMbZ$™!

 

[prometeus]

According to the US Supreme Court, free speech is money. LOL.

That just smacks of FrReDuMbZ$™!! Aint nuttin' better than FrEeDuMbZ$™!

As so many remarked already, it seems that even wrong and unpleasant speech is free.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

it seems that even wrong and unpleasant speech is free.

Well yeah, money sure isnt "free" though. So how money is "free speech" is beyond me I'm afraid.

But its great for FrEeDuMbZ$™.

 

[Loulit01]

No. Conspiracy charges are based on what you are conspiring to do. Can you be charged with conspiracy for secretly planning a birthday party?

I see you're not up to the level of this discussion. Have a nice day.

 

[prometeus]

Well yeah, money sure isnt "free" though. So how money is "free speech" is beyond me I'm afraid.

But its great for FrEeDuMbZ$™.

In regards to this particular "free speech" no matter how much I abhor the corruption money brings, I can not agree on limiting it. Instead I propose balancing it.
First, elections should be run on public funds. Then whenever, in any election, private money is spent under the guise of free speech, to benefit one side the other side should get public funds to match. Then the money remains free speech, but it loses its unfair advantage.

 

[NotreDame]

Are purposeful lies free speech? How about if they cause harm?

Yes, purposeful lies are free speech under 1st Am. Whether the speech is free speech where “harm” also exists is contingent upon the “harm” and what is or isn’t “harm.”

 

[NotreDame]

Yes it does, doesn't it.

How about incitement to violence?

There is a difference between dishonest and purposeful lie. Why should that be protected? Lying about Covid vaccines cost lives. Does that not matter?

No really. Shouting fire in an theater is a lie and not protected.

Nope. “Falsely” yelling fire in a crowded theater is a “lie” and maybe “not protected.” The line from the case you refer to is Schenk v U.S. and the phrase was mere Dicta and an example for illustration purposes for the idea of limits to free speech and laying the foundation to also declare the speech written upon the pamphlets and the specific and narrow facts of their distribution presented a similar possibility of “harm” Congress could prohibit by forbidding the speech.

Falsely yelling fire in a theater is not illegal based upon what Schenk v US stated about the phrase.

The case and its logic eventually evolved and formally developed into what is today widely known as the Incitement Test.

Eloquently stated here: “However, this idea was introduced as an analogy, meant to illustrate that, as Trevor Timm wrote in The Atlantic in 2012, "the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice's ancillary opinion that doesn't directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority." The phrase, though an oft-repeated axiom in debates about the First Amendment, is simply not the law of the land now, nor has it ever been—something made all the more apparent when Schenk v. United States was largely overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio.”

Yes, you can yell 'fire' in a crowded theater

SCOTUS Justice Alito recently repeated the common misconception that "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" is unprotected speech.

reason.com

 

[NotreDame]

There is a difference between dishonest and purposeful lie. Why should that be protected? Lying about Covid vaccines cost lives. Does that not matter?

That’s rather tenuous as a cause of death. Simply, the COVID vaccine isn’t a guarantee from fatality related to or caused by COVID. Which is to say, someone believing the “lie” may and could fatally contract the disease while fully vacc’d in which the outcome is the same.

 

[Super Chief]

Are purposeful lies free speech? How about if they cause harm?

Since the courts have consistently ruled that police officers/detectives are free to lie in the course of their duties, then I would say that yes, purposeful lies are also free speech.

To the question of causing harm. I would say they would only be illegal if by harm it would be certain bodily harm, or threat to one's life.

 

[Jacksprat]

Are purposeful lies free speech? How about if they cause harm?

Everyone is free to speak. Only government can censor. And they do not.

 

[mrjurrs]

Are purposeful lies free speech? How about if they cause harm?

Too little context. Lies, in most cases, are free speech.

 

[mrjurrs]

If it isn't calling for the violent overthrow of the Government, inciting riot or panic ( yelling fire in a theatre) or violence against anyone or any group....its free speech.

Not true.
Child pornography for example.

 

[mrjurrs]

Everyone is free to speak. Only government can censor. And they do not.

Not true. For example, your employer can censor you.

 

[mrjurrs]

Since the courts have consistently ruled that police officers/detectives are free to lie in the course of their duties, then I would say that yes, purposeful lies are also free speech.

To the question of causing harm. I would say they would only be illegal if by harm it would be certain bodily harm, or threat to one's life.

Financial harm, mental harm...if you've been 'injured' by speech, there are remedies in most cases.

 

[Bum]

Not true.
Child pornography for example.

You think child pornography isn't violence against children?

 

[mrjurrs]

You think child pornography isn't violence against children?

I don't think it incites violence against children, which is how the poster defined it. Under your definition, how come pornography is still protected speech?

 

[Jacksprat]

Not true. For example, your employer can censor you.

I am using "censor" in the legal sense.

 

[Bum]

I don't think it incites violence against children, which is how the poster defined it. Under your definition, how come pornography is still protected speech?

I consider child pornography as violence against children....how you decide to define it is your business.

What consenting adults do with each other is none of my biz.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Fox is still on the air?

Question answered.

And so is CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC?
So there is that...

 

[Noodlegawd]

I am assuming you mean are are they free speech protected by the First Amendment. Yes, lies are protected speech.

Not always. Defamation is not free.

 

[Lisa]

When you can guarantee that politicians will never lie, get back to us.

Because Trump never lied?

Trump told 30,000 untruths during presidency, say analysts

Former president made almost 21 untrue statements a day while in office, analysis suggests

www.independent.co.uk

PolitiFact | Ted Cruz

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

PolitiFact | Ron DeSantis

PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.

www.politifact.com

Sporkfoot's lies,

PolitiFact - What Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has said about election fraud, QAnon and other conspiracy theories

One of the newest members of Congress is under intense scrutiny from her own party following her promotion of conspiracy

www.politifact.com