xtreemmar1ne

Here's something I've been thinking about for a little while....actually I'm doing a persuasive speech on it for school. What do ya'll think about free speech and censorship? Does free speech under the 1st Amendment mean that a person ought to be allowed to express himself in any manner he sees fit? On the other hand, how do you determine what to censor and what to allow? What are your thoughts?

Peetster

Given that you have done some preparation for your persuasive speech, why don't you make a few points and persuade us?

xtreemmar1ne

Actually I'm in the process of putting together a persuasive speech, but I'd be glad to throw a few ideas out there. It's my opinion that any form of speech should be allowed, as long as it does not violate law. This doesn't mean that all forms of free speech (i.e. pornography, extreme violence, etc.) should be available to all age groups, but they should be tolerated. To quote John Stuart Mill, "If mankind minus one were of one opinion, then mankind is no more justified in silencing the one than the one - if he had the power - would be justified in silencing mankind." In my opinion, the final result in allowing free speech is to allow people to become morally, politically, and socially mature citizens. No one can make an informed decision on any topic until they have heard all sides of the matter. If freedom of speech is not allowed, this will never happen.

lordjeebus

By this standard, speech could be limited without restriction through legislation. I doubt this is what you meant to say. Perhaps "as long as it does not violate the rights of another" is more in line with your Mill quote.

I am very nervous when it comes to restricting personal expression. I understand that speech can be used to cause harm -- such as through libel -- and I think the state is justifying in restricting harmful falsehoods. Similarly, threats can have a negative coercive influence, and I think that they could also be limited by a certain extent. Lies for the purpose of defrauding others are another form of speech that intrudes on others' rights and are not acceptable.

Besides that, I believe banning hate-speech or seditious comments is unjustified. I believe people have a basic right to share their perspective, no matter how offensive it may be to other people or to the government. The state has no right to limit ideological discourse, even that which is outside societal or cultural norms.

Mael

i'm gonna agree with lordjeebus (love the name) and add that anything that could cause physical harm/panic should be(and in most cases is) illegal. what i mean is, if you were to be in a crowded movie theater and yell "fire" or "there's a bomb under my seat" causing panic in the audience and a stampede for the door in which people could be injured, that should not be (is not?) protected under free speech.

but otherwise, ideological messages, political/religous messages, all of that stuff needs to be and remain protected. someone, can't remember who, said something like "i may not agree with what you say, but i'll fight to the death to protect your right to say it."

xtreemmar1ne

I agree with you here up to a certain point. I would say that the state is justified in restricting harmful falsehoods in political advertising and in news(whether online, in print, or visual.) However is the state is justified in restricting any and all harmful falsehoods?

Isn't hate speech essentially nothing but harmful falsehoods?

Also, what rights are you referring to when you said "as long as it does not violate the rights of another"?

Peetster

Without getting into a "Rights and Responsabilities" discussion for now, what about the following?

A reporter for a major "whistleblower" type newspaper is leaked documents of a sensitive military nature. Reporting this information could jeopardize national security. Does the reporter have a responsability to report / not report the story? Is it the reporter's place to decide the sensitivity of the information, or its impact on national security?

What if the information is instead the political strategy of a major party? Does it matter? Does the source (stolen or leaked) matter?

Conclamo Ludus

The problem is that it isn't easy to define harmful falsehoods. What if a particular administration feels that it's criticism is a harmful falsehood? What if they feel that something like a Bush = Hitler poster is a harmful flasehood, or hate-speech? What if they feel that it is endangering to his life, or to national security?

Banning hate-speech as harmful falsehoods could open up a nasty can of worms. Who decides what is hateful and what is justified? Who decides what is just ignorance and what is a harmful falsehood?

__________________
Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul
I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold.
-Son House, Death Letter Blues

nirol

Banning "hate speech" presupposes that the state can enter the mind of the speaker and determine the malice intended, not a good idea.

Free Speech is only allowed in a political manner, commercial speech is subject to many restrictions. You cant state on your can of asparagus that it will make the user's penis longer, or your hair grow back.

Freedom of Speech guarantees speech, not the right to be heard. Unpleasant or wrong speech is best combatted by more speech. The truth should (but not always) prevail.

__________________
'Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
Samuel Johnson (1709 - 1784)

captain

The problem with banning "hate speech" is that who gets to define "hate speech"?

Remember people have a right to be obnoxious ass holes, bigots,racists etc. People don't have a right to use those views to discriminate.

Where would it stop?


Where would it stop?

__________________
captain

OFKU0

I think your speech should also point out the inconsistencies regarding free speech and cencorship depending on whom the speakers are and the context in which they are addressing or rebutting a topic.

For instance in the media, people of a culture can freely speak their opinions and if those opinions are seen as racist or hateful,they are often chastised and scorned for their ignorances.

However when rebutted by those who feel targeted by this free speech,they inturn levy the same racist sentiments to a mostly silent audience.

In other words,especially when two cultures have a history of discontent, the rhetoric spewed by both sides is practically a mirror image, yet one culture endures as something better or different although both are equally responsibly in their words of choice.

Knowing that free speech and cencorship depends on set political and social agendas regarding those who will triumph from it, they to will also be the people who scream the loudest when it works against them. Something like do as I say,not as I do.

And this should never be viewed as political correctness. Political correctness has very little to do in the power struggle over the war of words especially when the media is involved. Picking sides through bogus, biased, subjectivities is more the norm.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

xtreemmar1ne

That's definitely true OFKUO. I'm more focusing in my speech on the fact that if absolute free speech were allowed per the ALA's(American Library Association) Intellectual Freedom Manualthen people would be allowed to express their ideas in whatever way they see appropriate. If the first amendment is interpreted this way it would give free reign to every pedophile and serial killer out there to do whatever they see fit. On the other hand, just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it morally or socially acceptable to do so. This is where the problems start. Who decides what is morally or socially acceptable........the politicians, the local courts, the Supreme Court?

Everyone agrees that there is some material that is obscene and shouldn't be allowed, but what about material that offends even though it is not obscene.....for example "hate speech"? We may be offended certain ideas, but it's only by looking at all sides of an issue that you can truly understand it. By reading opposing view points and hearing opposing ideas we can better examine and affirm our own beliefs and views.

OFKU0

You're totally correct in your assertions and the question really is about everyones interpretation of morality. What makes the issue of morality so dicey in regards to free speech and censorship is the abundant progression of change that affects us all.

We grow, we change. We change ideals and opinions and there in society changes in every facet of life. Look back 10,20 30 years and see how public opinion has changed across the board.

As for your 'hate speech' analysis , I agree. Unfortunately when a culture is targeted by an individual or group, there is also the opportunity to exploit and use their victimhood as a stepping stone to a level of power, or can profit through again, in rebuttal form by slandering the said individual or group.

So what is the difference when one group is libel of racism through free speech while the other exemplyfies the example to gain support and relays the same ignorances? We can't censor the victim cuz that would look like piling on. If we censor or admonish the response, are we still guilty of blowing off the victim?

I'm not advocating people or groups should have rights to promote hate speech but by the same token people should have the right to factually say what they believe,be it right or wrong. (accordingly) But that is the root of the problem of free speech. Someone will always feel that they or their ideals are being attacked.

I think there are intelligent, observant forums of debate where people can express themselves. The question is how much rhetoric is feasible to sustain a dialogue with out sinking to the level of reciprocal ignorance.

As for censorship. It is a personal quandry as to the level something should be censored. Who decides? Those who have the most to gain on either side of the fence.

__________________
" In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

xtreemmar1ne

Prime example of this here in South Carolina.....the Confederate flag issue. You have groups on both sides of the issue who attempt to solve this through legal means, while at the same time groups such as the KKK and the NAACP muddy the waters with their rhetoric.

xtreemmar1ne

Here's an article I found that is somewhat along those lines.

Witness photos may draw charges against newspaper, TV station.

Seems to me that in this case the judge is well within his rights to limit media coverage, when it has already been proven that the lives of the witnesses are at risk.

__________________
A true gentleman believes that others are more important than he, that kindness is not a sign of weakness, and that respect is a necessity.

Peetster

Nice find, xtreemmar1ne!

Even if what you publish means a round in the head of a potential witness?

Macheath

I think free speech is crucial, especially when it's political speech. One important factor though is, no matter how "free" you are to say a particular thing, you are held to account in civil law. If you call someone a pedophile when they are not, they can sue you for slander.

What I find interesting (in my country) is that a politician in parliament has the "parliamentary privilege" to say things that would get them sued if they said them in public. The PLACE where speech occurs can affect its legality and consequences.Calling a cop a "pig" will get more of a response if it's done at a protest march.

If you stand on a street corner with a megaphone and say something slanderous, you have a reasonable chance of getting away with it. But if you write the same thing on a website called www.streetcorner.org, people may attempt to sue not only you, but also the hosting ISP.

Thankfully such cases haven't all been very successful but we have to be vigilant if we want the same social and legal standards to apply to a virtual forum as apply to a real life forum. Just like the voting public should severely punish politicians who try to abuse their parliamentary privilege.

xtreemmar1ne

Post Preview:
Thanks Peetster.

Exactly right Macheath. From everything I've read through while I've been doing research for this speech, it looks like all of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Justices take the First Amendment to defend the content of speech, but not necessarily the context.

Here's one example:

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) (USSC+)
Syllabus
Respondents purchased two theaters in Renton, Washington, with the intention of exhibiting adult films and, at about the same time, filed suit in Federal District Court, seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by a city ordinance that prohibits adult motion picture theaters from locating within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school. The District Court ultimately entered summary judgment in the city's favor, holding that the ordinance did not violate the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ordinance constituted a substantial restriction on First Amendment interests, and remanded the case for reconsideration as to whether the city had substantial governmental interests to support the ordinance.

Held: The ordinance is a valid governmental response to the serious problems created by adult theaters and satisfies the dictates of the First Amendment. Cf. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 . Pp. 46-55 .

(a) Since the ordinance does not ban adult theaters altogether, it is properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation. "Content-neutral" time, place, and manner regulations are acceptable so long as they are designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication. Pp. 46-47 .

(b) The District Court found that the Renton City Council's "predominate" concerns were with the secondary effects of adult theaters on the surrounding community, not with the content of adult films themselves. This finding is more than adequate to establish that the city's pursuit of its zoning interests was unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and thus the ordinance is a "content-neutral" speech regulation. Pp. 47-50 .

(c) The Renton ordinance is designed to serve a substantial governmental interest while allowing for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. A city's interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life, as here, must be accorded high respect. Although the ordinance was enacted without the benefit of studies specifically relating to [p*42] Renton's particular problems, Renton was entitled to rely on the experiences of, and studies produced by, the nearby city of Seattle and other cities. Nor was there any constitutional defect in the method chosen by Renton to further its substantial interests. Cities may regulate adult theaters by dispersing them, or by effectively concentrating them, as in Renton. Moreover, the ordinance is not "underinclusive" for failing to regulate other kinds of adult businesses, since there was no evidence that, at the time the ordinance was enacted, any other adult business was located in, or was contemplating moving into, Renton. Pp. 50-53.

(d) As required by the First Amendment, the ordinance allows for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. Although respondents argue that, in general, there are no "commercially viable" adult theater sites within the limited area of land left open for such theaters by the ordinance, the fact that respondents must fend for themselves in the real estate market, on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees, does not give rise to a violation of the First Amendment, which does not compel the Government to ensure that adult theaters, or any other kinds of speech-related businesses, will be able to obtain sites at bargain prices. Pp. 53-54.

748 F.2d 527, reversed.

REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., concurred in the result. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 55 . [p*4

Here's the URL for it, it's too long to post as a link.
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/...istoric/query=[group+475+u!2Es!2E+41!3A]!28[level+case+citation!3A]!7C[group+syllabus!3A]!29/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?

__________________
A true gentleman believes that others are more important than he, that kindness is not a sign of weakness, and that respect is a necessity.

xtreemmar1ne

Thanks Peetster.

Exactly right Macheath. From everything I've read through while I've been doing research for this speech, it looks like all of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Justices take the First Amendment to defend the content of speech, but not necessarily the context.

Here's one example:

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) (USSC+)
Syllabus
Respondents purchased two theaters in Renton, Washington, with the intention of exhibiting adult films and, at about the same time, filed suit in Federal District Court, seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by a city ordinance that prohibits adult motion picture theaters from locating within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, single- or multiple-family dwelling, church, park, or school. The District Court ultimately entered summary judgment in the city's favor, holding that the ordinance did not violate the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ordinance constituted a substantial restriction on First Amendment interests, and remanded the case for reconsideration as to whether the city had substantial governmental interests to support the ordinance.

Held: The ordinance is a valid governmental response to the serious problems created by adult theaters and satisfies the dictates of the First Amendment. Cf. Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50 . Pp. 46-55 .

(a) Since the ordinance does not ban adult theaters altogether, it is properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner regulation. "Content-neutral" time, place, and manner regulations are acceptable so long as they are designed to serve a substantial governmental interest and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication. Pp. 46-47 .

(b) The District Court found that the Renton City Council's "predominate" concerns were with the secondary effects of adult theaters on the surrounding community, not with the content of adult films themselves. This finding is more than adequate to establish that the city's pursuit of its zoning interests was unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and thus the ordinance is a "content-neutral" speech regulation. Pp. 47-50 .

(c) The Renton ordinance is designed to serve a substantial governmental interest while allowing for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. A city's interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life, as here, must be accorded high respect. Although the ordinance was enacted without the benefit of studies specifically relating to [p*42] Renton's particular problems, Renton was entitled to rely on the experiences of, and studies produced by, the nearby city of Seattle and other cities. Nor was there any constitutional defect in the method chosen by Renton to further its substantial interests. Cities may regulate adult theaters by dispersing them, or by effectively concentrating them, as in Renton. Moreover, the ordinance is not "underinclusive" for failing to regulate other kinds of adult businesses, since there was no evidence that, at the time the ordinance was enacted, any other adult business was located in, or was contemplating moving into, Renton. Pp. 50-53.

(d) As required by the First Amendment, the ordinance allows for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. Although respondents argue that, in general, there are no "commercially viable" adult theater sites within the limited area of land left open for such theaters by the ordinance, the fact that respondents must fend for themselves in the real estate market, on an equal footing with other prospective purchasers and lessees, does not give rise to a violation of the First Amendment, which does not compel the Government to ensure that adult theaters, or any other kinds of speech-related businesses, will be able to obtain sites at bargain prices. Pp. 53-54.

748 F.2d 527, reversed.

REHNQUIST, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and WHITE, POWELL, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., concurred in the result. BRENNAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 55 . [p*4

Here's the URL for it, it's too long to post as a link.
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/...istoric/query=[group+475+u!2Es!2E+41!3A]!28[level+case+citation!3A]!7C[group+syllabus!3A]!29/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?

__________________
A true gentleman believes that others are more important than he, that kindness is not a sign of weakness, and that respect is a necessity.

bonbonbox

What do ya'll think about free speech and censorship?

Free speech, yes. Censorship, no.

I have no problem speech wise with the guy yelling fire in a theater. The same as I have no problem with a guy burning a flag speech wise. If the guy in the theater causes a herd of people to trample other people then he gets his hand slapped for that, not for speaking. The guy with the flag gets his hand slapped for starting fires not for the speech. I use as many words as possible and I see no reason to say that some are bad and should not be spoken/written. Say or write what you want, but just as president Bush told the Dixie chicks, don't be surprised when you get a reaction. I never want to hear the, "What about the children?" crap. We as a society have decided what is and isn't acceptable around who. It's not written but everybody knows. Those that have respect for others refrain from speaking words and topics that would offend. The jerk that is out of line around the kids is a fine example for parents to teach thier offspring about jerks, what they do, and why you shouldn't be one. You don't shield the child from jerks, they don't learn that way. Freedom is always best and censorship is bad.

supersteph2747

Well, to be perfectly frank, because the Constitution is not specific on what constitutes "Free Speech", one must decide what does. In my opinion, a person may say or write anything they wish. Things like pornography and drawings do not, personally, fall under my definition of free speech. One point that many people might not think of, is that people have to freedom to react to someone's free speech. For example, when Natalie Maines made her comment about the president, she was totally within her rights to do so. However, when the public heard of this, many reacted by destroying their Dixie Chicks CDs (I helped a few), which they were totally allowed to do. The backlash came from supporters of Maines, who said that people shouldn't have boycotted the band. Free speech is a two-edged sword, there is the action and the reaction, both of which should be respected and allowed. There is, of course, treason, which is defind in the Constitution under Article 3, Section 3 "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." I believe there is such thing as giving verbal comfort the the enemy, like Sean Penn did while visiting the former leader. Unfortunately, people like him and Jane Fonda use their celebrity status to hide from such accusations. Free speech is not an easy topic to define, but I have defined for myself what that does and does not mean. Good luck with your speech.

__________________
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

Mael

what? you're not making sense. how i read what you wrote is: people should be able to say whatever they want, like yelling fire in a movie theater, and if a stampede happens, get in trouble for the stampede, not for yelling fire.

yelling "fire" is what caused the stampede. he either gets prosecuted for causing one by yelling "fire", ie. causing a public disturbance, or whatever it woudl be called, (and this applies for what might be said to incite a riot) or he doesn't get prosecuted at all. his only action woudl be speech, so if anything said is protected, then icould incite a riot whenever i wanted, or yell fire or bomb in a movie theather or on an airplane, and there would be no recourse. you don't get punished for the effect, you get punished for the cause, at least in this case.