Very cool, if true

How about: this doesn't really concern freedom of speech at all, but rather one person's believing he has the right to act like a dickhead at all times, regardless of whom it may inconvenience?

From:

kpollock.livejournal.com

A person can be a dickhead but yet still have a valid point. A person can have a valid point and still make it in totally the wrong way. A person can think that another person can be simultaneously both right and wrong on the same issue.

From:

All true.

From:

The freedom of speech includes the right to speech that others may not like.

If you want to only support speech that you like, then that's up to you, but I am well aware that my speech is frequently disliked by others and that the best way to support freedom of my speech is to ensure that everyone has their say.

From:

Actually, I agreed with

kpollock's comment.

If you've ever been in a crowd at a peace rally and listened to George Galloway going on about how war is terrible because it kills women and children, and how we shouldn't attack Iraq because the Palestinians are in the right, you will get how I can still think John Gilmore is a complete dickhead while supporting freedom of speech.

From:

odheirre.livejournal.com

What's the famous saying by Voltaire...

"I disapprove of you being a dickhead but I will defend to the death your right to be a dickhead."

...or something like that. My translation is probably a bit spotty.

From:

Worst. Poll. Ever.

None of those statements are cut and dry. Freedom of speech, and whether it's permissable or not, depends entirely on the context of the situation.

One should, in one's own home, be able to spout whatever views one wishes.

One should, in almost every other social circumstance I can think of, consider the ramifications of spouting one's views, while obviously still holding one's views.

Each case should be taken on it's own merits. Common sense, and common good-will and well being of all concerned, should *generally* prevail. Generally. There are exceptions to every rule.

From:

I disagree, of course.

They're all generalities and should be interpreted, but then so are pretty much all moral judgements.

I'm obviously not talking about what you do at home - it's how your speech affects others that's important.

And it's a general answer which is what I'm looking for.

Do you, general speaking, think that it's reasonable to say things (or draw pictures, or whatever) in public that will offend the majority of the public?

Sure, we could break it down to specific examples, but that wouldn't tell us anything about other specific examples.

From:

Which is why I said each case has to be taken on it's own merits.

If I happened to find myself stranded in some hostile territory while backpacking, I might find that being able to make a bomb out of disgarded banana peels was damned handy.

I still wouldn't want the average ned knowing how to do it.

However, if said ned was stranded with me, then I would.

Your poll, honestly, doesn't tell us anything. We'd learn far more expressly from studying a 'specific example'.

From:

Which is why I said each case has to be taken on it's own merits.

So, effectively, there shouldn't be a legal system, per se, there should be reasonable people who decide on a case by case basis what the merits were?

From:

English law operates on precedent, Scottish law operates on principle. (That's a huge generality, of course, but it's one of the basic differences between the two systems.) I don't think that that either English law or Scottish law is intrinsically better than the other because of how it operates.

From:

Isn't that more or less what we have?

When was the last time the same crime got the same conviction, across the board? Every robbery, assault, murder and so on IS dealt with on it's own merits. Each case is weighed individually. This is why we have trials - not only to decide guilt, but to confer punishment. I really don't understand your point here.

Yeah, we have the understood basics - murder is wrong. The basic for free speech is that it is right. However, just as people have been found to have grounds for murder and released (abused spouses), so can people abuse their basic right to free speech. Hence, we have to look at the specifics.

From:

Isn't that more or less what we have?

I could have sworn that they keep on passing and repealing laws, complete with minimum sentence requirements, etc.

From:

I could have sworn you just said 'minimum'. Hence implying that there was leeway not to apply said minimum.

Why would you do that? Surely, a murder is a murder is a murder, therefore the same sentence should always apply. Oh wait, the circumstances might change from one to the next, yeah? Meaning, of course, that the punishment that fits one might not fit another.

Of course precedents can, and will, be set. There's nothing wrong with that.

However, taking our 'man with the badge'. Your poll states "when that speech would cause anxiety ("Suspected Terrorist" badges worn on flights)". To which I ammend ("I Rape Women" t-shirt worn to a rape victims supprt group). Define anxiety, Andrew. Define offensive. Are you willing to rule that, because X number of people don't find something offensive, then it should be perfectly acceptable to do it in front of Y number of people who do? I can't agree with that.

From:

I could have sworn you just said 'minimum'. Hence implying that there was leeway not to apply said minimum.

There isn't, in many cases. Numerous laws have minimums which judges can't amend. In the states there have been cases where judges have had to sentence people to life imprisonment, due to a "three strikes and you're out" law, where they've stated that they really don't want to, but have no choice.

And yes, you can feel free to provide your own examples and find cases where you'd vote one way or another. I did exactly that myself, and explained where my fence-sitting came from in the first comment on this thread.

Lots of my polls have covered areas where there was no clean answer, that's partially the point of them, to provoke discussion.

From:

*sigh* You misunderstood - I meant leeway, as in the minimum isn't the only 'sentence' - you can apply more than that, based on specifics. Not less than that.

From:

Exactly. So it's not just situational, there are principles which are inviolable.

From:

You're being deliberately obtuse.

The legal system has precedents, yes, and yet each case is tried separately, to take into account individual circumstances. Because we cannot prescribe the same answer each time, because factors involved in the crime will invariably differ.

Similarly, you cannot carte blanche select any of the items in your poll, as there will be occasions when you feel that way, and occasions when you don't, based on the circumstances at the time.

That's all I was saying.

From:

Well, we're certainly discussing.

From:

My two most pertinent points are, I feel:

"Yeah, we have the understood basics - murder is wrong. The basic for free speech is that it is right. However, just as people have been found to have grounds for murder and [have been] released (abused spouses), so can people abuse their basic right to free speech. Hence, we have to look at the specifics."

And:

"However, taking our 'man with the badge'. Your poll states "when that speech would cause anxiety ("Suspected Terrorist" badges worn on flights)". To which I ammend ("I Rape Women" t-shirt worn to a rape victims support group). Define anxiety, Andrew. Define offensive. Are you willing to rule that, because X number of people don't find something offensive, then it should be perfectly acceptable to do it in front of Y number of people who do? I can't agree with that."

From:

Are you willing to rule that

I'm not ruling anything.

I have stated, both in the poll and in my first response, what I think are reasonable limits, but that's just what I feel is a reasonable place to set them.

As far as anxiety goes, I really, really wish there hadn't been all those big pictures of spiders when 8-legged-freaks came out. But I'm willing to live with them because banning pictures of everything that anyone is phobic of or upset by would be unworkable and would ban many things that I am in favour of.

From:

drainboy.livejournal.com

I ticked the children one (and was the only one to do so, so far) but I'd define unsuitable as "speech the child understands in a basic way but has no filter for its social connotations or its effects, to any level of depth, on the outside world and which may affect the child in a harmful way". Which is still vague, but I'd include things such as expressing discrimination or unregulated swearing in that unsuitable category. This is because a) children are heavily influenced by how adults speak in a "monkey see monkey do" kind of way and b) they understand and are affected by far more than we give credit for (in my childless, spending an hour a month in the company of children, humble opinion)

From:

I was going to write a comment about the "children" issue, and then realized I was just saying what you said in a different way. So basically, I agree!

Remember also that children don't necessarily have the experience to know what is fantasy and what is reality. And that they are in the process of learning which behaviors are acceptable and which aren't. While it is the parents' responsibility to teach them how to deal with concepts like violence, sexuality, and fantasy, they can't necessarily do that in the proper fashion if a child is being exposed to concepts they aren't capable of handling yet by outsiders.

From:

kimberly-a.livejournal.com

I marked "never", because all of the rest of the answers require judgment to determine what they mean. What George W. Bush (Christian from hell) define as "people that mean harm" or "speech would cause definite immediate harm" is likely to be extremely different from my definition of those same terms. Giving anyone that kind of power to create those definitions is a very dangerous thing.

From:

That's a very good point.

I'm always loath to give other people the power define right/wrong for me.

From:

I thought Kimberly said more or less what I did. It's subjective, and each case requires judgement. Yet you agree with her, and disagree with me.

I admit, of course, that she puts her point across better than me, but that's only to be expected.

From:

She said that she wouldn't give her right to free speech up to another person. You said that sometimes it should be up to the community to place limits on free speech.

From:

There is no way I could take "never". I think to say that people should be able to say anything they like, any time they like is extremely wrong, if you think about it. If I take a stand as a witness in a trial, then I should be able to say anything I want, because I have a right to free speech? Probably not. I should be able to call 911 and tell them there is a violent crime going on at my neighbor's house in the middle of the night to get the police to crash their house? After all, I have "free speech". I should be able to write in the newspaper that you are a closet child molester and have severed body parts in your freezer?

Clearly, the right "free speech" has to be limited in some ways.

Same with the "fire in a crowded building" example, though maybe it would be better to say "if the speech in question has a high liklihood of causing harm to people in the area". People as a group have certain definite tendencies in the ways they react to some stimuli, and there are clearly some stimuli that have a tendency to be dangerous. Sure, it's theoretically possible that a person in power could try to manipulate this exception for their own purposes, but that doesn't mean that there aren't cases where it's helpful to have the clause.

From:

kimberly-a.livejournal.com

I do, personally, think that anyone has a right to say whatever they want whenever they want. People lie every day -- in court, in the bedroom, in the newspapers -- they just have to worry about backing it up and/or suffering the consequences.

And I have a very serious problem with the "cause harm" issue, because it's so very very subjective. Many people would consider open homosexuality to "cause harm". Should homosexuals not be permitted to hold hands in public if some people think this would cause moral harm to children and others in the vicinity? Many people would consider porn to "cause harm". Should it be outlawed? Many people would consider the revelation of government misdoings to "cause harm". Should it be illegal? If you start telling people what they can and can't say, I believe you're starting down a very slippery slope.

I don't think the government can or should police morality.

From:

kimberly-a.livejournal.com

Shannon points out that I'm probably splitting a meaningless hair in the first paragraph above (about lying and suffering the consequences), and I agree with him. But I still stand by the rest. :)

From:

they just have to worry about backing it up and/or suffering the consequences

That's not really true, since in many cases, the accusation alone is enough to cause the target to suffer severe damages. That's why libel is a crime. If people had the right to say whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted, libel would not be a crime, and there would be no consequences to face. Currently, people don't have a free speech "right" to lie on a witness stand, so there are consequences if they are caught doing it.

"cause harm" issue, because it's so very very subjective

Sorry, I should have specified "physical harm". The liklihood of certain words (like danger warnings in a crowded building) to cause physical harm to the people affected is high enough that these warnings should not be allowed to be used as pranks.

People don't have a right to put other people at physical risk, no matter if it's a case of the speech they use, or driving drunk.

From:

Just wanted to say those are good points. I'm not wholly on board with free speech - whenever/wherever, but you make a good point.

In theory, in our democratic societies, the government is voted in by a majority, and therefore will be working towards satisfying that majority with it's policies. Oh, if only that were true....

From:

("Suspected Terrorist" badges worn on flights)

I object to this example, because I strongly believe that if you want rights, you also have to accept responsibilities, and one of those responsibilities is an understanding of what the right entails.

The right to free speech does NOT mean that you can say or do anything you want, anywhere you want. Andrew, if you delete this comment, I can't say you're violating my free speech. It's your journal, and you're not obligated to let anyone say anything at all.

Similarly, a private person can also forbid someone from discussing a particular topic in his home. No "free speech" ideas can change the homeowner's rights to decide what happens in his own place. If someone breaks his ban, the homeowner is well within his own rights to escort the violator out.

The same is true with websites. If a person breaks the rules of a forum, for example, he can be thrown off of that forum or that website.

AND the same is true of a company on its own property. If BA says that it doesn't want you talking about widgets on its flights, you aren't allowed to talk about widgets. If you do, they have the right to escort you off. BA is not a government organization, and it can do what it wants on its private property.

According to WordRefernce.com, the definition of Free Speech is the right to express one's opinions publicly. A BA airplane is not a public location.

From:

This argument actually goes for most places of business, too, since those are normally not public places. If your boss wants to say that no employee can use the word "Fred" in the office, he can.

From:

octopoid-horror.livejournal.com

when that speech would cause anxiety ("Suspected Terrorist" badges worn on flights)

This example has already been proved to be a point or argument on your journal. Surely using it here is somewhat silly since you've already had it clearly pointed out to you that there are quite a few people who would very strongly disagree with the use of this as an example here.

It is covered by one of the other checkboxes.

From: