Should there be any limits at all on free speech?

[MikeG]

Isn't "no law abridging freedom of speech" pretty clear?

Shouldn't strict constructionists be agreeing?

[sendero]

1. Very damn few..

.... particularly with political speech.

[McKenzie]

2. better the devil you know and all that

I wouldn't ban any form of free speech for the same reason I wouldn't ban r/w groups. They'd just go underground. I prefer to know exactly what the nutters are saying and I want to know exactly who the extremists are. That way we can keep a close watch on them...and ridicule their stupid ideology.

I don't like listening to r/w drivel. It's best we know who is saying what though.

Just my $0:02.

[YNGW]

3. Some

I mean you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater or something like that. You can't threaten to kill someone. Freedom of speech brings with it the responsibility of being reasonable.

[MikeG]

4. What if there's a fire in the theater?

And where are these limits spelled out in the First Amendment?

[YNGW]

5. You're bio says you're a lawyer

If there's a fire, then of course. But just to do it when there is no fire just because you have the "right of free speech"? Or threatening to kill someone? You tell me, counselor. If the person is competent, how's the judge going to look at them?

[MikeG]

6. It usually has to be coupled with an overt act - like a cocked fist.

Unless the object is a public official.

[YNGW]

8. In other words....

... he would frown on it.

Yes, yes, I'm aware of the exceptions. I recall a case where a man that was paralyzed threatened to kill a man. It was determined that since the man was paralyzed, then he was unable to make good on his threat. He got off with a warning from the judge that any further behavior of that type would no longer be excusable.

My whole point is what you learned the first day of law school, that is, the law is built around the "reasonable man". Given a particular situation, what would a "reasonable person" do. I'm saying as long as you are reasonable, then free speech should never be abridged. It is when the speech is unreasonable that it has gone too far. Our laws give us the parameters of what is reasonable and what is not.

OK, that's enough lawyer talk for the day.

[ashmanonar]

10. it's not in the constitution or the bill of rights.

but i believe it's a court case, which makes it a statute. it's under the "clear and present danger" statute.

i wish i could find the court case that it was invoked in...maybe someone can find it?

[ultraist]

12. Clear and present danger: Brandenburg vs. Ohio, most recent ruling

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/10.html

Is There a Present Test?
--Complexities inherent in the myriad varieties of expression encompassed by the First Amendment guarantees of speech, press, and assembly probably preclude any single standard. For certain forms of expression for which protection is claimed, the Court engages in ''definitional balancing'' to determine that those forms are outside the range of protection.164 Balancing is in evidence to enable the Court to determine whether certain covered speech is entitled to protection in the particular context in which the question arises.165 Utilization of vagueness, overbreadth and less intrusive means may very well operate to reduce the occasions when questions of protection must be answered squarely on the merits. What is observable, however, is the re-emergence, at least in a tentative fashion, of something like the clear and present danger standard in advocacy cases, which is the context in which it was first developed. Thus, in Brandenburg v. Ohio,166 a conviction under a criminal syndicalism statute of advocating the necessity or propriety of criminal or terroristic means to achieve political change was reversed. The prevailing doctrine developed in the Communist Party cases was that ''mere'' advocacy was protected but that a call for concrete, forcible action even far in the future was not protected speech and knowing membership in an organization calling for such action was not protected association, regardless of the probability of success.167 In Brandenburg, however, the Court reformulated these and other rulings to mean ''that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.''168 The Court has not revisited these is sues since Brandenburg, so the long-term significance of the decision is yet to be determined.

[ashmanonar]

15. thankee! n/t

[ashmanonar]

13. it's not in the constitution or the bill of rights.

but i believe it's a court case, which makes it a statute. it's under the "clear and present danger" statute.

i wish i could find the court case that it was invoked in...maybe someone can find it?

[lenidog]

7. I think there should be some

limits but they would be on such things as defaming someones character when you know its BS, yelling fire in a crowded theatre etc. In other words your free speech in a way is limited when it could damage someone or physically hurt them.

[ultraist]

14. slander or inciting violence

You can be charged crminially for inciting violence or causing harm. That is where one right (freedom of speech) infringes on another, thus the line is drawn.

You can be sued for slander in civil court but it must be proven with a preponderance of evidence, that it caused direct damage to one's reputation (ie capacity to make money). There are no criminal charges for slander as far as I know, but I am not an attorney.

Currently, Hate speech is considered to incite violence but this is very controversial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to hurt, intimidate, or to incite violence or prejudicial action against someone; and which is motivated by hatred of them because of some innocuous personal characteristic such as race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, inherent sexual orientation, or disability. The term includes written communications as well and may include what some consider actions or deeds.

Controversy
There is considerable debate over how or whether hate speech can be defined; whether speech thus labeled ought to be regulated; and if so, how and by whom. These debates center on three critical questions: First, what is the force of speech? Is it the expression of personal thoughts, or is it a form of action that affects and can harm others? Second, is the free expression of ideas which some perceive as hateful necessary for healthy public debate, or is it harmful to public debate? Third, should governmental policies be founded upon the protection of interests and rights of individuals, or of identifiable groups — such as sexual orientation (e.g., homosexuals) and race (e.g., racial minorities)? Legitimate criticism normally protected in USA under the First Amendment is sometimes labeled "hate speech" by the critiqued.

[Just Me]

9. Free speech should include a caveat of "responsible" speech.

"Hate speech" against minority classes is unacceptable. "Fighting words" is unacceptable.

I just wish we could get back to speaking with respect, honesty and integrity. But, I'm not in charge *LOL*.

Defining rules about how we communicate is no impediment to the substance of our communications. IOW,...prohibiting language which incites hatred or violence advances rather than impedes free speech,...at least, in my view,...because more people feel free to speak when they are given some protection against persecution.

[HamdenRice]

11. In many organizations of the left ...

it is not permitted to say that you don't support the troops, so that I guess is an example of free speech that is not permitted. BTW, watch this post get deleted!