Let's talk about Free Speech rights

[proud2BlibKansan]

I am dismayed to see so many comments here that represent a misunderstanding of our 1st amendment right to free speech.

I used to see this argument on right wing blogs. Now it is appearing here with greater frequency.

Free speech does NOT mean I don't have the right to tell you or anyone else to shut up. My not wanting your message to be heard does not mean I am interfering with your right to free speech. It could mean I am being rude but that's not a violation of your constitutional rights.

The constitution is the document that dictates to our GOVERNMENT. It outlines how this government is organized and how it treats its citizens.

So unless I am representing our government I do indeed have the right to tell you to shut up. It might be rude but it's not a violation of your right to free speech.

So if I choose to disagree with you or to try to shut you up, call me rude but don't tell me I am taking your free speech rights away.

[Romulox]

1. "Free speech" has no application on this private message board.

Your analysis is off base.

[proud2BlibKansan]

13. Actually I believe we agree

And I wasn't thinking only of online discussions. I was also thinking of protests in the real world. If I stand outside the arena where Sarah Palin is speaking here in May with a sign or chanting my disapproval of her message I am NOT interfering with her free speech rights.

[Romulox]

17. In that case, you will need to refine your research...

"And I wasn't thinking only of online discussions. I was also thinking of protests in the real world."

Then your point is much too general to be meaningful. The SCOTUS has laid out a tangled web of time/place/manner restrictions on the right to speak that are much more complicated than your basic hypothetical.

"If I stand outside the arena where Sarah Palin is speaking here in May with a sign or chanting my disapproval of her message I am NOT interfering with her free speech rights."

It's not nearly that simple. Are you on government property, for example? If we're not, is it open to the public? :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Yes I will be on a public sidewalk

In fact we have already fought this battle with the managers/owners of the arena where Sarah will be speaking. The sidewalk is public property.

[Romulox]

21. Then you are subject to government restrictions on time/place/manner of speech

and your analysis is simply off... :shrug:

[Lyric]

25. No, it isn't. *Your* response is off.

Your response only makes sense if you're talking about the OP's speech. The OP's point is that Private Citizen A telling Private Citizen B to shut up is not a violation of Private Citizen B's "free speech", because the First Amendment is not meant to define the limits of private speech--it is meant to define the limited ways that the government can interfere with speech. Yes, Private Citizen A's speech is subject to government restrictions on time/place/manner, but that has no bearing on whether or not the "shut up" action of Private Citizen A interferes with the free speech of Private Citizen B. Your response appears to be sophistry put forth to cover up the obvious fact that you sorely misunderstood the point of the OP.

:hi:

[Romulox]

27. Nope. The OP's speech may be limited by the US government if it is done on gov't property

It doesn't matter if she is addressing another private citizen in the least.

"Yes, Private Citizen A's speech is subject to government restrictions on time/place/manner, but that has no bearing on whether or not the "shut up" action of Private Citizen A interferes with the free speech of Private Citizen B."

Yes it does. Think about it, and you'll understand why... (hint--Citizen A and Citizen B are subject to the same primary regulation of their speech, regardless of who initiated the conversation.)


Listen, I'm not here to give a lecture. Google "SCOTUS time/place/manner first amendment" if you're truly interested. But don't attempt to lecture on a complicated subject without even knowing the factors in play. :hi:

[Lyric]

30. She's not talking about HER speech. *facepalm*

She's talking about whether or not telling someone to "shut up" violates THEIR free speech rights. Unless the OP is a government agent acting in an official capacity, then no, it does not. It really doesn't make you look any more informed on this issue when you persist in deliberately misinterpreting what the OP said and arguing with yourself.

:banghead:

[Romulox]

33. Right. But no legal question turns on that fact...

"She's talking about whether or not telling someone to "shut up" violates THEIR free speech rights."

I have a feeling that you are applying what she is saying to a very specific set of facts. What I am telling you is that this assertion simply is not true as a general proposition.

For example, the government may indeed decide that a counterprotest at a neutral government location contravenes the rights of speakers--if, for example, the venue does not allow amplification and the counterprotesters have brought an amplification system. Another issue that often comes up is the issue of "free speech" zones in which protesters are made to hold protests far removed from the actual events.

The question. simply. isn't. as. simple. as. the. poster. makes. it. out. to. be. :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. No that's not true

In fact we had a similar situation recently. We were in front of a city hall rallying for health care reform. Our speaker had a PA. The teabaggers showed up and used a bullhorn aimed at our speaker in an attempt to drown her out. The cops were there and one of the folks in our group asked them to tell the teabaggers to stop. Cops said no, this is a public sidewalk and they are only guilty of being rude.

[Romulox]

37. OK, but that is a very specific set of facts.

And you both could've been made to silence your bullhorns by the cops consistent with the First Amendment.

That doesn't mean that you were, or that you will be. Or that your city chooses to enforce laws in this way or that. But they may do so and still comport with the requirements of the First Amendment.

In other words, careful at drawing broad Constitutional principles based on the response of a beat cop!

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. I've spent literally decades protesting on public sidewalks

It's perfectly legal.

[Romulox]

39. "legal" has not a thing to do with it.

We're running into vocabulary problems now. We were speaking of Constitutionality, not "legality". :shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

41. Well since the cops don't arrest us it would appear they understand our rights

which are guaranteed in the constitution :)

[arbusto_baboso]

2. Another wrinkle is how private property affects those rights.

For instance, Freepers may have an issue with being booted off this board for "exercising their free speech" but the fact that this board is privately owned and run means the owners and moderators can do as they damn well please limiting speech on it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Exactly

Claiming their free speech rights are being violated in that situation is a lame and ignorant argument.

[The Northerner]

12. +100

[NJmaverick]

3. You seem to be suggesting that Corporations have a right to stifle a citizen's freedom of speech

I don't agree with your assertion

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. That corporation has the right to tell me to leave their private property

That's not interfering with my free speech rights.

However I do have the right to stand on a public sidewalk and speak out against that corporation.

[arbusto_baboso]

8. They can also limit their employees' speech in the workplace.

Anyone who doesn't believe me on that one is invited to test it. See ya at the unemployment office!

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. Very true

[onenote]

19. a business doesn't have to be incorporated to do that

In fact, if I hire a guy to mow my lawn and he shows up in a truck with an impeach obama bumper sticker, its not an infringement of his first amendment rights for me to fire his ass.

[The Northerner]

14. +100

[NJmaverick]

31. According to you those corporations have a right to hire a hundred people

to surround the speech giver to prevent them from being heard.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. Of course they do-- try to organize a protest in a mall and see...

just how far you get before security hauls your dead ass out.

I disagreed strongly the last time the Supremes ruled on this because malls have become "the commons" in many areas and should be considered public property to some extent, but the law is now the law.

And if you work for, say, a bank, try sticking some anti-bailout propaganda in communications with customers-- some "free speech" would be just plain stupid speech.

BTW, no newspaper or magazine is required to print your LTE or any article you submit for publication-- "free speech" was always tending more for the press than for the individual.

[14thColony]

32. Absolutely they do

Certainly they have the legal ability; whether or not that meets the requirements of a "right" I don't know, but I can assure you that many corporations will make new employees sign a number of nondisclosure agreements, confidentiality agreements, and other things that clearly limit speech with reference to the employee and the employer. And they can fire you for speech that they don't like, even private speech.

If you believe there's wording in the 1st Amendment that restricts private enterprises, then you're a more astute reader than I. But two hundred years of constitutional law agrees with the OP: the Bill of Rights set restrictions on what the government can do to the people, not what the people can do to each other.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. So you support the the concept of the heckler's veto?

It also would depend on what you do to try to shut them up.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. The question is - does the constitution support the heckler's rights

And that would depend on where the heckling takes place and how it is handled by the government.

[onenote]

22. correct - time manner and place restrictions can be constitutional

[ProgressiveProfessor]

35. That is not what a Hecklers Veto is all about

If someone threatens violence if a certain speaker is allowed on campus and the school cancels the presentation due to that, you have a Hecklers Veto.

If someone heckles a speaker, depending on the forum, they could be allowed to heckle or could be placed under arrest and dragged away. If location/forum dependent.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. Threatening violence is not protected by the first amendment

[Luminous Animal]

11. Yes.

And I also support the concept that the heckler or hecklers are subject to expulsion or arrest.

[Brickbat]

5. Right. Free speech =/= right to be listened to.

And a privately owned message board is not the government.

[The Northerner]

15. +100

[unpossibles]

10. Exactly. In fact, telling someone they are full of crap

is your own form of free speech.

[arcadian]

18. Some freeper at the Yoo lecture was calling us tyrants.

Because we kept interrupting John Yoo. At one point he stood up in the middle of the lecture and started to shout down a woman who was trying to question Yoo, calling her a "tyrant". I merely asked him, "How can she be a tyrant? She has no power." I added that nobody was trying to stop HIM from interrupting the lecture.

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. Exactly

You might have been guilty of being rude, but you aren't tyrants.

And for the record I would call you patriots, not tyrants :)

[EFerrari]

26. I heard that, that was perfect. n/t

[Robb]

28. Well put.

This gives me an opportunity to post this graph again, too. :D

[arcadian]

29. Yeah, that's so funny...

:eyes:

[proud2BlibKansan]

40. Perfect!