I think we fool ourselves if we claim that our interpretation of freedom of speech is the only

[howard112211]

possible one.

Even if we claim to take "freedom of speech" as a universal principle, lots of interpretation goes into what it means. It is not a "stand alone" concept. There have been several court rulings saying that one thing is freedom of speech, the other isn't etc. that do not follow trivially from the text


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

For instance, by the exact wording one actually COULD assume it covers yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater or making a direct death threat against someone. We however interpret the text as not covering these things, which is an assumption that is not justified from the text. Furthermore, the definition of "speech" and "press" has been extended to cover things such as video clips or campaign donations, which is a rather straight forward, but in my opinion also not trivial generalization. Speech has often been interpreted to mean "expression", however we interpret the law as placing a limit on "indecent exposure" and vulgarity on public airwaves, which in a strict sense could be viewed as in violation of above text. Then there are the laws regulating pornography, which in a strict sense could all be seen as in violation of freedom of press, since they place artificial bounds that are an extension to the above text. Then we have laws regulating conduct in a court, or during congressional sessions. In a strict sense these could be seen as external limitations of freedom of speech, not justified from the above text. And not to mention "free speech zones".

In other words: We place boundaries to freedom of speech all over the place. If some other country decides it will not have some moron on a stage
calling for the internment of minorities or advocating aggressive warfare, we are not in a position to complain that this is in violation
of our holy principlies.

[H2O Man]

1. I cannot approve of

yelling "theater" in a crowded fire.

[Luminous Animal]

2. Anymore remarks like that, I might have to make direct death threat against you.

And the only thing stopping me from doing so will be an un-Constitutional congressional act.

[RandomThoughts]

3. I find that funny. LOL.

[joycean]

4. Freedom and Speech,

and Freedom of Speech are not logical constants. Their definitions and interpretations are not axiomatic for all peoples, and therefore one definition cannot be inherently more or less true than another. In my experience, even those who most strive for moral and philosophical relativity sometimes rely on absolute truths, or near-absolute truths (i.e a truth for which they believe there are very few exceptions).

[RandomThoughts]

5. If your speech somehow infringes on some other right of a person.

Then there are other factors.

Free speech by itself is always guaranteed, but it is not in a vacuum, so other factors like what society considers acceptable is part of free speech rules. However most tyranny tries to change what is considered socially acceptable to favor some agenda.

Then there is also the ideas of credibility or false sources, is it free speech if it is intentionally dishonest? Does it serve any societal purpose at that point. What if someone faked another persons look and voice using CGI would that be free speech? What if someone lied, assuming that could be proved, would that be protected speech with any social good?

Someone posted about not bearing false witness. Is the open spreading of lies by a source defensible by free speech? Hence slander laws, where if proven, such things can be punished. (heh, in theory, although bought speech seems to change that a bit.)


However lets not play around and actually pretend that we have free speech. People have to buy air time on TV or Radio trying to make bought speech louder then a individual.

If we had free speech, would we allow paid opinions to advocate for something?

[xchrom]

6. Recommend

[Jim__]

7. By the EXACT wording of the text, we would assume that Congress shall ...

... make no law respecting yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

But, of course, you're right about the Constitution having to be interpreted, and therein lies all the fun.

[safeinOhio]

8. The men and women of the armed forces

have given their blood and life to protect our First Amendment Right to free speech.

So, how come Palin charges for all of her speeches?

:spank:

[jody]

9. It's also important to know what SCOTUS has said about the issue. A starting point is the First

Amendment Center http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/topicssummary.aspx

[paulsby]

10. it's the best one, but clearly not the only one

we don't criminalize "hate speech" and nearly every other nation does.

we allow a true marketplace of ideas, they don't

we don't try to protect people from scary speech

they do