What types of speech should be banned?

I have always questioned the yelling fire in a crowded theatre analogy. What if one truly believes there is a fire? And as memory serves, I believe this came from the same justice who believed that mentally retarded women should be sterilized as “three generations of imbeciles is enough”! What does this man have to teach us?
 
Trumpet said:
You are right, I should rephrase that, ALL hate speech and bigotry that infringes on another person or group's rights should not be considered free speech.
Click to expand...

Hate speech and bigotry do not not infringe on anybody's rights and should not be banned. Current Supreme Court case law protects this as constitutional free speech.

Current law established over many decades seems reasonable. Government can restrict threats, obscenity (seldom enforced), "fighting words" (very narrow interpretation and rare), libel and slander are not illegal but can be sued in civil cases.

Protected speech includes that which is offensive and can cause anger and hostility, mere advocacy allows a person to advocate anything including overthrow of the government with force or violence (as long as no action is taken toward that goal), symbolic speech (burning a flag). Protected speech usually involves a discussion of public issues and is protected in public forums.
 
Sagittarius83 said:
I have always questioned the yelling fire in a crowded theatre analogy. What if one truly believes there is a fire? And as memory serves, I believe this came from the same justice who believed that mentally retarded women should be sterilized as “three generations of imbeciles is enough”! What does this man have to teach us?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is "falsely" yells "fire." But, if a person yells "fire" and the crowd panics and causes an injury, the speech was not restricted and the person cannot be charged for his speech but for its consequences. To be a free speech case the person would have to be restrained before he could yell "fire."
 
Sagittarius83 said:
I have always questioned the yelling fire in a crowded theatre analogy. What if one truly believes there is a fire? And as memory serves, I believe this came from the same justice who believed that mentally retarded women should be sterilized as “three generations of imbeciles is enough”! What does this man have to teach us?
Click to expand...

If someone saw condensation from a refrigeration unit and, thinking it was smoke and yelled "Fire!", it's an honest mistake IMO. They're an idiot, but even an idiot can become President.
 
AProudLefty said:
Actually they aren't banned per se. People are not free from consequences.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but things like "incitement to riot" are very narrowly defined and hard to prove. The person's speech would have to immediately incite the violence. If I give a speech urging a crowd to take over city hall and they do it tomorrow I did not incite them. Also, you have to prove they would have not rioted if I had not spoken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top