Complete Freedom Of Speech?

[cindy lou]

I know this is a big thing in the USA but do you agree with it? We have freedom of speech here in the UK but to a certain extent and personally, I dont think it extends far enough.
My opinion - people should have freedom of speech but should pay the consequences of bad reaction to what they say. For every action there is a reaction and this aplies to what you say too. For instance, if I walked up to a complete stranger and called them a cunt for no reason, they shouldn't be held responsible if they punch me in the mouth. Thoughts?

How old are you...freedom of speech has a deep history throught the world and had nothing to do with punching somebody. If you called me a cunt I would make sure it was the last time you did this.( I respect you..as everyone..but your example is lame...

 

[Peter Parka]

How old are you...freedom of speech has a deep history throught the world and had nothing to do with punching somebody. If you called me a cunt I would make sure it was the last time you did this.( I respect you..as everyone..but your example is lame...

Yep it was a pretty lame example, not too good on these things. I guess I'm trying to point out you shouldn't be able to be abusive to people without getting a justified reaction. It does cross over into grey matter though.

*edit* Oh, I'm 33, want to make hot lava baby?

 

[Accountable]

Okay I found one gray (or grey) enough.

If a person gives a speech, and because of that speech a bunch of crazies go out and kill people and burn buildings, should the speaker be held at least partially responsible? Go to jail?


If so, then if a person is expected to deliver a speech that is likely to provoke a similar action, should that person be banned from speaking?

 

[dt3]

Okay I found one gray (or grey) enough.

If a person gives a speech, and because of that speech a bunch of crazies go out and kill people and burn buildings, should the speaker be held at least partially responsible? Go to jail?


If so, then if a person is expected to deliver a speech that is likely to provoke a similar action, should that person be banned from speaking?

Jail worked for Manson :dunno

 

[Accountable]

Jail worked for Manson :dunno

Too specific. If I remember right, he told his group to kill. I'm talking about some guy talking in a park or on the Washington Mall in DC giving a speech that some of the listeners take as inspiration to kill.

 

[dt3]

Too specific. If I remember right, he told his group to kill. I'm talking about some guy talking in a park or on the Washington Mall in DC giving a speech that some of the listeners take as inspiration to kill.

I believe the legal term is "inciting", but I also think it's a very sticky point of law. Here's an example:
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Margene]

I know this is a big thing in the USA but do you agree with it? We have freedom of speech here in the UK but to a certain extent and personally, I dont think it extends far enough.
My opinion - people should have freedom of speech but should pay the consequences of bad reaction to what they say. For every action there is a reaction and this aplies to what you say too. For instance, if I walked up to a complete stranger and called them a cunt for no reason, they shouldn't be held responsible if they punch me in the mouth. Thoughts?

I am in agreement with that and believe whether it is a punch in the mouth, or criticism, people have to live with the consequences of their speech without playing the victim or vilifying the critic. There is a very specific case/person here in the U.S. which I'm addressing.

 

[ssl]

Actions speak louder than words, unless that action is a speech; in that case, the volume is about the same.

In other words, if it is a good speech, many will act on it, especially if they are given an underdog to identify with, such as David in a D&G fight.

 

[JanieDough]

yeah but to say people should be able to say what they want to say and then pay the consequences is like saying people should be able to start a fight if they want, or throw a stone or make graffiti

or kill themselves

no such thing as a victimless crime because crimes aren't committed against people, they are committed against society

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I'm for complete freedom of speech, as long as we allow punching others in the face too :cool

 

[Peter Parka]

I believe the legal term is "inciting", but I also think it's a very sticky point of law. Here's an example:
Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Its a criminal offense over here, called inciting hatred or a riot or something, I back this law, if it wasn't for it, you Americans wouldn't be able to get your hands on hook arm when he's finished his sentence over here for that.

 

[Accountable]

Grrrrrrr. This is one of those "necessary evils" I guess I have to, well, acquiesce to. I would happily reject it if I heard the right argument against it.

 

[Accountable]

yeah but to say people should be able to say what they want to say and then pay the consequences is like saying people should be able to start a fight if they want, or throw a stone or make graffiti

or kill themselves

no such thing as a victimless crime because crimes aren't committed against people, they are committed against society

That's a worthy conversation all its own, so I started a new thread just for it.
http://www.offtopicz.net/47603-no-victimless-crime-really.html#post1164323

 

[JanieDough]

i think that we do have complete freedom of speech but you do in the end have to pay consequences like jail time or a beating

but no one is going to shoot you - just maybe give you a fine



i would love to be a civil rights attorney, but law school was full of assholes that didn't care about these things.

its funny that i went to law school and never met people so interested in the topics as yall are here