Should There Be Some Limit on Freedom of Speech?

[Flopper]

Wrong.
Once you allow censorship, then all the wealthy elite have to do is buy or destroy all the alterative media competition, and they can control every thing every one sees or hears.
That guarantees a dictatorship.

Didn't the lies about Iraqi WMD teach you anything?
We already have a monopoly on information enough as it is.

We allow censorship now and have for many years. Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, and true threats. Defamation that causes harm to reputation is a tort and also an exception to free speech.

I can remember the Internet back in the late 80's before the world wide web (WWW) Facebook, Google, and Twitter when you could get away saying anything what ever you choose on sites such as Prodigy or CompuServe. It was common to see threads, against the president, other members, and just about anyone else, post after post filled with profanity and nothing else, and people offering advice of bomb building, offering stolen merchandise for sale, etc. I really don't think anyone really wants to go back to totally free speech.

 

[evenifigoalone]

There are limits on freedom of speech: speech that incites violence. You can get in trouble for that.

Now, the government shouldn't be regulating the press (but they do anyways) and neither should they be telling people what information they can or cannot share. That said? Parties that are not involved with the government (ie, Facebook) absolutely can. Freedom of speech applies to government regulation and government regulation only.

 

[Stann]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

The founding fathers could never imagine a scenario where people could become so gullible they would believe all these lies. People used to have common sense.

 

[Flopper]

No, I'm thinking in terms of ideology and values.

That's not the issue. I'm not talking about ideological purity. I'm just asking for some consistency. What I see, from both major parties, is complete hypocrisy. "It's different when we do it", could be the motto for either party. They flip and flop with the wind, grasping at whichever arguments benefit their party in the moment (nation be damned). Even if it's a complete reversal of what they were arguing three months ago regarding another issue.

When you say both parties, are you speaking of the actually leadership of two parties, RNC and DNC or are you speaking of comments from party members, politicians and supporters. There are really not many democrats or republicans that will stick to the party line in every circumstance. Also, most supporters of the two parties have certain issues that they will go against the party and their are issues in which people are on both sides and will flip flop for political reasons. If you represent a district that is evenly divided between those that favor freedom to choose vaccination and those who believe vaccinating should be required, you are likely to cater to both sides and thus go back and forth on your support for each side. It's politics and both sides do it.

 

[Eyepublius]

FYI for the GOP ignorant class parked here:

Introduction to Free Speech and First Amendment:

1: There is no “hate speech exception” to the First Amendment.

2: “Threats of violence and incitement to violence are not protected.”

3: “Hate crime laws can punish violence or vandalism based on the offender targeting particular groups,” but that doesn't allow punishment of “supposed hate speech.

 

[Eyepublius]

WHICH TYPES OF SPEECH ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (including libel and slander)
• Child pornography
• Perjury
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crimes

Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list.

Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.

 

[Flopper]

Also, most supporters of the two parties have certain issues that they will go against the party and their are issues in which people are on both sides and will flip flop for political reasons. I

Wrong.
It is illegal censorship when tenured professors are fired over political beliefs.
It is illegal to fire people over sexual allegations that were never proven in court.
It is illegal to fire people over old racist jokes or blackface.
It is illegal to fire people who refuse an vaccine not FDA approved.

I assume that you mean it is illegal because of either federal or state laws, not the constitution.

 

[Ben Thomson]

Yes, there should be SOME limits. I support the "Some" as defined during the bulk of my 66 year life up until recent times.

The authoritarian left has expanded that "some" to the point where it means "anything they don't like", however, and that is a very dangerous thing, indeed.

The authoritarian left..funny hearing that come from somebody who probably has no problem with a right wing authoritarian oligarchy.

 

[Flopper]

WHICH TYPES OF SPEECH ARE NOT PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT?
Although different scholars view unprotected speech in different ways, there are basically nine categories:

• Obscenity
• Fighting words
• Defamation (including libel and slander)
• Child pornography
• Perjury
• Blackmail
• Incitement to imminent lawless action
• True threats
• Solicitations to commit crimes

Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list.

Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.

The 1st amendment does not specify which categories of free speech are not protected. The construction extends the freedom of speech to all of the above, but keep mind that protection is only from acts of congress. It says, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...." So to answer your question, none.

The constitution is simply protecting your right to free speech from acts of congress. Federals courts, state and federal laws and state constitution have extend that the constitutional protection of free speech to all state and local government and exclude objectionable speech.

 

[K9Buck]

The authoritarian left..funny hearing that come from somebody who probably has no problem with a right wing authoritarian oligarchy.

I'm pretty sure that the American right supports freedom and limited government. An oligarchy is antithetical to right-wing ideology.

 

[Ben Thomson]

I'm pretty sure that the American right supports freedom and limited government. An oligarchy is antithetical to right-wing ideology.

Tin foil hats claim to want small government, right up to having the government controlled by a small group of old wealthy white men...seems they want to go back to that ideal.

 

[K9Buck]

Tin foil hats claim to want small government, right up to having the government controlled by a small group of old wealthy white men...seems they want to go back to that ideal.

Not really. Most of us just pretty much want to be left alone so that we can pursue life, liberty, and happiness. It's the left that wants to control every facet of society, not the right. It's the left that views everyone as subjects wherein the right views citizens as citizens. You're apparently of the belief that the only way to achieve prosperity and happiness is through government.

 

[Flopper]

‘Censorship’ or the people determining what speech is appropriate as intended by the Framers, absent unwarranted interference by government and the courts.

Comparing ‘private ‘censorship’ with government censorship is clearly a fallacy – the latter is un-Constitutional; the former is not.

Private ‘censorship’ is devoid of the authority and power of the state; government censorship is comprehensive, private ‘censorship’ is not – that a private publisher might elect to not disseminate certain information doesn’t mean there aren’t other sources where that information can be found; that wouldn’t be the case with government censorship.

All if most state recognized the rights of business to censorship, such as preventing employees from divulging trade secrets, and in general controlling most speech within the business, however there are some exception. When a bar owner announces that anyone using offensive language will not served, he is within his rights.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The authoritarian left..funny hearing that come from somebody who probably has no problem with a right wing authoritarian oligarchy.

Actually, you are quite wrong about that, but if you prefer being uneducated and living in a fantasy world, go for it boy child.

 

[dblack]

When you say both parties, are you speaking of the actually leadership of two parties, RNC and DNC or are you speaking of comments from party members, politicians and supporters.

Both I guess. Admittedly, I'm generalizing, and I'm not saying all Ds and Rs are hypocrites, but - especially on here - it's pretty glaring.

There are really not many democrats or republicans that will stick to the party line in every circumstance.

Again, I'm not talking about ideological purity. I'm talking about consistency with one's own purported views and values. On this particular issue, we have Democrats arguing for the right of a business to discriminate who would be vehemently opposed to it in another context. Likewise we have Republicans, who make great pretense about protected the rights of business, frothing at the mouth to regulate social media. And the ONLY difference is how it impacts the fortunes of their party. As long businesses are discriminating against conservatives, Dems are big fans. As long government is cracking down on businesses that opposed Trump, Republicans will cheer.

 

[Flopper]

The founding fathers could never imagine a scenario where people could become so gullible they would believe all these lies. People used to have common sense.

And I'm pretty sure that they could never imagine that a text I am writing now could be echoed through out this country and around the world to potentially billions of people to be read and modify to support any cause or agenda with impunity. In colonial times, what was spoken or written generally travel no further than the listener or reader and in rare occurrence to one of the 16 local newspaper that were typically one page filled with announcements, ads, and news of interest to the townspeople.

IMHO, the founders major concern in regard to the 1st amendment was there freedom to state and write their opinions without interference of British government or the new government to be formed. Thus, when they wrote the first amendment they were concerned with only congress prohibiting the free exercise of speech.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

What you and other conservatives ignorantly and incorrectly refer to as ‘cancel culture’ runs counter to the original intent of the Framers.

That conservatives are once again at odds with the Framers is of course nothing new.

Ruining someone's life because you don't like his politics and electing yourself the thought police is the anthitesis of freedom. It's runs contrary to the "tolerance" that Liberals demand.

 

[LuckyDuck]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world government, but because the people will demand it.

Once you put more restrictions on the freedom of speech, you've started shredding our Bill of Rights. Then of course, your left has had its eyes on eliminating the Second Amendment rights. In short, the left is a danger to our freedoms. If it had its way, we would be living under One-Party rule instead of the Constitution and the one thing that never changes under One-Party rule is, authoritarianism, oppression, tyranny and murder.
As for misinformation, you might start with the news media.
There was a case years ago, involving two reporters and Fox news. Unfortunately, it was so long ago that I don't recall the details, but here's the basics of the news story. Two Fox reporters were given a story assignment. They did their research and presented it to the head of Fox. It was reviewed and they were told to go back and rewrite the story in a more favorable light. They did this and presented it for reviewal again and were told to change it further. At this point, they refused and were let go. The two reporters sued Fox and the case went to court. The judges decision: Because of the First Amendment, news agencies are "not" required to tell the truth, only do stories approved by their employers. Hence, because of that judgement, "all" news media lies when it fits their company owners narrative.
It would be nice if ONLY the news agencies were held to a higher standard and mandated to tell only the truth, but once you could do that, you can tell the general public what they can and can't say and when the government decides what you can or can't say, that's when the authoritarianism, oppression, persecution, tyranny and murder creep in, for the government will dictate what opponents can or can't say and use force to ensure its side is the only one heard.

 

[Flopper]

Once you put more restrictions on the freedom of speech, you've started shredding our Bill of Rights. Then of course, your left has had its eyes on eliminating the Second Amendment rights. In short, the left is a danger to our freedoms. If it had its way, we would be living under One-Party rule instead of the Constitution and the one thing that never changes under One-Party rule is, authoritarianism, oppression, tyranny and murder.
As for misinformation, you might start with the news media.
There was a case years ago, involving two reporters and Fox news. Unfortunately, it was so long ago that I don't recall the details, but here's the basics of the news story. Two Fox reporters were given a story assignment. They did their research and presented it to the head of Fox. It was reviewed and they were told to go back and rewrite the story in a more favorable light. They did this and presented it for reviewal again and were told to change it further. At this point, they refused and were let go. The two reporters sued Fox and the case went to court. The judges decision: Because of the First Amendment, news agencies are "not" required to tell the truth, only do stories approved by their employers. Hence, because of that judgement, "all" news media lies when it fits their company owners narrative.
It would be nice if ONLY the news agencies were held to a higher standard and mandated to tell only the truth, but once you could do that, you can tell the general public what they can and can't say and when the government decides what you can or can't say, that's when the authoritarianism, oppression, persecution, tyranny and murder creep in, for the government will dictate what opponents can or can't say and use force to ensure its side is the only one heard.

I'm not suggesting goverment abridge freedom of speech. That is clearly a violation of the constitution. However, the news media, and social media are not obliged to spread lies and misinformation. It wasn't till the 2nd half of the 20th century, that the media totally abandoned the old New York Times slogan, "All the News That's Fit to Print". Throughout the 18th, 19th, and into the 20 century the news media used desertion in what they labelled as news.

 

[Skylar]

The Internet is a powerful means of spreading information, but it's also a power means of spreading dangerous misinformation. And when that misinformation is accepted as fact and innocent people act on it and die is this not analogous to screaming fire in a crowded auditorium where there is no fire and many are trampled to death.

I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, there is a big difference between, the statements of opinion and fact, and between news and editorials. Just as there is a big difference between the statements, "In my opinion, we had many deaths due to covid-19 vaccines in the US. " and "5,250 people in the US have died due covid-19 vaccinations" The first statement is a personal expression of opinion and carries far less weight than the second which is declaration of fact.

IMHO, if we do no find a way to stop the spread of dangerous misinformation, it will eventually lead to government controlling media, not because of some sinister clandestine organization or some world goverment, but because the people will demand it.

The government doesn't need to prohibit such misinformation. Private businesses can regulate their own content.

As FB did when they showed Trump the door.