"Free Speech" vs. Freedom of Speech

[PeterPilot]

An actual example would be someone at a 9-11 memorial going up to the crowd and yelling "I love Osama BinLaden"

As such a statement isn't merely offensive, but is likely to incite a riot. Or be of conduct that would cause a egregious disturbance.

Disorderly conduct is a crime defined as behavior that disturbs the public peace,
To be charged, a person usually needs to have a specific intent, such as to cause public alarm , or have acted recklessly.

Do you actually believe that Osama was responsible for 911?

 

[postman]

Do you actually believe that Osama was responsible for 911?

Not germane to the conversation.

 

[DStar777]

An actual example would be someone at a 9-11 memorial going up to the crowd and yelling "I love Osama BinLaden"

That's an example of an illegal act? Does the crowd not have enough self control not to react by rioting or assaulting the speaker?

 

[postman]

That's an example of an illegal act? Does the crowd not have enough self control not to react by rioting or assaulting the speaker?

It may be for the courts to make the final determination, if it qualified as "inciting a riot", but there is certainly probable cause to think a gathering of 9-11 mourners, would be so affected by such a direct attack during a memorial service, so as to make their reactions almost a form of "temporary insanity".

 

[DStar777]

there is certainly probable cause to think a gathering of 9-11 mourners, would be so affected by such a direct attack during a memorial service

.. That they would lack the self control necessary not to assault the speaker?? Ok.

 

[postman]

.. That they would lack the self control necessary not to assault the speaker?? Ok.

You have to apply the principle of a "reasonable" person.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Actually your example should not subject the person to arrest. No more than if you said the same thing in front of or even inside a Kosher Deli.

Inciting violence.

 

[Captain Caveman]

An actual example would be someone at a 9-11 memorial going up to the crowd and yelling "I love Osama BinLaden"

As such a statement isn't merely offensive, but is likely to incite a riot. Or be of conduct that would cause a egregious disturbance.

Disorderly conduct is a crime defined as behavior that disturbs the public peace,
To be charged, a person usually needs to have a specific intent, such as to cause public alarm , or have acted recklessly.

If you can incite violence in the US under the umbrella of Free Speech, good on the US. But in the UK and Europe, expect to be facing a judge.

 

[postman]

Inciting violence.

I mentioned possible occasions for inciting violence, and preference for cured pork products isn't one of them.

 

[sparky]

See: Soccer Riot.

see> flag burning issue.........~S~

 

[PeterPilot]

Not germane to the conversation.

That's funny. Didn't you inject it into the conversation?

 

[DStar777]

You have to apply the principle of a "reasonable" person.

So folks cannot be expected to be reasonable when they hear speech that offends them. Got it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Despite its popular reference, "Free speech" is not guaranteed by the First Amendment. Instead, the Constitution protects "freedom of speech," which is a different concept. Free speech connotes an ability to say anything at any time without any consequences. This is not a correct interpretation, since time and place restrictions can be placed on public demonstrations and it is illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

Freedom of speech protects the right to say things, but not the right to avoid being subject to their consequences. For example, employees can be fired for saying things that violate the terms of their employment contracts. Thus the "firing" of tucker Carlson and Jimmy Kimmel by their respective employers is not really a First Amendment issue, but rather an employment contract issue. As a result, the alleged "hypocrisy" involved in these events is a moot point.

I think you need to understand what a right is.

The Magna Carta in 1215 was born out of the nobles in England coming up against a weak king and wanting to take power from him, which they did. They got "rights", which weren't rights as we know them today.

Then the English Bill of Rights in 1689 moved rights closer to what we have today with individual rights for everyone.

Both of these were power taken from the monarch and given to people. That's essentially what a right is.

The rights are only protects from the government. You do not have a right to free speech in some dude's house, or even in your own home. You can say whatever you want in your own home (assuming the government isn't recording you).

These rights are only protections from government action.

However the Constitution says you have rights, but they're not infinite, like you say. The right to free speech does not stop the government trying you for treason, for example.

 

[frigidweirdo]

An actual example would be someone at a 9-11 memorial going up to the crowd and yelling "I love Osama BinLaden"

As such a statement isn't merely offensive, but is likely to incite a riot. Or be of conduct that would cause a egregious disturbance.

Disorderly conduct is a crime defined as behavior that disturbs the public peace,
To be charged, a person usually needs to have a specific intent, such as to cause public alarm , or have acted recklessly.

Yes, your speech could harm people. It's dangerous. So, it's not protected.

 

[DGS49]

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

Parenthetically, why does everybody forget the first five words?

Originally the provision was inserted in the FIRST Amendment to basically protect the right of citizens to criticize the government or its officers without fear of being punished for it.

The political Left has distorted it beyond all recognition, starting with the specious claim that the First Amendment protects pornography.

Thank the ACLU.

 

[pal]

Everyone got debate. A little schizophrenia rage.

We don't live in Nazi Germany.

 

[pal]

We live in new times.

 

[pal]

Most people have freedom, but the ordinary divine wants to punish some people. Totally impossible by people who can harm other people. Many people have help by God. Many people cannot gab. Few can gab.

 

[pal]

Do you actually believe that Osama was responsible for 911?

Of course.

The problem was that many atheists believed in something but did not believe in god.

Many atheists do not want to be able to speak the language.

Typical left-wing.