# Where do we set the limits to freedom of speech?



## asm

After I read the freedom of speech thread and a conversation with another forero, I am asking this:

Does freedom of speech need limits? If so, where do we set the limits?

My background for this question: I have seen that in American culture freedom of speech is for many the ultimate value. 
Mi criticism to freedom of speech (and its supporters) is that sometimes people offend on behalf of this liberty, and they do not set limits. 
I think there are some people as dogmatic with this belief as other religious fanatic they criticize.
Abusing F o S denigrates and overcomes some positive things we get from our democratic system.

Do you remember: "you cannot say "fire" in a public in a theater ..."?
 
Don’t take me wrong, I appreciate and enjoy F o S, my point is on setting limits and being responsible.


----------



## GenJen54

Responsibility - and the limits of speech - lie solely in the mouth of the speaker.  For the government to otherwise intervene is tantamount to censorship.


----------



## maxiogee

I'll cut and paste my questions from the other thread.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> _Free speech will always offend somebody. Show me the censor you would empower to limit our thoughts and statements, and you will have shown me an instrument of tyranny.
> 
> That's the nasty thing about freedom of speech.  It allows for and invites both vigorous disagreements, and even offenses.
> The alternative is far more ugly and oppressive. _


 

Does freedom of speech cover purposeful and knowing lying?
Does it cover Holocaust denial?
Have I the right to stand up in the main street of any city and say that the person who owns the shop nearest me is a thief?

Not everyone can afford to take recourse to the law-courts to protect their good name - how can they vindicate themselves against deliberate lies?


----------



## Outsider

As I understand, the limits of freedom of speech have to do with issues like national security, and slander -- a harmful lie about a particular person, or corporation. By 'harmful', it's broadly understood that the lie must bring serious damage to the person's public reputation. None of this protects citizens from being offended; calling your neighbour an idiot and saying that his mother was born under a bridge is not slander.
Americans tend to think that these protections are enough. In other Western countries, there is an additional exception to freedom of speech, in the form of legislation against 'hate speech'. The idea seems to be defining 'hate speech' in a fairly strict sense; it isn't just any disparaging kind of speech, but speech which openly encourages people to commit violence against others. This also does _not_ protect citizens from being offended.
I have not made up my mind on hate speech laws, but I understand perfectly why you do not, and should not, protect people from other verbal offenses by law. Since most people in any given country are heterosexual, they could claim that films with homosexual characters (like _Brokeback Mountain_, say) 'offended them', and ban those films. Since most people in my country are Catholic, they could claim that mosques and synagogues were 'offensive' to their beliefs, and close them down. And so on. Far from making people happier, trying to legally protect citizens from being offended would only lead to censorship and the destruction of the rights of minorities.


----------



## grumpus

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I'll cut and paste my questions from the other thread.
> 
> [/I]
> 
> Does freedom of speech cover purposeful and knowing lying?
> Does it cover Holocaust denial?
> Have I the right to stand up in the main street of any city and say that the person who owns the shop nearest me is a thief?
> 
> Not everyone can afford to take recourse to the law-courts to protect their good name - how can they vindicate themselves against deliberate lies?



Hi Maxigee,
I would say lying is not really "free speech", it should be consider a crime if it deliberately hurts someone or some group  (but the "hurt" must absolutely be demonstrated).
Now that people can't afford legal remedies is a different issue that has little to do with 
freedom of speech.

I support "offensive free speech" as the other forista said, the other option really sucks.

saludos,
Grumpus


----------



## la reine victoria

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Responsibility - and the limits of speech - lie solely in the mouth of the speaker. For the government to otherwise intervene is tantamount to censorship.


 
I agree with you GenJen, but there are times when the government has to intervene.

I imagine the violent outbursts of hatred, which pour readily from the mouths of Muslim extremists, are uppermost in people's minds at present. For several years it was acceptable, in Britain, to allow these fanatics to preach religious intolerance and hatred to anyone who cared to listen. Sadly, impressionable youths took these words to heart and calmly acted on them on 7th July 2005. A black day for London. 52 innocent people lost their lives, hundreds more were severely injured. The suffering of their families and loved ones is beyond imagination.

I am in no way a supporter of Blair but he has, at long last, put an end to this particular 'freedom of speech'. It's probably the best thing he has done during the whole of his leadership. Recently, as you will no doubt know, the very extreme Abu Hamza was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for his messages of racial hatred and incitement to murder. This will surely set a precedent and any future fanatics who preach such messages in our country will, quite rightly, be locked away. These people are totally abusing 'freedom of speech'.

That's all I have to say on this very profound question.

LRV


----------



## cubaMania

The principle free expression is very important in the heritage of my country, the USA.  Here we hold that there should be very few restrictions on free speech, and those should only be for the most serious and important considerations such as public safety, not for being "offensive."

One important point we are missing here is that freedom of speech is a value and a tradition in many countries but not in all.  It is up to each country to decide upon its own political system.  If Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Cuba, or  or any other country wants a system without freedom of speech that is their privilege.  Nobody is saying you have to allow satirical cartoons in your country.  But in my country, USA, (and apparently in Denmark) we value free speech and intend to continue defending it.  Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our political system and protects us from many evils far worse than being "offended."


----------



## Hakro

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Does freedom of speech cover purposeful and knowing lying?
> Does it cover Holocaust denial?
> Have I the right to stand up in the main street of any city and say that the person who owns the shop nearest me is a thief?


 Yes, yes and yes, but you also are responsible for your words. It may vary in different western countries, but there are always words you can't say without possible punishment.
First case: Haven't you heard the politicians speaking?
Second case: It doesn't matter, we all know what they are.
Third case: Your have the right but you have to prove it, otherwise...


----------



## blancalaw

> As I understand, the limits of freedom of speech have to do with issues like national security, and slander -- a harmful lie about a particular person, or corporation. By 'harmful', it's broadly understood that the lie must bring serious damage to the person's public reputation. None of this protects citizens from being offended; calling your neighbour an idiot and saying that his mother was born under a bridge is not slander.



I have always learned that your rights ends where another person’s rights begins.  I interpret this as you can say what ever you want, but when it harms another person or limits their rights, then it is no longer something you can do.  I can talk about someone or some organization all I want as long as it does not bring harm to them.  However ethics does take a part in this.  I personally do not believe in talking bad about others.  If I need to criticize, I do so constructively, meaning I think of ways they could improve.  But this is hard to do when talking about politics, there is hardly anything good you can say about any politician.


----------



## bernik

GenJen54: _"For the government to otherwise intervene is tantamount to censorship"_

In the case of the Mahomet cartoons, we had mainly self-censorship by the news media, not by the governments. I think we have a problem with the news media refusing to confront islam, but our broader problem is having leftist news media.
I think we have free speech in the United States and even in Europe. We can write anything we want on the Internet or in small confidential newspapers. But there is no free speech in the mainstream news media, which is mainly brainwashing. Just listen to the BBC !

Outsider: _"The idea seems to be defining 'hate speech' in a fairly strict sense"_

I don't think so. In France, the violence and speeches inciting to violence (listen to their rap songs) come mostly from immigrants, and the "hate legislation" is meant as a weapon against white Europeans.


----------



## Outsider

blancalaw said:
			
		

> I have always learned that your rights ends where another person’s rights begins.  I interpret this as you can say what ever you want, but when it harms another person or limits their rights, then it is no longer something you can do.  I can talk about someone or some organization all I want as long as it does not bring harm to them.  However ethics does take a part in this.  I personally do not believe in talking bad about others.  If I need to criticize, I do so constructively, meaning I think of ways they could improve.  But this is hard to do when talking about politics, there is hardly anything good you can say about any politician.


The way I see it, my freedom ends when I start to physically harm or impose on someone else, or when I hurt their reputation or their well-being with a falsehood. That's it. I do not have a right not to be offended.
Talking bad about others, or even insulting them, is nasty and unpleasant, and sometimes foolish (I'm leaning towards believing that the European media who republished the controversial cartoons were foolish); but you should have the right to be nasty, unpleasant, and even foolish. Protecting people from themselves always leads to the same thing: totalitarianism.


----------



## cuchuflete

Remove freedom of speech => you will have removed freedom in political action => you will live under a dictator => all your other 'rights' and 'freedoms' will be gone. What you will have left is the right to be servile to the dictator, to live in fear.

People with even a little intelligence and sense know that free speech carries responsibilities. Common sense cannot be effectively legislated.

Here is a very partial list of regimes that did not allow free speech.  Would you like to have lived there?

Hitler's Germany
Mussolini's Italy
Stroessner's Paraguay
Somoza's Nicaragua
Videla's Argentina
The Soviet Union

All of these are fine countries, with fine people, all of whom were enslaved in many ways.


----------



## asm

Interesting. Where does this apply?



			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> You do not have a right not to be offended.


 If this quote is absolutely correct, is there a right to offend?

I think we should be tolerant within some limits.

By the way, don't you think that a bunch of conflicts (from brawls to wars) started with a verbal action that was considered offensive by the counterpart?


----------



## Outsider

asm said:
			
		

> If this quote is absolutely correct


The quote is neither correct nor incorrect. It's just my opinion.



			
				asm said:
			
		

> [...] is there a right to offend?


Yes, it's called the right to free speech.



			
				asm said:
			
		

> I think we should be tolerant within some limits.


I don't disagree with that. Where we may disagree is regarding how much we should tolerate.



			
				asm said:
			
		

> By the way, don't you think that a bunch of conflicts (from brawls to wars) started with a verbal action that was considered offensive by the counterpart?


I'm not sure. I tend to see exchanges of insults more as a symptom than as a cause. I may be wrong...


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Here is a very partial list of regimes that did not allow free speech.  Would you like to have lived there, or live there, in a few cases?



LOL!
How much free speech was afforded to Communist Party members in the USA of the 40s, 50s & 60s?
Does Freedom of Speech cover the freedom not so speak - ask the Hollywood Ten about freedom of silence?


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:
			
		

> LOL!
> How much free speech was afforded to Communist Party members in the USA of the 40s, 50s & 60s?
> Does Freedom of Speech cover the freedom not so speak - ask the Hollywood Ten about freedom of silence?



You are absolutely correct about the 40s and 50s, and dead wrong about the 60s.   For about a decade and a half, there was a terrible, and in my view, criminal distortion of the rights to free speech in my country.  In the 60s, people resumed criticizing the regimes in power, without fear of McCarthyist witch hunts.

Some horrible people used the laws against sedition to stiffle free speech.  They got away with it for a while.  Eventually they were exposed as tyrants.

Freedom is fragile.  It requires vigilance and nurture, neither of which is possible when speech is controlled by government.


----------



## Hakro

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Here is a very partial list of regimes that did not allow free speech.  Would you like to have lived there?
> 
> Hitler's Germany
> Mussolini's Italy
> Stroessner's Paraguay
> Somoza's Nicaragua
> Videla's Argentina
> The Soviet Union


 I wouldn't. But the list could be continued, more countries both from the history and from today, unfortunately.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> In the 60s, people resumed criticizing the regimes in power, without fear of McCarthyist witch hunts.



I'd query the freedom which was allowed to opponents of the Vietnam War.
The Berrigans spring to mind.


----------



## Fernando

Well, apparently it was freedom enough for them to stop the American intervention (for good or worse).

Meanwhile, Iran and Iraq struggled for 8 years and I do not recall any demonstration against the war.


----------



## Hakro

In some really free (?) countries there is not only a freedom for speech but also a freedom to shoot a person (see Cultural Discussions - Take the guns... #30).


----------



## I.C.

I think it ends at outright slander, at breach of privacy rights and in my opinion probably also at concrete incitement to very serious crimes.

Repeating myself regarding blasphemy: "Offences to the gods are the concern of the gods."

There is no right not to be offended. 
Such a right would kill freedom of speech completely. 
Freedom of speech is a prerequisite for democracy, so it necessarily has to be guarded fiercely.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I'd query the freedom which was allowed to opponents of the Vietnam War.
> The Berrigans spring to mind.


I was, along with millions of others, 'allowed' the freedom to oppose the war.  While the Berrigans did much one may admire, they also committed numerous crimes that had nothing to do with free speech.  To imply that they were harassed for speech is misleading.

To make your point less deceptively, free speech was under lots of governmental pressure during the war.  It took a mobilized citizenry to overcome that pressure.  

Phillip Berrigan was not a martyr for free speech.  He was a man of deep and fine convictions, who took action against bad government.  He chose to do that by actions that violated laws that had not a damned thing to do with free speech.


----------

