Should there be any limits on Freedom of Speech? [W:57]

[Thunder]

A lot of protesters these days argue that the 1st Amendment is the only protest permit they need, to gather 50,000 people in the middle of Times Square, stopping traffic for miles and causing mass-chaos for the police dept.

Others argue that its only common-sense for big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Philly, etc...so require protest permits so that things can be done in an orderly, controlled, and less-disruptive fashion.

so.....does the government have the right & obligation to enact regulations upon freedom of speech in public space?

 

[TurtleDude]

A lot of protesters these days argue that the 1st Amendment is the only protest permit they need, to gather 50,000 people in the middle of Times Square, stopping traffic for miles and causing mass-chaos for the police dept.

Others argue that its only common-sense for big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Philly, etc...so require protest permits so that things can be done in an orderly, controlled, and less-disruptive fashion.

so.....does the government have the right & obligation to enact regulations upon freedom of speech in public space?

not relevant, I want to know where the federal government was properly given the power to enact the sort of hoplophobic wet dreams you want since this appears to be a continuation of the gun thread where you started comparing free speech with gun rights

 

[jimbo]

so.....does the government have the right & obligation to enact regulations upon freedom of speech in public space?

Within limits I would say yes. And, to me those limits include the necessity to treat all groups equally, the limit to impose danger on others (The fire in a crowded room example) and the limit of a group to interfere with other non protesters with their actions. This would include the blocking of ingress and egress to ports, bridges, and buildings. The stopping of movement of non participants, and things of that nature.

Richmond is involved in a suit regarding this at present, and they will probably lose. The short story is that the Tea Party was required to obtain permits, post bond, and observe time limits in their meetings. The Occupy group were not, to the extent that they were allowed to camp in Kanawa overnight, occupy past the time limits, and even included a visit from the mayor in support while violating city laws.

 

[Thunder]

not relevant, I want to know where the federal government was properly given the power to enact the sort of hoplophobic wet dreams you want since this appears to be a continuation of the gun thread where you started comparing free speech with gun rights

don't we have enough threads about guns?

 

[Thrilla]

basically put,when your rights start to infringe on the rights of others, then you can look to impose limits ( limits should be imposed justly and fairly)..... if exercising your rights has no bearing on the rights of other, then no limits should be imposed.

you may have a right to speak/express, but you have no right to impose upon me an obligation to hear you.
if you impede me , or my business, while exercising your speech rights, then you, in effect, impose upon me an obligation to hear you... and limits can, and should , be placed upon your rights at that time.
limits should be imposed that justly balance the rights of all involved parties.... you should have your speech, and I should have my rights as well.
I shouldn't be able to block your rights, nor should you be able to block mine.

 

[Thunder]

so.....does the government have the right & obligation to enact regulations upon freedom of speech in public space?

Within limits I would say yes. And, to me those limits include the necessity to treat all groups equally, the limit to impose danger on others (The fire in a crowded room example) and the limit of a group to interfere with other non protesters with their actions. This would include the blocking of ingress and egress to ports, bridges, and buildings. The stopping of movement of non participants, and things of that nature...

for the sake of order & safety, I see no problem with requring permits for marches & protests on public property.

imagine if NYC allowed ANYONE to have a march or protest ANYWHERE with as many people as they wanted, at any time of day, any day of the year?

it would be chaos. it would be insane. it would shut down the city and be a disaster.

yes, Freedom of Speech must allow for common-sense regulations.

 

[Thrilla]

for the sake of order & safety, I see no problem with requring permits for marches & protests on public property.

imagine if NYC allowed ANYONE to have a march or protest ANYWHERE with as many people as they wanted, at any time of day, any day of the year?

it would be chaos. it would be insane. it would shut down the city and be a disaster.

yes, Freedom of Speech must allow for common-sense regulations.

every time i hear the phrase " common sense regulations", I brace myself for common sense to fly right out the window and for ideology to take it's place.

 

[digsbe]

Of course there should be limits. Permits are necessary to ensure that all citizens have equal access to public property. It would be wrong for a group to occupy public space and refuse to leave and thus denying others access to public property.

Also, freedom of speech does not give someone license to freely disturb the peace. They don't have the right to use a megaphone at 2am and shout their political beliefs to the sleeping world. You don't have the right to protest on someone else's property under the fact that you have freedom of speech.

The government should not censor any speech or idea. They shouldn't tell someone that their opinions are illegal to hold and promote. However, the government does have an obligation to keep the peace and ensure that when people exercise their right to freedom of speech they are not infringing upon the rights and peace of others.

 

[1029066]

No, free speech is free speech. If the people are protesting, as long as they aren't being violent, they must be allowed to remain under constitutional law.

 

[Thunder]

Of course there should be limits. Permits are necessary to ensure that all citizens have equal access to public property. It would be wrong for a group to occupy public space and refuse to leave and thus denying others access to public property.....

agreed. so even though the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", most of us agree that common-sense laws that indeed restrict freedom of speech, is necessary.

 

[Thrilla]

No, free speech is free speech. If the people are protesting, as long as they aren't being violent, they must be allowed to remain under constitutional law.

being violent is one way to infringe upon the rights of others, but it's not the only way.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, free speech is free speech. If the people are protesting, as long as they aren't being violent, they must be allowed to remain under constitutional law.

when someone blocks others' lawful and peaceful egress or ingress to public areas, the protestors are not being arrested for what they say but rather the fact that they are infringing on the rights of others

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

No, free speech is free speech. If the people are protesting, as long as they aren't being violent, they must be allowed to remain under constitutional law.

It's always entertaining when people remember which Amendments or rulings affirm the rights which are important to them personally -- but forget all about the 9th Amendment, or common sense in general.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

every time i hear the phrase " common sense regulations", I brace myself for common sense to fly right out the window and for ideology to take it's place.

Indeed. We've seen Thunder use the term “common sense regulations” plenty of times before, to know what he really means when he uses that term.

 

[Meathead]

Like saying Merry Christmas in a crowded theater?

 

[jamesrage]

A lot of protesters these days argue that the 1st Amendment is the only protest permit they need, to gather 50,000 people in the middle of Times Square, stopping traffic for miles and causing mass-chaos for the police dept.

Others argue that its only common-sense for big cities like NYC, Los Angeles, Boston, Chicago, Philly, etc...so require protest permits so that things can be done in an orderly, controlled, and less-disruptive fashion.

so.....does the government have the right & obligation to enact regulations upon freedom of speech in public space?

When you get a permit to use the space it is a permit to use the space it is not a permit for protesting and gather. Just like when someone gets a hunting permit its a permit to hunt, not a permit for keeping and bearing arms, nor is it a permit to hunt where ever you like. So it is idiotic trying to say its a permit to protest. I do not know about those cities but in my city you can protest on the side walks all you want all night and day if you as long as you allow access for pedestrians. You can protest in the parks all you want as long as you do not stay after hours.Now if you want to use the street to protest or use the park to protest all night and all day then you need a permit.

Camping out in parks, bogarting public spaces, trashing public spaces, harassing burger king employees and customers, throwing trash cans through Star Bucks windows,harassing school kids and other acts of nuisances,harassment and destruction are not in any shape or form speech or peaceful assembly. Trying to say those things are first amendment rights amounts to saying that randomly shooting people,shooting your firearm off at 3am for the hell of it or randomly bullets past people's heads for the hell of it are 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Paschendale]

There would have to be an overwhelming interest in preventing a demonstration or in limiting speech. Holding someone responsible for inciting a riot, for example, is a pretty overwhelming interest. A casual reason, like the horrid inconvenience of having someone else use public property, is not enough.

 

[Meathead]

There would have to be an overwhelming interest in preventing a demonstration or in limiting speech. Holding someone responsible for inciting a riot, for example, is a pretty overwhelming interest. A casual reason, like the horrid inconvenience of having someone else use public property, is not enough.

No one is limiting free speech. That's nonsense. What is being limited is the occupation of public properties. Sleeping, eating and defecating, for example, are not the exersize of free speech, even if you are taking a crap on a police car.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

agreed. so even though the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech", most of us agree that common-sense laws that indeed restrict freedom of speech, is necessary.

well - Congress can't . . . but that doesn't mean a state can't in regard to balancing out one of the people's rights with another of the people's other rights.

It's not about superiority or preference - it's about obtaining balance.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I believe that no topic should be off-limits for discussion, no ideas prohibited from consideration, but I believe in strict limits on how and where those topics and ideas are to be expressed. Your right to express your opinion does not extend to bothering people who wish to be left alone, interfering with their daily affairs, or coarsening the public discourse with insults and obscenities. Giving deliberate offense to the honor and sensibilities of others is neither a valid political opinion nor artistic expression, no matter how many juvenile and tasteless "activists" and "artists" would have us believe otherwise, and civilized society is under no obligation to tolerate the depredations of those who reject the fundamental courtesies that make civilization possible.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

yes, Freedom of Speech must allow for common-sense regulations.

I couldn't disagree with you more (not about the permit to assemble thing but...) about the Freedom of Speech regulations. OWS not obtaining permits is wrong if any other group was required to obtain permits for assembly. Permits are necessary for large gatherings not because they may infringe on anothers rights but because it is a logistical nightmare for the city to have to deal with.

Back to the disagreement part - some people refer to the shouting fire in a crowded room as a reason to regulate another persons speech. There is no restrictions on that. If you are a but wipe and feel the need to do so, have at it. There is no criminal penalty for doing so. HOWEVER there is Civil Liability you must contend with if anyone gets hurt because of your careless and stupid outburst.

My point is; words/speech should never be restricted, even the worst of them. Whether or not you like what they say, they have every right to say it. May it be thought provoking or outright hateful, they have the right to their speech and the free exercise there of. Just be ready to handle the backlash of your speech.

 

[SFOD-D]

This is one of the dilemmas that face government today. Where the balance is between freedom and order. Freedom of speech, in relation to the 1st Amendment, does have retrictions, and they were made within reasonable boundaries. The 1st Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court does not protect speech that presents a clear and present danger (like shouting fire in a crowded theater as stated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes), hate speech and fighting words, slander and libel, sedition and obscenity. This in my opinion is by far the best and fairest limitation on freedom of speech without abridging the our civil liberties.

 

[NGNM85]

This is one of the dilemmas that face government today. Where the balance is between freedom and order. Freedom of speech, in relation to the 1st Amendment, does have retrictions, and they were made within reasonable boundaries. The 1st Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court does not protect speech that presents a clear and present danger (like shouting fire in a crowded theater as stated by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes), hate speech and fighting words, slander and libel, sedition and obscenity. This in my opinion is by far the best and fairest limitation on freedom of speech without abridging the our civil liberties.

Speech that represents an 'immenent lawless action', like shouting; "Fire!' in the theatre, or explicit death threats, are forbidden.

'Hate speech' is totally protected under the First Amendement, unless it falls under the first exception. Actually; free speech was, finally, established, in this country in '69 as a result of Brandenburg v. Ohio. (Clarence Brandenburg being, at that time, the leader of the Ohio branch of the Ku Klux Klan.)

 

[Henrin]

Speech that represents an 'immenent lawless action', like shouting; "Fire!' in the theatre, or explicit death threats, are forbidden.

Why? Oh right because someone could be killed and threats are not cool. Meh..bad reasons.

 

[misterman]

The 1st Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court does not protect speech that presents a clear and present danger

The "clear and present danger" test is dead. It's "imminent lawless action" now.