• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is free speech?

Redress said:
In point of fact, you are wrong. The "fire in a theater" example came from Schenk v United States , which has been overturned. Also, even without that fact, the issue with yelling fire in a theater is not that it is a lie, but that it is dangerous. In other words, you could yell out other lies in a theater without legal repercussions just fine.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is dangerous because it IS a lie and has dangerous consequences.
Redress said:
Depends very much on the case.
Click to expand...
How so? Is some particular violence OK
Redress said:
You might, possibly, be able to charge someone with something
Click to expand...
Like depraved indifference?
Redress said:
but would need to prove they knew it was a lie, and a reasonable person would believe that lie.
Click to expand...
Both doable.
Redress said:
and the odds of conviction are likely very low.
Click to expand...
Why? Is life so cheap now?
Redress said:
our country was founded with a bedrock solid conviction that free speech was incredibly important.
Click to expand...
That bedrock also included slavery, meaning that some things come out wrong no matter how noble the cause that creates them.
Redress said:
While there are limits to free speech, they should be incredibly rare and limited.
Click to expand...
Why and who is to make that determination and after what negative result?
Redress said:
People should be responsible for actually researching decisions, and not making them because Joe Blow says so.
Click to expand...
Not all people have the ability or "learning" to make such decisions and far too many do rely on public figures they can falsely think are credible.
Redress said:
I do not like anti-vaxxers, not at all, but I think even people I do not like should have their rights protected.
Click to expand...
Even when those people cause death to innocent others? Then it is not longer a matter of liking or disliking.
 
prometeus said:
Yes, it is dangerous because it IS a lie and has dangerous consequences.

How so? Is some particular violence OK

Like depraved indifference?

Both doable.

Why? Is life so cheap now?

That bedrock also included slavery, meaning that some things come out wrong no matter how noble the cause that creates them.

Why and who is to make that determination and after what negative result?

Not all people have the ability or "learning" to make such decisions and far too many do rely on public figures they can falsely think are credible.

Even when those people cause death to innocent others? Then it is not longer a matter of liking or disliking.
Click to expand...
Is it legal to induce panic in a crowded theater by yelling "Fire!", in a case where there IS a fire?
 
The Mark said:
Not positive, but I don't think it's whether the speech is true or not that determines whether it's protected.

I think that if you told absolute truths but did so in a way that incited violence, it wouldn't be protected.
Click to expand...
What do you base that on? Is there an example that you can think of?
The Mark said:
tl;dr: It's about the harm, not the truthfulness.
Click to expand...
Is it really?
 
Bum said:
If it isn't calling for the violent overthrow of the Government, inciting riot or panic ( yelling fire in a theatre) or violence against anyone or any group....its free speech.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a bit over simplifying it?
 
HonestJoe said:
At it's core, the concept of free speech applies to literally everything by definition. Rules and laws around free speech (like some other freedoms) are always conditional, based on factors like safety or privacy. I think the key thing about these fundamental freedoms is that the default position is that you should be free to do it, and it can only be limited for a specifically defined reason.
Click to expand...
Yes and I am trying to discuss where is that limit. What do you think that limit should be?
 
prometeus said:
I understand, but you must have thought of some example or scenario.
Click to expand...
I mean, I kinda described the scenario, but I am not aware of any existing example.
 
prometeus said:
Isn't that a bit over simplifying it?
Click to expand...
Only for those that live between the lines and are actively looking for reasons to be offended.
 
bongsaway said:
Fox is still on the air?

Question answered.
Click to expand...
Benign or even not so benign lies are one thing, in no way am I advocating a speech police, but when lives are lost in the least one has to thing about a remedy.
 
prometeus said:
Benign or even not so benign lies are one thing, in no way am I advocating a speech police, but when lives are lost in the least one has to thing about a remedy.
Click to expand...
Sadly there is no remedy for stupid. Ingesting disinfectant to cure covid? What's the remedy for that kind of stupid?
 
Gateman_Wen said:
Lol, you mean like when tRump got inaugurated and told two easily spotted lies within the hour?
Click to expand...
Seriously? The best you can do is a "whataboutTrump" with a childish tRump comment.
 
Bullseye said:
Seriously? The best you can do is a "whataboutTrump" with a childish tRump comment.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Didn't you just do exactly the same thing with a Biden comment?

Hypocrisy much?
 
prometeus said:
Are purposeful lies free speech? How about if they cause harm?
Click to expand...

Free speech is, in short, the ability to express yourself without government interference. And freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. It's just that the government cannot apply them.

Slander is free speech, but it can also come with potential consequences in civil court. If it was a federal crime, that would be a violation of free speech. However, if you have enough economic resources, you can leverage civil liability to quell free speech (SLAPP suits).

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom