Freedom of speech is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution as a protected right. But does the "freedom of speech" grant "license" to say whatever you want regardless of the consequences?

Freedom is free, but license costs. Yes you have the right to say what you want, but are you willing to pay the price to say it?

You do not have license to yell "fire" in a crowded room or "bomb" on an airplane unless you're willing to pay the consequences. Similarly, certain language is considered so provocative that while free to say it, license is not granted to say "fighting words" (though subjectively defined).

The best test of free speech on the internet, to me, is: would you say what you're saying in somebody's FACE without turning tail to run or flinching? This is the internet--WORLD WIDE web and all, but the world isn't THAT big.

Just my

Freedom of speech is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution as a protected right. But does the "freedom of speech" grant "license" to say whatever you want regardless of the consequences?

Freedom is free, but license costs. Yes you have the right to say what you want, but are you willing to pay the price to say it?

You do not have license to yell "fire" in a crowded room or "bomb" on an airplane unless you're willing to pay the consequences. Similarly, certain language is considered so provocative that while free to say it, license is not granted to say "fighting words" (though subjectively defined).

The best test of free speech on the internet, to me, is: would you say what you're saying in somebody's FACE without turning tail to run or flinching? This is the internet--WORLD WIDE web and all, but the world isn't THAT big.

Just my

http://www.ivir.nl/public...iosis.html

Interights Bulletin – A Review of the International Centre for the Legal Protection of Human Rights, p. 135 (No. 3, September 2001), at pp. 135-136 (See further: http://www.interights.org)


T. Mc Gonagle
Freedom of Expression and Limits on Racist Speech: A Difficult Symbiosis


[...]
Delineation of the Right to Freedom of Expression

The arguments in favour of the basic principle that freedom of expression and its concomitant freedoms must be protected are legion and incontrovertible. However, unanimity tends to prove elusive whenever efforts are made to trace the conceptual contours of the right to freedom of expression. While the existence of an inner comfort zone of inoffensive speech is undisputed, disagreement tends to stymie attempts to fix the outer definitional demarcations of the right.

In its seminal ruling Handyside v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights affirmed that freedom of expression “is applicable not only to 'information'or 'ideas'that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there would be no democratic society. [2] The question of whether or to what extent hate speech should be protected is particularly contentious.

The right to freedom of expression is enshrined, inter alia, in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The only restrictions on the right countenanced by this article are those which are “provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.”

Nevertheless, Article 19 must be read in conjunction with Article 20, which prohibits “any propaganda for war,” and - of crucial importance for present purposes - “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.”

By the way, I mispoke yesterday (I think). This is not a public forum but a privately owned site. (I'm not sure what difference that makes legally, if any.)

Thanks Abrazo for the international perspective.

NuPwrSoul said:

NuPwrSoul, good to see you posting again.

I hate to just drop a link and run, but I thought this might be of interest to people, (It's a pdf link):

http://www.brysons.net/te...wrence.pdf

Charles R. Lawrence III is a Law Professor (I think at Georgetown) and wrote this Op Ed. piece a while back. (I actually can't find the bibliographical data at the moment.)

In it he argues that certain forms of speech -- and he is discussing racist speech in particular -- should not be protected by the First Amendment because they do not promote the free exchange of ideas but instead are intended to inhibit this exchange. Racist speech, and other kinds of hate speech, go against the spirit of the First Amendment .

I offer this not as FACT (I don't know if any of the cases he mentions were litigated) but as (to me) persuasive evidence.

And since I assume that this thread is in response to, and perhaps a continuation of, the discussion started on yesterday's various race threads, I would like to respond to SkeletonKee's point (which I can't find right now. Was it deleted?? ) about the black school children who were escorted into school as racial taunts were being hurled at them.

While their actions were indeed noble and brave, it's not like they had much of a choice. They were probably scared as shit. It's not like they could turn around and respond in kind to their attackers. They were operating under a system and in an environment in which their freedom of speech was non-existent.



What?
[This message was edited Thu Aug 15 7:36:36 PDT 2002 by 2the9s]

Could it be? 2the9s a fountain of knowledge?

About time!

Nep2nes said:

What, as opposed to your wonderful contributions?
.
.

[This message was edited Thu Aug 15 18:05:23 PDT 2002 by bkw]

And since I assume that this thread is in response to, and perhaps a continuation of, the discussion started on yesterday's various race threads, I would like to respond to SkeletonKee's point (which I can't find right now. Was it deleted?? ) about the black school children who were escorted into school as racial taunts were being hurled at them.

While their actions were indeed noble and brave, it's not like they had much of a choice. They were probably scared as shit. It's not like they could turn around and respond in kind to their attackers. They were operating under a system and in an environment in which their freedom of speech was non-existent.

supernova...please dont *sigh* me...(there, thats my breaking point)...

im only sharing my view...you can share yours without interjecting condescending comments like that...please please please...for me?

SK, EVERYBODY has their breaking points. And it seemed to me that most of the people who reacted the most vehemently were at their breaking point, because many of them I had never seen react that way before to the same thing. Some of them might react totally different (or not at all) the next 10 times it happens. The 11th time they may get angry and react the same way again. Nevertheless, it's a human reaction.

I've got a breaking point.

You've got a breaking point.

Ben's got a breaking point.

And The Lord Of All Meats has a breaking point.

Even that wanker 2thefriggin'9s has a breaking point.

It happens at different times for different people.

Ok, soapbox moment over...is there an emoticon for a soapbox? Can I have one?

Nep2nes said:

What, as opposed to your wonderful contributions?
.
.

[This message was edited Thu Aug 15 18:05:23 PDT 2002 by bkw]

Being a jackass on a web-site is hardly the same as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Nobody is being endangered physically by the idiocy of people posting here.

Ifsixwuz9, 2the9s, PrincePDC, SensualMeloday... thnx y'all for the positive feedback.

It's been a while since I posted anything, but I think that Xenophobia Celebration high is finally wearing out... just in time for the new fixes that've been circulating . [c'mon P make it official!]