First Amendment, what does it mean?

[Will-Mun]

This topic is regarding the American Constitution's First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Specifically, the bold text. This topic came to me in a discussion in the main forums about Fred Phelps and his brood being sued for a shit ton of money because they protested a funeral.

The details you can find there, but what made me want to make this thread is two things, one, I think the thread in the main forums will be getting locked soon (it's civil for now, but may turned heated) or at least will if I try to bring this topic into the thread.

Two, I was literally shocked to find out people would actually say they believe there should be a limit to the Freedom of Speech... And since this is the first real time I've seen a major political disagreement emerge, I decided to hop over here to get down to the grit of it.

Freedom of Speech, it is the CORE of the American constitution, the rights of Americans not only to have their opinions of the government, but the right to vocalize it as LOUDLY as they please, or any opinion.

Now the major problem here is people like Fred Phelps, who says things that make people just want to wretch, it hurts people that these things are being said, makes you feel like you shouldn't be allowed to say it!

...But thats completely wrong...

The First Amendment doesn't protect popular speech, it protects the speech and opinions that we despise, the speech we thought nobody was really capable of...

The first Amendment protects the Ku Klux Klan, it protects Nazis, Religious Fanatics, Eco Nuts, and White Supremacists.

But it also protects us, right here with our opinions, in a country without freedom of speech, we would never be allowed to question the war in Iraq, we would never be able to voice our outrage over Katrina, we would probably be ARRESTED for making a Bill Clinton blow job joke.

Freedom of Speech is everything or nothing... How can it work any other way? What CAN you put restrictions on, and not have it be a double standard...? When does it stop? No matter what your opinion is, it WILL offend someone, and they will rally to take the right to say it away from you.

[Boozy]

Freedom of speech should not be limited, and it does not appear that the wording of the First Amendment makes any exceptions for "hate speech."

Canada has freedom of speech - but we exclude hate speech from our protections, something that has always concerned me. How do you classify "hate" speech? Its frighteningly subjective. If I say that I "hate" our Prime Minister and the government doesn't like that, what protection do I get under our constitution?

The Canadian government used this hate speech exception to imprison a holocaust-denier who published literature which "is likely to incite hatred against an identifiable group." I despise holocaust deniers....but if I don't give them the right to say what they want, then I don't have the right to say what I want.

There is a growing movement now to ensure that freedom of speech and rights of the individual thrive here in Canada. Interestingly, it appears as though the trend is going the opposite way in the States.

This goes back to another thread on this board - if the citizenry gets frightened enough of terrorism and moral/social decay, they will slowly give up their freedoms one by one to anyone who promises to fix the problem. The Republicans have been very crafty with this issue.

[Boozy]

I forgot to add a thought in my previous post...

Just because there is freedom of speech doesn't mean that we are free from any repercussions. The government can't arrest you, but there are a myriad of other consequences to talking like an a$$hole.

For example, the Westboro group was sued successfully in civil court for harassment. That's what the civil court is there for, and I think justice was served in this case.

Children as young as three understand that there are consequences to running their mouths. You insult another child, they might hit you. You sass back at mommy, you get sent to your room.

As adults, we also understand that we can't say whatever the hell we want to our bosses without getting fired, we can't swear at the cashier without getting kicked out of the store (hopefully), and we can't be brutally honest with our friends without eventually being ostracized.

There are natural moral and social limits to freedom of speech without the government stepping in.

[rahmota]

The 1st amendment to the constitution has got to be one of the more contentious amendments possible. I think it actually even surpasses the 2nd in amount of arguments as to what it means sometimes.

Personally I'll agree that what it means is that there is and should never be any LEGAL limits to what a person can or cannot say except within specific and limited examples. ie yelling fire in a crowded theator or other induction of panic moments that would be harmful to the general good.

What that does not mean though is that there would not be any SOCIAL ramifications on what a person says. A person starts using racial epithets or other unpleasant comments at best they are goign to get sued in civil court (which may or may not work if it can show harm resulting from said words) to getting their butts handed to them in some back alley justice.

Thing about civil suits is that there has to be a burden of proof that the words used where more than just emotionally hurtful. Yeah words can do damage to a person's psyche and all but thats not usually somethign that laws and the legal system are there for. I mena if everytime someone's feelings got hurt they sued someone there wouldnt be room for anythign else in the court system.

In westboro's case their words are harmful in that not only do they cause emotional harm but they incite well not panic and not rioting but contention and confrontation which involves the police having to watch out due to the high emotions on both sides. There have been fights break out. You have motorcycle clubs coming in to protect the funerals from the protesters. The protesters getting even more vocal. So this all leads to some very dangerous powder keg situations that could get very ugly very quick.

Legally the courts cant stop the protesters, nor the counter protesters. However if oen side starts throwing more than words they can step in. So they watch and they wait. But the subject of the protests (or at least their father) sued and the courts took the opportunity to try and get the point across (like that will work) that there are ramifications to their actions.

I hope I made sense in my assessment of this. Basically a person has the legal right to say whatever they want to. But a social responsibility to watch their words to an appropriate venue and be ready adn willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

[Greenday]

Freedom of Speech should be given to everyone, I'll agree with that. But if someone uses their free speech to say a lot of crap to me, they better not go whining to the justice system when they get their asses handed to them.

[Boozy]

But if someone uses their free speech to say a lot of crap to me, they better not go whining to the justice system when they get their asses handed to them.

If by getting their asses handed to them, you mean assault, then yes, they can expect protection against that from the legal system. And rightfully so.

The consequences of free speech shouldn't include being the victim of physical violence. No matter how despicable we may think their words are.

Example: I should be able to attend a pro-choice rally without getting beaten by pro-lifers, or vice versa. And if I am beaten, the perpetrators should be arrested and punished.

[Pedersen]

The First Amendment doesn't protect popular speech, it protects the speech and opinions that we despise, the speech we thought nobody was really capable of...

You're right. And as much as I despise Fred Phelps (and his minions), I will defend their right to spew their venom. On the flip side, I will defend everybody else's right to ignore them.

Finally, free speech does not trump the right to invade someone's life. Nor their death. If a group wishes to protest the funerals of those who have died serving this country, then let them. But do so away from that ceremony.

They are intruding on a very private time for that family. They are adding stress and aggravation to an already horrific time. Quite frankly, they deserve beatings.

If by getting their asses handed to them, you mean assault, then yes, they can expect protection against that from the legal system. And rightfully so.

Actually, there are numerous times when such violence is not going to be prosecuted. If your speech is designed to incite violence, and could be reasonably expected to do so, that violence may well be considered an "appropriate response", and have no legal action taken against the perpetrator.

While I am reasonably certain I have heard of such cases, I can not find them in Google right now. For that, I apologize.

[Greenday]

The consequences of free speech shouldn't include being the victim of physical violence. No matter how despicable we may think their words are.

Example: I should be able to attend a pro-choice rally without getting beaten by pro-lifers, or vice versa. And if I am beaten, the perpetrators should be arrested and punished.

So you're saying violence is okay, as long as it isn't physical?

And that example isn't the best of choices. You're talking about a bunch of fanatics being dumbasses. I'm talking about if someone talks trash about my mom/sister/girlfriend/penis size/etc., and doesn't let it go, I feel I am totally within my personal rights to defend myself by knocking his ass out in an attempt to shut him up, as obviously passive means of trying to get the person to stop obviously didn't work.

[Boozy]

So you're saying violence is okay, as long as it isn't physical?

:confused:
I don't know of any other kind.

[AFPheonix]

I think what a lot of people don't get about the 1st amendment is that it doesn't guarantee freedom FROM offensiveness. While there may be some bad stuff that comes along with that, there's been some wonderful things, too, and it's one of our tools as a free people to keep men in power in check. The power of shame is very encompassing.

[Greenday]

:confused:
I don't know of any other kind.

Verbal abuse, harassment, sexual harassment, etc.

"Stick and stones can break the bones, but words can shatter the soul."

[Boozy]

Verbal abuse, harassment, sexual harassment, etc.

"Stick and stones can break the bones, but words can shatter the soul."

Oh, okay. Gotcha.

But wait - at what point in my previous post did I imply that I was fine with verbal abuse, harassment, or sexual harassment?

[Seshat]

Freedom of speech means that you may speak, responsibly, as you wish.
(see footnote for what I'm using 'responsibly' to mean.)

* It does not guarantee that anyone will listen.
If people choose to walk away, they're perfectly entitled to. If people use their freedom of speech to yell 'shut up, you're a bloody idiot', they're entitled to. If people use social censure on you, they're entitled to.

* It does not override trespass. If someone in authority over a bit of private property asks you to leave for any reason, it's still trespass if you stay. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can stay.

* It does not override harassment. If you follow someone around, or constantly show up at their workplace, or in any other way harass them, you're harassing them. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're not.

* It doesn't override the slander and libel laws. But truth is (or should be) a perfect defence against accusations of slander and libel.

* It doesn't mean you can speak irresponsibly (see footnote). The classic example is shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
The disaster at the Coconut Grove demonstrated that a panicked mob trying to flee a fire causes more deaths than the fire alone. Creating a violent mob with your speech is another form of speech that I believe Freedom of Speech should not protect. It's perfectly possible to communicate your personal hate for a person or group without creating a violent mob.


Hm. I think that's it. If I thought about it, I might come up with other limitations on the freedom of speech, but I think that's about it.
Malicious speech is limited by slander, libel, harassment, trespass, the freedom to walk away and the limitation against incitement to violence. I think malicious speech is dreadful, but people should have the right to print as many malicious pamphlets as they want. And I have the freedom to use any they hand me as firestarters.



FOOTNOTE: I wish I had a better word for what I mean. I'm using the words 'responsibly' and 'irresponsibly', but what I mean is 'in a way likely to cause physical harm to people'. Predictably inciting violence or panic, that sort of thing.

[Greenday]

Well, in one of your earlier posts, you said freedom of speech should not be limited. To say that you agree with the court for siding against the people who were harassing seems kinda on opposite sides of the issue.

In my personal experiences, it appears as if the justice system couldn't care less about harassment and verbal abuse. So to continue being passive by going to authority is the same as doing nothing at all. In order to end the harassment/abuse going on, physical force must be used, and when I have done so, or even threatened to do so, all forms of harassment/abuse stopped. To go to authority, tell them what was going on, being pushed aside, then being punished for stopping the harassment/abuse on my on, seems like a total load of b.s. to me.

[Boozy]

Well, in one of your earlier posts, you said freedom of speech should not be limited. To say that you agree with the court for siding against the people who were harassing seems kinda on opposite sides of the issue.

I can see how my position may have been unclear.

I'll repeat what I said at the end of my second post: There are natural social limits to freedom of speech without any need for the government to step in. I would take the First Amendment to mean that you can't be imprisoned, executed or fined by the government for speaking your mind.

There still seems to be some confusion over the difference between civil and criminal courts. Civil courts cannot send anyone to jail. They are very limited in what they can compel someone to do; mostly, they issue monetary judgments, arrange for return of property, force evictions, etc. These courts settle disputes between citizens, not between citizens and the state.

There is nothing contradictory about believing in virtually unlimited free speech and still supporting the tort system.

Similarly, there's nothing contradictory about believing in restricting both free speech and the tort system. The Republicans have been attempting both for years. :D

[Banrion]

Even if we look outside the US, and go to international standards of Human rights Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

...

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

From the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Even the UN recognizes that there are times when it is in the best interest of society to limit speech. Essentially, your rights end where mine begin. Using Phelps as an example, he is violating the rights of the mourners because he is not allowing them to congregate peacefully. By going somewhere he knows he is likely to incite anger he is willfully and intentionally preventing a peaceful congregation.

[rahmota]

I think seshat organizes thigns very nicely. there are certian specific legal limitations to ones freedom of speech. Ie the yelling fire in a theator. Inducing to riot. Which would result in a mass panic with injuries and potential deaths.

But there are more protections for a person to say in public whatever they feel like.And the slander and libel laws can be lsid past by stating thigns as your opinion and not real truespeak. More of realspeak. Thats kinda how a lot of these political and social commentators get by with things. Calling the president a lying sack of scum is one thing but sayign he failed to pay child support for his love child is another ballgame entirely.

Ok now for hassment and freedom of speech. Think of it this way. When he sadi it the first time that was freedom of speech. Using your freeom to walk away or tell him to stuff it is ok under the law. Him continuing to challenge you about it is still using his freedom of speech but impinging on your rights and freedoms. So the law has to determine who has had more claim to being infringed upon. You smack him down (no matter how deserved or satisfying) is still jumping things to another level from a legal point of view. Depriving someone of their bodily health weighs higher in the infringement levels than just infringing someone of their peace and quiet.

I think that made sense. Anyhow I'm with Boozy and Seshat on this one.

[Boozy]

By going somewhere he knows he is likely to incite anger he is willfully and intentionally preventing a peaceful congregation.

Making people angry does not prevent them from congregating peacefully. That's a dangerous assertion; that anger completely precludes people from behaving non-violently.

[Banrion]

Making people angry does not prevent them from congregating peacefully. That's a dangerous assertion; that anger completely precludes people from behaving non-violently.

I think you are playing with semantics here. In my mind, simply being angry is not peaceful. No where did I say that violence was required to be non-peaceful.

[Boozy]

I think you are playing with semantics here.

No, I just didn't understand you. Now I think I do...

But do you really feel that freedom of speech should be limited to prevent other people from getting angry?

[rahmota]

That is a dangerous assertion if you're sayign that the freedom of speech should be limited to protect people's feelings. Sad to say the constitution is not there to protect people's feelings just their legal status.

Although I think I see what you're saying. the words spoken by Phelps and his terrorist organization are hateful, hurtful and spiteful and infringing upon the mourner's right to peacefully congregate and assemble. Phelp's 1st amendment (right to speech) usage is infringing upon another's 1st amendment usage (peaceful assembly) which would be a major tangle to unweave as which aspect of the 1st is greater or if they are all equal then how do you protect equal yet opposing ideals?

Or am I just over analyzing things?

[Seshat]

There's a difference.

Me walking up to you and saying 'Your mother wears army boots!' (or something more insulting) is fine.

Me continuing after you've asked me to stop is still legally fine, but starting to come into a grey area of the law.

Me continuing for half an hour during which you've done nothing but politely asked me to stop is harassment.

Me chasing you down the street and screaming abuse at you while you're trying to get away from the madwoman is definitely harassment, and borders on (or is) verbal assault, depending on the law in your area.

Me painting a swastika on your door and writing 'Jews should die' under it is both graffiti/vandalism and harassment. (Not to mention in awful taste and I wouldn't do it. ;) )

I think going to a funeral and insulting the dead is morally reprehensible. It's along the same lines, IMO, as walking into a Christian church and replacing the candles with black ones and turning the crucifix upside down; or walking into a synagogue and spreading creamed beef on the altar; or going to a Baptist church with a mostly black congregation while wearing white robes with pointed hoods.

Except for the ones which are vandalism, these behaviours are technically legal (though they might come under hate speech/harassment laws). However, legal or not, they're morally reprehensible and socially hideous.

[rahmota]

Well yeah I'll agree there is a difference between what is legally permissable and what is socially permissable.

I think going to a funeral and insulting the dead is morally reprehensible.
I'll agree that socially speaking this is morally reprehensible. Legally though as long as the cemetary is a public one (ie owned by the city, state, county or township) and not a private (ie owned by the family, church, or private cemetary company) one they cannot be stopped from coming on the property and saying whatever they want to. As long as they do not come over and directly interefere in the funeral procession.

One of the reasons why the patriot guard's actions are equally legal and more socially acceptable. As long as both sides play legally, then there are no criminal laws that can be brought to bear. It is also a situation where one aspect of the 1st is being weighed against another aspect of the 1st.

Now if its a private owned cemetary then tresspass and all can be definately brought to bear if they come on the property.

It's along the same lines, IMO, as walking into a Christian church and replacing the candles with black ones and turning the crucifix upside down; or walking into a synagogue and spreading creamed beef on the altar; Yes those actions are both morally/socially reprehensible and legally verboten. Those actions are not protected as they are tresspass and vandalism as you pointed out. A church or synagogue are both private property and as has been pointed out private property rules mostly trump 1st amendment.

or going to a Baptist church with a mostly black congregation while wearing white robes with pointed hoods.
Thing about this one is while it is socially/morally reprehensible it is not illegal to do so. Downright stupid and retarded to do so but still not illegal. As long as all the person does is sit there quietly wearing the robes. Now if they do not leave when told to do so or otherwise causes a scene then at the very least criminal tresspass can be charged. Which in most jursidictions I'm aware of is a misdemeanor which means a fine and maybe overnight stay.

And under the constitution hate speech is still protected speech. I may not agree with hate speech and I may not like hate speech but I would rather deal with hate speech than having someone from the government attempting to decide what is hate speech. That would be a dangerous thing to do. Rightthink would be rewarded then and we would all wind up speaking newspeak and dealing with realhistory instead of truespeak history....

Either that or wind up in the places where there are no shadows.

[Boozy]

The problem with outlawing speech because the average person finds it morally reprehensible is that morals can be subjective.

Abortion and capital punishment are two examples. There are people on both sides of these issues that find the opposing view "morally reprehensible".

Just because the vast majority of people think that Phelps' opinions are wrong doesn't mean that we can limit his right to speak. Majority opinion can't be a factor when talking about civil rights. If it did, where is the cut-off point? If a referendum indicated that 75% of people were pro-choice, should we prevent pro-lifers from speaking out? How about 90%? 51%? There is no magic number - there is freedom of speech for all or for none.

The Westboro group stood on public property and voiced their opinions. 99% of Americans probably think that their opinions are ignorant and vile. But if they don't have the right to voice them than neither have we the right to speak against them.

[Seshat]

Oh, I quite agree. Just because I find my examples morally and socially reprehensible, doesn't mean I think they shouldn't ever happen. Well, except for the cases of vandalism/harassment. ;)

I think the social condemnation for going to a funeral in a public place and protesting (peacefully) is all that really should be applied - and I applaud the bikers who are providing that social condemnation (so long as they continue to apply it peacefully).

There are people in my city who hang around in the city centre, carrying hand-written signs declaring their views. Some of those views are strange, and at least one is incoherent. But I'll defend their right to continue their peaceful declaration.

I find the people who hang around abortion clinics declaring their views to be narrow-minded and weird. But as long as they keep the path to the clinic clear, and don't actively harass people who are trying to go there, I'll defend their right to state their view. And if I lived in a city where such people were, I'd go there and make my own posters and state my contrary view. And probably engage them in peaceful debate.

Unfortunately, if we're going to have free speech, we'll have speech that I personally find reprehensible. And I accept that.

Someone made a quote which goes roughly like: 'if a public library has something in it that offends everyone, it's doing its job.'

I like being disagreed with. It keeps my mind open. I just prefer to be disagreed with by people who can muster coherent arguments and stick to the issues. :)

[rahmota]

Thought of the Day"If the First Amendment means anything, it means that a state has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his house, what books he may read or what films he may watch." - Justice Thurgood Marshall (1908-1993) US Supreme Court From a unanimous court opinion (1969)

Just a bit to go with your comments Seshat. From my thought of the day program.

[Seshat]

A good quote, and one which I can completely agree with.

Of course, there are some books I think are in dreadful taste. ;) But I'll defend a person's right to read them if they want to. And to wear pink camo while doing so.

[rahmota]

I thought you'd like it.

Yeah its always struck me funny how these church or other groups will have huge book burnings or otherwise throw such a stink over a book. I mean all its goign to do is give free publicity for the book. And unless they steal the books they have to buy them which just drives up the bestseller list of the book and puts more money in the publisher and author's pockets.

Its not like anyone is forcing a person to go read something (unless you're a student witha class assignment and even then...) so build a bridge, get over it, ignore the book and get on with your life.

[AFPheonix]

I thought you'd like it.

Yeah its always struck me funny how these church or other groups will have huge book burnings or otherwise throw such a stink over a book. I mean all its goign to do is give free publicity for the book. And unless they steal the books they have to buy them which just drives up the bestseller list of the book and puts more money in the publisher and author's pockets.


What's even funnier is that those fundies had to go BUY a copy of those books before they could burn them. Congratulations, you guys helped line the author's pockets! Do it some more!
The Dixie Chicks experienced the same thing with their album that they were touring in support for when the lead singer blabbed about Bush in Europe. They had a good giggle with Terry Gross about that when she was interviewing them.

[Seshat]

Hmmm. What can I write that will certainly piss off the fundies? :p

[rahmota]

Hmm a childrens book involving a homosexual wizard who teaches and believes in evolution?

That should hit at least a few of the major groups... :p

AFP: I dunno about the Dixie chicks thing. Many country stations refused to play them and I know several people who are otherwise rather reasonable but smashed the dixie chicks CDs they had and refused to ever have or hear anything they ever did again. Some country fans can be very easily susceptible to the uber patriotism disease sad to say.

Personally I figured a bad case of foot in mouth for timing but whatever their right to speak out if they wanted to.