Where exactly does the "right to free speech" end?

Post Reply New Topic

To every stone, a shadow; to every step, a counter. A personal Devil's Advocate could be interesting... *chuckle* The help a teacher gives depends on the teacher; the one you had did not do their job, in my opinion as a person and as a teacher. But that is why I suggested turning it on the bully, leaving them speechless. One of my favourite lines is one I've sometimes heard used by women or homosexual men when being attacked is "I'm more man than you'll ever be and more woman than you'll ever get." Simply no response to it, really.


M.

Prior to the American Revolution the Son's of Liberty and other "minutemen" groups degraded, harassed and bullied officials appointed by the English government and the English crown. English tax collectors were harassed, hectored and sometimes tarred and feathered. Result: The United States of America. Some bullying is Good.

Short of fomenting a riot, lynching or suborning outright criminal acts such as murder, battery, theft and destruction of property, few if any restrictions should be put on speech and writing in the public domain. In private domains, the owners or managers make the rules.

American Newspapers carried stories bordering (and sometimes) transgressing the bounds of libel and slander. The rule is very simple. If one cannot take being insulted, degraded, demeaned, dishonored then one should hide away out of sight. The world belongs to the tough and the thick-skinned. Let the sissies go hide and pout in private.

ruveyn

Harassment is not freedom of speech. Harassment is an action. So the next time those punk ass kids try to use that defense, tell them it doesn't apply.

ha⋅rass
–verb (used with object)
1. to disturb persistently; torment, as with troubles or cares; bother continually; pester; persecute.
2. to trouble by repeated attacks, incursions, etc., as in war or hostilities; harry; raid.

counter-action is risky tho. my dad always told me to go for a full-charge, cavalry-style, but i felt like that was bad advice

i did get my little freak-outs tho, every couple of years, and that was what i described above, and i remember it astonished me - a violent lash-out was never met by any resistance. they scattered off, before coming back of course, but thats when i knew theyre more like mosquitos: pain in the ass but harmless
when i begun a later school, that wasnt local anymore all those problems dissapeared, cus bullies need time to build up their thing. by such a late age, its more difficult for them i guess, i still noticed all the bully types, and i noticed when they tested me, but by then my confidence was allready high enough to smirk it off, and throw it back at them. that usually settled it, and all w a nice "humoristic" attitude (which is what they always use to disguise it from teachers)

i basically did what they did a little "testy" bad joke/insult, basically what you suggested. but this was in the initiating "phase" of the potential bullying. i doubt itll work on long-time bullies, since theyll probably think youve "learned a new trick" or something

Shame that giving a bully a healthy authoritative beat-down isn't covered as a form of expressive communication these days. My friend's neighbor's little brother, who was 10 or 11 a couple years ago, had another kid's parents (bully's parents) trying to sue him and his parents because he pushed the kid down for giving him a wet willy - not pushed him down a flight of stairs, not even on a rock, just pushed him.

Gina, when these kids use the "right to free speech line", it's just a snotty thing to say designed to piss you off. Trying to come up with a thoughtful response will not have a positive effect. These people won't care about logic, they're fueled by emotion. Coming back with a thoughtful retort is likely to make them tease you even more. Better to ignore them or take it to an adult.

In NC, we passed an 'anti-bullying' law about 3 weeks ago or so. Not sure how that's working out, but evidently it happens.

I've heard (but this could be an urban legend) that there's a law in NYC that you can use pejoratives against African-Americans or Jewish people, and you can be arrested.

The thing that makes them do it, is that you react to it. That's the payoff they're looking for. I know it's harder for us to react to that, but there's ways to counteract: sarcasm ("Are you done yet?"), ignoring them (just pretend they're not there), insults ("Isn't it a shame when cousins marry?"), etc. But the concept of situational jiujitsu (direct their attack around you, rather than let it land on you), takes some time.

Just an idea.

Damn it, Pakled... now I have the distinct impression of verbal kenpo stuck in my head. *chuckle* Nicely done.


M.

You can tell them it ends where your moving fist begins? (probably wouldn't help actually)

There is a difference between the Revolutionary War and school yard bullies.



Well, the law often does make a distinction between a public figure (elected official, person leading a social movement, movie star, etc) and a private individual just living their life. For example, taking photos of the average person who is sitting in the park could be an infringement of their privacy and reason to arrest the photographer. But for snapping pictures of a celebrity in the park? Usually not a legal violation .... it is considered more serious to harass the private person. Don't you think that the original poster (who was simply living their life as quietly as possible) qualifies for this higher degree of protection?

Ignore my ramblings....I just wanted to expound on my thoughts.

The issue about "Freedom of Speech" is that it either is an absolute or it isn't.

This can be a twisted view point to many.

Some think "absolute" means "actions without consequences." After all, if you can be sued for libel or slander or prosecuted for crying out "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, you really don't have an "absolute" right, do you?

However, I believe all "rights" come with "responsibilities." That you can be held accountable for hurting someone with what you say or do (civilly or criminally) is a fact of life. You can do whatever you want so long as you are mature enough to accept the consequences of your actions.

The problem is when the imposition of a "consequence" inherently terminates the "right" to expression.

It is understood that yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater can get someone physically hurt or killed, and the value of protecting innocent life outweighs your right to express yourself, so if the prosecution of such acts has a "chilling effect" on expression, it is acceptable because of what is at stake.

However, what if I say something false about you? I could cause intense emotional distress and pain to you. I could hurt your business or get you fired by lying. Does my right to expression outweigh your right to be free from emotional distress or economic harm? Where my "expression" involves outright lies, society says, "NO." What if my "expression" involves personal opinions or makes statements that are only partially truthful (in this case, say I call you an alcoholic, which is true, but I omit the fact that you've been in AA and sober for 5 years now)? Society is less certain about that.

Now, what if it's a matter of opinion/belief and another finds such expression to be offensive or emotionally hurtful? Is there a right to not be offended? No. Can a person be sued for inflicting emotional harm by their words and actions? Yes. At what point do we cross the line from something said openly offending a man in the crowd to something being said specifically towards a person or group to cause individual harassment and distress? To what I know, it remains a very gray area to this day.

Even then, what about duplicity in the "right" to expression or the "right" to be free from harassment? I've noticed that gay/lesbian groups take offense at people who denounce their lifestyle as wrong, but last time I checked, I have never seen a gay/lesbian group prosecuted for public behavior that many people would find patently offensive. Why is it many who scream for "tolerance" and "acceptance" are perhaps the most bigoted people in America?

If there is a right to not be offended, does it not apply to everyone equally?

Racism over the speed limit topic

Racists have always flabbergasted me. While they are free to think as they want, they want to incite and inflame. I suppose this is inherent in the philosophy itself.

I am an existentialist. I have no urge to spread my ideas. If others are of my thinking, then we can have discussion/discussion. I suppose people like me are more civil than many others of different philosophies, such as political atheists, who attempt to recruit others, or political evangelical christians, who do likewise. Some of what they proselityze is loony at best, and violent at worst.

I suppose some people just love to rant, and take their ideas to illogical extremes, and this gets them into trouble.

I oppose racism and bigotry in all its forms, but I think that people sometimes broaden their definition of it too much.

Quoting certain Bible verses nowadays can constitute homophobia or anti-Semitism. If a man prefers to date women who are well-endowed, that could be interpreted as discrimination against most Asians. And in jobs that require certain levels of physical stamina (i.e. police officer, firefighter, many blue-collar jobs, etc.), standards are different for males and females. That can be considered to be sexist (but the truth is that males and females are built differently in terms of physical characteristics).

Not saying all people think that way, but there are some who do.

Last edited by Tim_Tex on 21 Jul 2009, 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maybe because certain Bible verses are homophobic or antisemitic. Also advocating or approving slavery and throwing rocks at suspected witches might not find general approval.

As well as the French Revolution, however, today's standards are different nowadays, I doubt similar events could be that accepted based on current standards, not to mention the revolutionary ideas from marxism, which it wouldn't be much different, in such case.


well, there is a problem with that, and the problem is to decide at which point the bullying is good and who makes that judgment, Guevara's revolutionary movement, for example, was taken as neccesary by him, in that regard, the harassing, bullying and killing is good from that perspective.


ok, this is a school, how would a bullied student hide away out of sight, given that that is practically impossible? should they drop out of school? psychological issues is to take into account on that, so reducing it all to simple being tough and thick-skinned doesn't seem to be of any help at all.


And frankly, I really don't care much about "freedom of speech", all I would care about would be my own saftey, my own convenience, my own rights and my own freedom of speech rather than others', especially ones who would do some damage, such as harassing, in the name of it or whatever, I wouldn't care if their "free speech" is actually being diminished, rather I would be pleased that mine isn't.

Last edited by greenblue on 22 Jul 2009, 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

I am a big supporter of free speech. In my opinion, it only ends when someone explicitly calls for hate and/or violence against a particular group or individual. Insulting a religion or political persuasion is fine with me, and so is revisionism on stuff like holocaust, except, of course, if that person calls for a new holocaust or says Jews should indeed have been murdered or the like. Mind you, I *don't* hold this opinion, I just think it should be legal for idiots who think holocaust didn't happen, to say so, so one can debate with them (it's illegal in the Netherlands).