Free speech

Post Reply New Topic

I have to say, inciting to riot (like 'fire' in a crowded theatre) should be outlawed. The others? Its hard. Revealing state secrets is close, and I can see why it would be outlawed, but cannot say there aren't circumstances where it would be warranted.

The rest? Many I may hate, but I will always uphold a persons right to say things I find absolutely deplorable. Hate speech chills me to my very bones (hatred against religions, races, sexualitys, etc) but I won't stop someone from saying it. How could we, and imagine we are just?

"How can I starting a stream of words inciting to riot force anyone to do anything?"

Libel and slander should be grounds for civil lawsuit.

Leaking state secrets that cause a security threat (i.e. revealing troop positions, outright treasonous activities, etc...) needs to be penalized for pragmatic reasons. In this case I'd make a distinction between illegal and wrong though. The state is NOT always right and civil disobedience in the form of leaking may not always be wrong.

Same reasoning goes for inciting riots. Civil disorder is not always unjustified.

And I reserve the right to tase-a-bro if they are, in their loud obnoxiousness, ripping people off who payed big $$$ to see a performance, speech, etc...

Other than that there should be no restrictions.

Ach, I done it again. The stupid poll will only let me mark ONE thing? THAT was not my intent. Will I ever get this? I can do languages!

Vexillifer, it is not forcing that is the issue. Technically you can't FORCE anyone to do anything [unless you have mind control as a superpower?]. The could always tell you to kill them, kill their mother, blow up the dam, or publish the incriminating photos.

But if a silver tongued orator talks a crowd of Jim Jones cult Bacchantes into tearing you to pieces, should he be free to go? THAT is the question.

I think shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre should be legal (though I'd recommend that the theatres choose to ban it), but just so you know where that phrase comes from, if you don't already:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

Not trying to argue or anything, but I do find it amusing that everyone's favourite example of speech that should obviously be illegal comes from a case that most of us would agree is a disgusting violation of basic free speech rights.

.

Most people are fine with free speech as long as nobody but them, is talking.

the "support the government or shut up" principle is only one step removed from "cheer the Leader or die", and both are reprehensible.

It can't but it can promote such behavior in those who are inclined to such behavior. It all comes down to yelling Fire! in a crowed place when there is no fire.

ruveyn

On some net forums that I read, people sometimes argue, that moderating their posts would be an act against free speech.

Freedom of speech gives me the right to open my own net forum, or to publish my own newspaper etc. but it does not give me the right to do whatever I want on somebody else's forum or newspaper or whatever publications they may have. Their forum, their rules - my forum, my rules.

Freedom of speech must be absolute, however this can only work if there are sufficient means via mass media to put all views, to this end cross media ownership should not be allowed. Presently in many countries a few entities own the vast majority of the media outlets, this is in direct competition to free speech

No freedom in practice CAN be absolute. Freedom of Speech - unless and until you can change human nature - and all the brainwashing in the world will not do that, you need to control the gene pool at least - sooner or later someone will point to the nakedness of the wrong emperor, take a bite of the wrong sacred cow, suggest the wrong scientific conclusion [eppur si muove], or fail to salute our glorious leader, or refuse to swallow the mindlevelling pill, or doubt the validity of the consensus paradigm.

And the Bandar-log WILL arise in the righteous might of their collective wrath and rend the Green Monkey.

It is a bitter parody of "Take what you like and pay for it, says God". You are perfectly free to do or say whatever you please - as long as you do not attract the attention of the State and/or the Leader and/or the Party and/or the Mob.

With my tongue firmly planted in my cheek, I will make an exception to my usual objection to capital punishment and wholeheartedly endorse its use on people who chat, cough, unwrap candies, take photographs, send text messages, receive phone calls or fart during performances. But I'm an actor and I get overly sensitive about this type of thing.

In all seriousness, there are only two on that list that should be criminalized, in my view:

Revealing state secrets
Inciting to riot

I put an important caveat on the former: the state's capacity to declare information secret must be subject to review, either by the courts or by an arms length agency. Disclosure of the security profiling matrices used by immigration and customs officers is a potentially potent threat to the national security interest, and is properly classified, and its revelation properly criminalized. But the disclosure of the paper trail leading to $50 million in spending in the riding of the Minister of Industry is not properly classifiable and its disclosure should not be criminalized.

Defamation is a tricky one, but on the whole I am content to leave the civil remedies for libel and slander as sufficient.

As an audience member I can not agree with you more whole heatedly. I also would like the sale of all ingestable substances banned from auditoriums of any kind. The slurping of the last dregs of a coke cup, or the scrabbling around for the final popcorn crumb is what keeps me away from the cinema. As for making audible noise above that of a live performance the death penalty is barely sufficient.

Libel and slander Yes
Revealing state secrets Yes
Criticizing the government No
Use of offensive vocabulary No
Talk demeaning minorities No
Vocal picketing of abortion clinics, churches, schools No unless it hinders public safety.
Heckling speakers No unless it threatens their safety - applies under inciting violence.
Inciting to riot Yes
Chatting during a performance Not to be enforced by the state, but can be enforced by the performance venue.
Obscenity and blasphemy No
Publishing junk science No

Basically the only speech that should not be allowed is that which incites violence, violates libel or copyright laws, or jeopardizes national security or public safety.

We should be free to speak our mind. It was Canadian author Ezra Savant who stated that we must give our enemies the right to say whatever they choose to say so that we ourselves have the right to be dissidents. Without a right to dissent you end up with tyranny.

This is why in Canada they're moving in the right direction by moving away from "human rights" commissions (HRCs); which don't even uphold basic human rights so their title is a misnomer and a farce.

Revealing state secrets.
Everything else on that list is too subject to interpretation.
State secrets are much more black and white and you have to have a security clearance to have access in the first place.

I would be a little less cut and dried if I were you.

First, there is the problem of overclassification. Since the state is the entity that get to classify information and to prosecute its transmission, that makes the state an interested party. Intelligence gathering, security profiles, military capacity and disposition, negotiating positions, policy advice to Ministers, information received in confidence from foreign states--these are all matters properly classified. But it is not proper to classify material merely because it is embarassing to the government of the day, unless government can point to a specific national (as opposed to political) interest that would be harmed by revealing the information.

Somewhere there must be a mechanism to constrain the power of the state to classify information. (In this country it is an officer of Parliament who is not accountable to the Government, but only to Parliament).

And don't think that a lack of security clearance is an impediment. Last time I checked Assange did not hold security clearances in any of the countries whose documents he has transmitted. (And believe me, I am not one of his legion of fans).

Have a look at "The H-bomb Secret: How We Got It and Why We're Telling It," by Howard Morland. It was published in the November 1979 issue of The Progressive after the collapse of the Government's case in United States v. The Progressive. The entire issue is available online here: http://progressive.org/images/pdf/1179.pdf

Those who are cheerleaders for government secrecy must reconcile themselves to practices like prior restraint and doctrines like, "born secret."

I've held security clearances so I know a little.
If you are investigated and granted a clearance you sign up to the the agreement that you will not disclose that which is classified to those without a need to know, PERIOD.
It's pretty simple after that because because you are following a policy that will be well defined to you.
If it's part of a secret document and the page is stamped "SECRET" top and bottom then that's all you need to know, irregardless of "over-classification" or whatever.
If your moral values can't abide by what that agency has deemed classified then kindly resign your clearance but you can never disclose what you've been entrusted with as long as it is classified.

I won't disagree that some things are done immorally under the cloak of national security although I've never had access to anything like that. I will say that control of certain government information, especially national security related, is still critically essential to the security of that nation.