Define *Free Speech* if you can...
POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Friday, February 20, 2026 19:33
VIEWED: 5360
PAGE 2 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
How do we define the "speech" in "Free Speech" in the first place - vocal expression? Text? Art?
All three, as well as movies, play-acting/theatre, television, and software programming.
Jeez, I missed those... though acting/theatre/television all rely on stuff ya speak with your mouth, and text is either published word or electronic- software counts as text publishing , in a special form. Art is maybe not speech, but it is expression, close enough to the same thing, and covered as free expression.
" What about mime, NOBC? No spoken words, no text. Or dance? Or a symphony?" Yeah, those too... The simple definition gets a little sloppy with exceptions.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Can we call it "any non-criminal form of verbal, non-verbal, and artistic expression"?
EDIT: I put the non-criminal in there because I could imagine someone responding "I just murdered someone... ARTISTICALLY!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
Legal Maxim: Those who fail to assert their rights, have none.
Sounds like you are suggesting that lawyers and courts should determine our Free Speech rights... I must be mistakened.
Quote:
Originally posted by piratenews:
All the free speech laws in the world mean nothing for folks too skeert to speak.
That's the truth - does that suggest that folks too skeert have no rights?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
If you mean someone saying sexually explicit stuff to children, that's all kinds of creepy. But I'm with Frem, unless they begin to try to ACT on what they're saying, it's offensive, but not really a criminal offense.
You sound somewhat innocent the way you phrased that Byte. Yeah, there's all kinds of *creepy* out there - creepy with bad intentions and responsible adults can't always be around. If boundaries aren't set then limits will be tested by The Creepy.
ETA ('cuz I forgot) - I am a fan of deterrents in general. They can bring out the best in people, but it's dangerous ground and people are still scared of the dark - "what's next?"
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have an uncle... Well, everyone kind of has THAT uncle, don't they? But there's a difference still between creepy and acting on said creepy.
His ass is toast if he ever does, and he knows it. And we WILL find out.
Those kind of boundaries should be set, as I said, by parents, and enforced by them, and if anyone ever wants to see wrath, just get a parent angry with this kind of behaviour.
Parents have kids, then they should also be responsible about it. I know far too many parents who need to get a friggin' CLUE.
And maybe we also need to do something about the people who are creepy enough to hit up kids, because they've definitely developed some kind of unhealthy problem.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Can we call it "any non-criminal form of verbal, non-verbal, and artistic expression"?
EDIT: I put the non-criminal in there because I could imagine someone responding "I just murdered someone... ARTISTICALLY!"
Trouble with that is: I'm Adolf Hitler, and I get a law passed, or issue a decree, that saying anything nice about a Jew is a crime.
Or NOBC gets a law passed criminalizing Rush Limbaugh.
The "right" depends on the government NOT passing laws criminalizing any form of speech.
Some speech *S*H*O*U*L*D* be criminalized: libel ( on the "reckless disregard for the truth" criteria):, clear and present danger ( Fire in a crowded theatre.) if it actually results in an injury or damage; some National security information ( "Where do we keep the H-bombs? When do the guards patrol? How can you back a truck up to the loading dock?"); exposure of some government secrets ( "What is the name and address of the CIA's largest asset in Tehran?" " How do you make a suitcase A-bomb that works?" What does Joe Wilson's wife Valerie do for a living?'); and actual incitement to violence or the violent overthrow of the government ( "Let's all go burn down the IRS office" or " We oughtta riot in the streets and firebomb police headquarters" " Let's go right now and shoot Obama.")
But I'm not sure I trust *MY*S*E*L*F*, let alone you ( "you", generally, of course, not just Bytemite.) , to judge or decide those cases. I think " I know it when I see it", but I ain't sure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No no, you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that a crime like murder, rape, or torture can't and shouldn't be considered an act of artistic expression. There might be other crimes among there as well.
Though I concede the danger of the possibility of criminalizing something that previously WAS the jurisdication of free-speech with how I phrased that. Originally, I didn't include the non-criminal part, then I debated with myself whether it was responsible not to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are many aspects to free speech. This is just what comes off the top of my head:
Content, context, access, harm, honesty.
Tackling the most important idea first, I think the primary limiter of free speech is the harm you might cause. That's why you can't falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater, why you can't threaten people (in CA that's called assault), and why you can't falsely call someone a sexual predator. But what about constantly belittling your child, or "blowing up" in his/her presence many times a day? They're not old enough and independent enough to shrug and think "Sticks and stones..." What about publishing someone's name and address on the inet and calling him a baby-killer who deserves to be shot? What about running cigarette ads geared towards children, "swift-boating" a candidate, or claiming to have inside knowledge of a company's demise which causes their stock to plummet? Aren't you invading someone's privacy, or causing financial and personal harm?
IMHO it's clear that there are limits to "free speech". All we're doing here is figuring out what those limits should be. IMHO there is one type of free speech which must always be honored: Freedom to criticize or support institutions- government, schools, churches, businesses or the media. The REST of it? It needs to stand up to scrutiny on the basis of honesty. If you're belittliing your kid, or libeling your neighbor, or pitching some toxin it's personal or commercial but it's not free speech. (Kinda reminds me of what my folks use to say: High minds talk about ideas, smaller minds talk about things, and petty minds talk about people. But that's another story).
The other big concept is access. Sure, you may be free to spout your spiel on a streecorner... or in a free speech zone three miles from anything... but do YOU have access to people's living rooms every day? Because that access is power, pure and simple. Free speech is MEANINGLESS without free access. IMHO, if you (or anyone) has to PAY for access to the media, that content should be treated as advertising. And then, let's get those truth in adertising laws going.
And I see NOBC touched on those issues while I was typing!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I was saying that a crime like murder, rape, or torture can't and shouldn't be considered an act of artistic expression. There might be other crimes among there as well.
Those are ACTS. Those are outlawed as ACTS. I agree, I don't see any way the ACT of rape, murder, etc, can be justified as an act of artistic expression.
Conversely, the artistic depiction of rape, murder, etc., is and should be legal.. Or else we have to prosecute Joss ( and/or Nathan ) for shooting Dobson in the Pilot.
This artistic depiction walks a very fine line right to the edge: at the point where it becomes advocacy or incitement, it becomes a problem.
Another case that walks right to the edge: prosecution of producers/ actors in hard-core porn for prostitution. The distinction between engaging in sex for money and engaging in sex for money as entertainment is a very narrow distinction.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Those are ACTS. Those are outlawed as ACTS. I agree, I don't see any way the ACT of rape, murder, etc, can be justified as an act of artistic expression.
Conversely, the artistic depiction of rape, murder, etc., is and should be legal.. Or else we have to prosecute Joss ( and/or Nathan ) for shooting Dobson in the Pilot.
This artistic depiction walks a very fine line right to the edge: at the point where it becomes advocacy or incitement, it becomes a problem.
Another case that walks right to the edge: prosecution of producers/ actors in hard-core porn for prostitution. The distinction between engaging in sex for money and engaging in sex for money as entertainment is a very narrow distinction.
Yes, I agree absolutely. Thanks for being more precise than me today.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME