Free Speech

[jefnvk]

Ok, the title is the topic.  How far do you think free speech goes.  The reason I ask, is that I was just reading about an activist who, with his friends, striped naked and made a pyramid during a visit by Bush somewhere to protest the Abu Graib (sp?) incident.  He was charged with indecent exposure, which was dropped, but he followed with a lawsuit agains tohe gov't for abridging his freedom of speech.

Now, maybe I don't go far enough, but I see a difference between free speech, and vaguely hiding questionably legal acts under the free speech label.  Anytime I hear about the women who strip and paint up like animals, I hear about their freedom of speech.Rioters destroying freedom of property, and their right to free speech.

Am I the only one that believes free speech should be applied to speech, and not naked guys piling up in the streets and getting cited with indecent exposure?  SHould my views expand the rights of free speech, or are they where they should be?

I guess, I can't see where someone can read what is a right (regarding the 2A) and say it is not a right, but then take part of the first and expand it to include anything they think is making a statement, whether it be by words or not.

[Antibubba]

Free speech applies to art-theatre, film, sculpture, and literature-as well as vocalization.  The phase used most often is "freedom of expression".  These men were protesting the Abu Ghraib incident-don't you think what they did is much more visually effective (and memorable) than a sign?

As for "indecent exposure", that's up to the police and local laws, but usually free speech will trump that.  Personally, I'm not offended by public nudity-I don't consider the human body to be "indecent".

[Standing Wolf]

SHould my views expand the rights of free speech, or are they where they should be?

I think you should expand your views for two reasons: freedom needs to be enlarged, not restricted, and if speech doesn't cover a great deal more than the spoken word, we're in deep, dark, stinky trouble.

Speech, for example, has to cover all our comments on this site, not just words spoken aloud, as well as pictures posted here.

One of the few things you can always count on government to try to do is take the narrowest possible view of its subjects' freedomsall freedoms. The only halfway effective counter-moves I'm aware of are to expand the scope of freedom at every opportunity and circumscribe government at every opportunity.

[Nightfall]

My opinion? Unless you're violating the rights of another, you have a right to do whatever you want. That includes walking around naked in public. Regardless of whether their actions fell under the purview of free speech, there is no reason why they should be restricted from their naked pyramid scheme. :p

[Preacherman]

You have the right to strip and walk around naked in my neighborhood.

I (and my neighbors) have the right to load our cartridges with rock salt and pepper your sorry backside for doing so, thereby exposing our children and innocent members to your naked self.

Works for me...

[jefnvk]

I guess maybe my views are a little out of line.  I guess I am looking on it as a protection, that you wouldn't be arrested solely for saying what you are saying.  For example, it'd look at as protection from prosecution in the case that naked men piling up into a human pyramid were normally legal, and they got cited for indecent exposure because they were using it as a statement against Bush.

I do agree with the whole 'if it is not bothering anyone, it shouldn't be illegal line', and definitely on not giving the gov't more power than it needs.

[grampster]

OK, I'll play devils advocate.   Don't you think free speech ought to have a productive point?  What is the use of exhibition for the sake of exhibition?  What if crying fire in a theater was for the purpose of my photographing people stampeding out of the theater in terror?  I wanted to publish my artistic photos of "terror".  My freedom of expression is being trampled upon by arresting me for causing the stampede.  Should there not be benefit for the "common good" as a result of our speech?  Should it be used only for sellfish ends?  But who will be the judge of that?

Perhaps our freedom of speech or expression does not come freely.  Perhaps there is a risk involved in expressing it.  Perhaps that is what freedom of speech and expression is really all about...the exhilaration in the danger of it.  Perhaps there needs, sometime, to be a cost to be able to express oneself.  If you have no danger, no cost, you have no freedom...."A man who gives up a little freedom to gain a little safety, deserves neither."  That quote speaks freely to me with a point!  There is no freedom in safety and no safety without freedom.  I think if Ben would have been walking naked down the street or heaped up in a pile of naked peers, perhaps his quote would not be so elegant and so well heralded today.
Crudeness and vulgarity used as the medallion of freedom is as valueless as the clueless among us who resort to it to profess their beliefs.  Freedom is not won nor earned by the selfish.
I say continue in your folly and misguided actions.  I will speak out for your right to make the fool.  But I will smile as you are carried off to the dock to be judged by your free peers.

[Antibubba]

Grampster,

   Who do you propose get to decide whether another's speech is "productive"?  Can you be certain that the "unproductive" words spoken today won't carry great worth in 50 years?

   The main restriction on speech is "that which does not cause harm"; no "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, slander, libel, etc.

[griz]

I do agree with the whole 'if it is not bothering anyone, it shouldn't be illegal line'.

Actually, in this case bothering people is the whole purpose. I'll have to say it should be legal to point out a percieved failing of the government.

The naked part is kind of tricky since it offends some and not others. But I'll have to go with calling it freedom of speech. In twenty years we will probably be past our shock of seeing what's under peoples clothes.

[The Rabbi]

It seems clear from the Constitution and its history that "free speech" meant specifically political speech.  Speech which was not political in nature did not get the same protection.
Would be nice to go back to that one.

[grampster]

Antibubba,
   Was just playing devil's advocate with my comments.
Personally,  I have more questions about free speech than what may be settled about it.  You ask what may be valuable in 50 years.  How would anyone know that?  But perhaps if my speech carried the passion of my conviction without degrading myself, maybe it might be remembered for its value rather than the degradation.
I guess what I base how I speak to an issue, is by first thinking about what the impact it may have.  I'm not talking about barroom blather, but when one makes a stand in some fashion.  I am active in local government.  Building a coalition to improve some condition in the township would be more effective if I was not standing naked in front of the Township Hall accusing the Supervisor of torturing folks to get them to pave a road or install a sewer.   Perhaps our freedom of speech brings with it some accountability or character.  Of course in our times of situational ethics, character does not seem to carry any weight anymore.

Rabbi:  Your comments actually more closely mirror my feeling in the matter of free speech.  I think that is why I think that crudeness and imporpriety used to promote a political change, is not usually met with any kind of favor.  We are supposed to be a civilized society.  Perhaps the only reason crude behavior actually elicits change is that folks get tired of seeing or hearing it and we change not for the better but for embarassment of having the crudeness forced down our throats by a media that has lost it's way.

[Justin]

It seems clear from the Constitution and its history that "free speech" meant specifically political speech.  Speech which was not political in nature did not get the same protection.
Would be nice to go back to that one.

Really?

Hmm. And here I thought that the 1st amendment read as the following:

Amendment I

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.

Gee, and maybe the 2nd amendment only applies to the National Guard and duck hunting.

[Justin]

Besides, who gets to make the determination of what constitutes "political" speech?  Would there be some office or bureaucrat who we would have to submit a "Free Speech Exercise" Form 5584 to in order to speak out in public?

[The Rabbi]

Justin, if you had spent 5 minutes on the Internet researching this your post might have sounded like something worthwhile.
Try this article:http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/speech.htm
or this one:
http://users.telerama.com/~jdehullu/speech/sphist.htm

And notice that just as the first amendment uses the language of not abridge so does the second.  And just as the 1st is not an absolute neither is the second.

[Justin]

So the fact that there is a historical precedent for cracking down on one's freedom of expression is an excuse to continue the practice in the 21st century?

Awesome.

[The Rabbi]

This may come as a shock to you, but there is no freedom of expression.  It may also come as a shock that there is a whole history of legal thought to the American legal system that works independently of what you (or anyone else) thinks it ought to be.  And if you survived those shocks I'll tell you that when people post stuff with absolutely no knowledge of that history then they sound like ignorant yayhoos--just like the liberals think we are.

[Justin]

I'll buy that only insofar as I'll buy into the concept of modern America being a police state.  But then you'd probably start making accusations of the "tinfoil hat" variety.  After all, you've already insinuated that I'm a mouth-breathing idiot.

Regardless, you will note that practically every time an abridgement of expression goes to the Supreme Court, they rule in favor of free speech, with really only a handful of exceptions:
The bit about speech that represents a "clear and present danger*," is libelous or slanderous, and more recently the McCain-Feingold 1st Amendment Abrogation Act.

Certainly there are state and local restrictions on expression and speech, but last time I checked the Bill of Rights applies to Congress, and hence the feds and not state or local municipalities.  So on a local level you have Utah passing laws against porno, or Florida arresting 2 Live Crew for obscenity, but the Supreme Court has typically taken a dim view of such shenanigans.

*or, IIRC in the 1950's, incitement to actions of violence.

[griz]

Rabbi, I checked the link and noted this:

'Like many articles in the Constitution, the exact meaning of the first amendment and the implications it had for the founding fathers are unclear."

Even if the article showed a clear history of outlawing non-political speech, the example in this thread is obviously political speech.

[Tallpine]

In the case cited in the first post, the nudity was directly related to the issue of protest.

Not sure how nudity could be related to getting roads paved or new sewers  

Anyway, you don't HAVE to look.

[client32]

protection from prosecution in the case that naked men piling up into a human pyramid were normally legal

jefnvk, I think I agree with what you are stating here.
If I understand correctly, your issue comes when an act that is against the law becomes ok when it is part of "free speach"  Is that a good sumation?

I am in step with you in that case.  I don't see how "free speach" can trumpt illegal acts.  Someone referred to riots, I thought that was a good example.  Suddenly, because I am expressing my right to free speach, I am allowed to injure people and destroy property without prosecution.

[Justin]

I am in step with you in that case.  I don't see how "free speach" can trumpt illegal acts.  Someone referred to riots, I thought that was a good example.  Suddenly, because I am expressing my right to free speach, I am allowed to injure people and destroy property without prosecution.

It's very simple, actually.  Anything that infringes on the civil rights of another human is no civil right at all.

[jefnvk]

If I understand correctly, your issue comes when an act that is against the law becomes ok when it is part of "free speach"  Is that a good sumation?

Yep, exactly.  That is exactly what I am talking about, when some otherwise illegal act becomes OK because it was done in 'free speech' to protest something.  That is what I don't really agree with.

EDIT: I guess I look at it as it is there to protect otherwise lawful acts when someone used those acts to protest the gov't.

[The Rabbi]

It's very simple, actually.  Anything that infringes on the civil rights of another human is no civil right at all.

It's hardly simple.

My neighbor is a Muslim.  Or he is a Haitian practicing Voo-Doo.  As part of his religion he slaughters goats and chickens at midnight in his backyard.  He wakes me and my family up and leaves blood and entrails all over the place.
Now, can I make him stop the free practice of his religion?  Or is he allowed to interfere with my quiet enjoyment of my property?

My religion says I can marry my cousin.  But US law forbids that as incest.  What should the law be?
Muslims, Mormons, and others believe in polygamy but US law forbids that.  What should the law be?

I dislike talk of "rights" because a) no one has ever proved they exist outside of the government framework, and b) rights battles tend to degenerate quickly and also leave off the flip side, which is responsibility.

[Nightfall]

He wakes me and my family up and leaves blood and entrails all over the place.
Now, can I make him stop the free practice of his religion?  Or is he allowed to interfere with my quiet enjoyment of my property?

His sound waves are coming onto your property and disturbing you. You win.

My religion says I can marry my cousin.  But US law forbids that as incest.  What should the law be?

There should be no law here. Disgusting as I may find it, if the two are consenting adults, it's no business of anybody else.

Muslims, Mormons, and others believe in polygamy but US law forbids that.  What should the law be?

Again, there should be no law here. If several consenting adults want to marry one another, it's no business of others.

The important phrase in the last two questions is consenting adults. You as an unaffected third party have no right to interfere in their actions.

[Nightfall]

What about some woman that wants to marry her miniature stallion?

Is the animal capable of understanding and communicating its consent to the marriage? I would say no, so that means no marriage.

Aren't there any hypotheticals that AREN'T disgusting? :p