Political/religious speech is subject to a higher level of protection, but still reasonable to,say, not permit a guy to dress up as the Prophet Mohammed standing in public space in front of a mosque taking off his pants and start masturbating.
We don't overvalue free speech. We undervalue intelligent speech. What worries me is that the educated class would even toy with the idea of placing further limitations on the first amendment, especially considering how many other constitutional rights we've seen eroded over the last ten years. And the one thing we can always predict happening after a major terrorist attack is that a few intellectuals will get horny to start snipping away at the Bill of Rights.
So, America is exceptional when it comes to free speech. Cool. Obama should applaud that, not pooh pooh it.
“There’s nothing in the First Amendment that supports horrible and disgusting projects" Name the person who said that? No googling
You should read the Brethren, one of the biggest cases during the Warren years dealt with the definition of "obscene."
Thanks. It hardly needs to be said that no country, including the US, is that tolerant when it comes to free speech.
No wonder that you two clowns are so unsuccessful as lawyers. Nobody said that it is absolute. Reading comprehension is essential.
I'm a staunch advocate of free speech... However, what Carl Herrera mentioned earlier in this thread would be an example of freedom of speech limited in the name of public order. Much like you can't shout fire in a theater to incite panic, dressing up as Muhammad would be much the same thing. I actually see that as an inherent problem with Islam, however the blame goes both ways.
I would be fearful to leave freedom of speech to be interpreted merely by human arbiters. Sure, we'd be preventing idiots like neo-nazis and westboro from roaming about... but flag burning and other forms of more unpopular speech could be banned as well. Since there is no truly objective arbiter for free speech, we have no other choice than to unshackle the limitations of it.
Blasphemy ... yes/no? Profane speech ... yes/no? Hate speech against particular racial/ethnic groups ... yes/no? Flag Burning ... yes/no? Burning public figures in effigy ... yes/no? Kissing or touching in a sexually-suggestive manner (straight) ... yes/no? Kissing or touching in a sexually-suggestive manner (non-straight) ... yes/no? Nudity ... yes/no? Masturbation ... yes/no? Sexual intercourse ... yes/no? Self-mutilation ... yes/no? Call for criminal activity that doesn't physically harm others (e.g. theft, vandalism) ... yes/no? Call for criminal activity that does physical harm to others ... yes/no?
This is the biggest problem that I see with Posner's argument. Who decides what is acceptable free speech? Especially in a democracy where the government can change. He is right on the facts that free speech standards vary in different cultures and has varied greatly in the history of the US. That said just because somethings have been different in other countries or in the past I don't see as justification to do it now. Further while Posner criticizes calling upon Google to limit the spread of the Innocence of Muslim video as being a hypocritical way of limiting speech that puts profits over principle shows that he misunderstands how the First Amendment works. Google is a private company and as such has the right to control over its own property. The First amendment limits what the government can do about speech but doesn't limit a private entity. Its perfectly compatible with the principle of free speech that the President asks (not orders) a private entity to limit the spread of certain material and for that entity to decide whether it wants to or not. Free speech doesn't guarantee that private entities have to disseminate every message.
The guy's argument is: either you have FREE speech or you don't. 100% of countries don't. Since there are varying degrees of restrictions of speech based on safety, religion, race, history, culture, etc. then someone IS actually drawing the line somewhere. The "person" who is drawing the line can not deny some things for free speech and accept some things for free speech unless they do it in a balanced way. He is stating that it is not being done in a balanced way. Primarily, I prefer free speech which restricts only speech that is willfully inducing terror - and even then, I would set a very very high threshold. So it would have to be dangerous to the people receiving the speech. BUT... if we're going to take it significantly further than that, which we have done to varying degrees in various countries, then Islam as a religion should not be left out. If you are restricting, you have to do it fairly, and you can't decide that "this is the restriction which sends us into the abyss" for a practice which, in principle, will lead to excessive and imbalanced implementation. My solution: tell Muslims nothing is protected. Tell everyone else their protection is gone. We can't have a situation where the governments of developed countries are defending free speech against Muslims, and attacking it in other similar situations. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...l_to_insult_muslims_but_not_jews_.single.html
No, you know nothing about free speech. Nothing. >> Is this the kind of discussion you're looking for?
