I prefer the quote from Buster Bluth: "I don't agree with your dirty doings here, but I will defend with my life your right to do it!"
That's the scary part, it's almost everywhere. I chose Germany because it stood out the most in terms of what they banned, but by all means opression of speech goes on in other European and Western countries, even here in the US. The one country that didn't seem to have any restrictions, was Denmark. I couldn't find an Danish laws restricting speech, at all. Does anyone know of any?
for better or worse..I think the US is about as strong as it gets in protecting "freedom of speech" Ownership of media channels may temper the distribution of speech -- but, compared just about anywhere else -- there are fewer legislative restriction on what can be said or published.
who were the students demanding take down the billboard? The government or the owners of the billboard? Are those one in the same in some states?
That's a potentially very expensive mistake. There's pretty substantial differences, that's why libel tourism exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism
For the record, I am for complete freedom of speech. No limitations. I don't think it's feasible for the state to limit what people can say. After all, speech isn't a state privilege. It is entirely within the domain of individuals. The state cannot justifiably take away what properly belongs to an individual.
I hate to respond to this off topic, but I honestly don't see what is so wrong about what he actually said. He's only speaking to what the Constitution says and how he believes it should be interpreted. You're implying that he thinks it is ok to discriminate against women or gays, which is absolutely not what he is saying. I disagree with his constitutional interpretation, but I don't get how one can take offense to it.
You don't get that someone thinking this statement doesn't apply to gays or women because they aren't specifically mentioned is offensive? If you are gay or female, are you not a person? Are they not citizens? His statement is patently offensive. /thread derail
So if someone stands up and falsely shouts "Fire!" in a crowded theater, causing panic and injury, you think they shouldn't be held to account? Free speech must have some limits.
Is this for your class paper? I will bite nonetheless. Your observation is a good one. There is no absolute freedom of speech. That is one cannot say whatever he/she wants to say. The is not what freedom of speech means. For instance, you will be in trouble if you damage someone's reputation by saying something false. You probably know there is libel law against that. Another example is plagiarism. You can't copy another's work w/o proper citation by claiming freedom of speech - freedom to say or repeat whatever others have said. There is academic disciplines and copyright law against that sort of behavior. Freedom of speech rather is confined within the limits of laws, guaranteed by the Constitution of this country. Likewise, other countries have laws to limit where one's freedom of speech can go as researched. I don't think you would suggest that libel or plagiarism would be ok under freedom of speech. You probably won't go that far. The boundaries of this freedom, in this country at least, are subject to political debate and judicial review about Constitution. If one feel strong about his/her freedom of speech, there are channels to adress it: convince your polictical representative to advance your cause or take it to the court. Bottom, there is no absolute freedom of speech. If there is one, it's a cold war ploy that fooled the Russians.
The fact that the categories of people in question were women and gays is irrelevant, he wasn't making a comment on them. He was merely using them as an example (or rather, answering a question where they were provided as an example) of a larger question about how to interpret the constitution. Unless I see evidence that he is applying this logic inconsistently, I don't see why the particular categories of people in this example should be offended.
Of course you don't. Perhaps you should read the 14th amendment again. Then read it again. And if you still don't "get it," read that sucker again and then reread Scalia's comments. (sheesh!)
So, if I go to your neighborhood and start distributing pamphlets to the neighbors that claims you rape children, you can't sue me? Or if I advocate that the neighbors make your life as miserable as possible since you clearly do such terrible things? Everything in this world has limits to some degree, or the result is a destruction of order.
Can you tell me why Scalia thinks it doesn't apply? It seems based on this post that your understanding of his argument is different than mine, otherwise you wouldn't be talking about reading the amendment. I'm not sure why the sarcasm is necessary. My apologies for disagreeing with you about something you thought was obvious.
Wow. You really don't? Look closer: Scalia says flat-out that the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. Now, let's look at that Protection Clause again: The only way this does NOT apply to women or homosexuals is if you don't consider them a citizen or a person.
i also think the term "disturbing the peace" can be loosely interpreted here as well. Westboro Baptist Church comes to mind. here you have a group using the rights of free speech - the free speech fallen soldiers fight for. and they desecrate the names of the soldiers at their military funerals. and for what? some crazy cause that doesn't even make sense, fulfilling their crazy propaganda that somehow God is punishing America for our sins? should that be allowed? in my eyes, each community can simply ban these people from showing up under the protection of "disturbing the peace" laws. thoughts?
