Define Freedom Of Speech

[glo]

In Germany you can essentially say anything that does not violate the basic rights, and the rights to Honor and Dignity of someone else.
Yeah, I ain't kidding. Honor and dignity are constitutional rights in Germany.

To understand free speech in Germany, you gotta know the first 5 articles of the constitution...

Haha, free speech in Germany, hilarious. It's free and all, just make sure you don't criticize politicians or face up to 3 years in prison! Such freedom!

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#90a

[belfpala]

California's constitution has a free speech clause that is much broader than the U.S. Constitution and because of this their Supreme Court has found that a right to free speech exists in shopping malls, even if they are privately owned.

States cannot override SCOTUS on this matter. I don't know the words in CA law, but I'm certain SCOTUS trumps them on incitement to violence, imminent threats, and so on.

[Incredibale]

Simply: euros don't have freedom of speech. They are too "enlightened" for it.

[Slant]

Haha, free speech in Germany, hilarious. It's free and all, just make sure you don't criticize politicians or face up to 3 years in prison! Such freedom!

http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/StGB.htm#90a

You should read more carefully. Those paragraphs speak about insulting or maliciously defaming the Federal Republic, not its politicians. There are sections about the flag as well. That's not "You cannot criticize politicians". Those are sovereignity symbols and carry a lot of weight and dignity and should be protected as such. Ask an American how they feel about someone burning the US flag on Madison Sq.?

[Gorgodeus]

You should read more carefully. Those paragraphs speak about insulting or maliciously defaming the Federal Republic, not its politicians. There are sections about the flag as well. That's not "You cannot criticize politicians". Those are sovereignity symbols and carry a lot of weight and dignity and should be protected as such. Ask an American how they feel about someone burning the US flag on Madison Sq.?

The US laws protect our right to burn our flag, if we so choose.

[Slant]

The US laws protect our right to burn our flag, if we so choose.

Yeah, our laws deal a lot with history that you don't have, ie. Nazis.

[Matchles]

States cannot override SCOTUS on this matter. I don't know the words in CA law, but I'm certain SCOTUS trumps them on incitement to violence, imminent threats, and so on.

Like I explained. It doesn't override, it compliments. Allowing MORE speech than is allowed in the First Amendment is in no way a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

[Slant]

To me it means I can say what I want (within boundaries) and the state cannot stop me from doing so. They will also protect me from people who attack me because of it.

If by "attack" you mean physical attack, yes, they will protect you. But not to protect your freedom of speech, they'll protect you because that's what they do, protect people's lives.

If by attack you mean they'll verbally tell you how wrong you are or how stupid they think your position is, then no, they couldn't care less about you and your opinion. Freedom of speech goes both ways. And sometimes stupid people lose their jobs over saying stupid things. And the gouvernment is okay with that, too.

[OneSent]

Speech:
the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds.

Freedom:
the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.

Freedom + Speech:
the expression of or the ability to express thoughts and feelings by articulate sounds without hindrance or restraint.


That is the absolute, literal definition of 'freedom of speech'. Not the one that society has modified to fit its rules (e.g. The First Amendment). The First Amendment is a limited form of freedom, which is to say, not freedom, on our ability to speak.

True freedom of speech would mean that you could say whatever you wanted, to whoever you wanted, whenever you wanted. While you can still technically do that, there are laws in place that would punish you for doing so, thus removing the "freedom" aspect of it.

And of course, there are people who would want to harm you for what you've said, but that is the nature of taking responsibility for your words and actions. A responsibility that the government has deemed it should enforce on its own.

[haxartus]

That said, even in the US, while the government can't punish for what you say, there is nothing that prevents a business from firing you for saying stupid or offensive things.

Which sounds ok until you consider the fact that 99% of your life has nothing to do with the government and everything to do with your job, so while you can't go to jail for having a different opinion, you could end up on the street.
Free speech or not, the different are being silenced and you can't speak your mind, unless you're absolutely average and follow every "allowed" opinion.

[Deleted]

It's not just the right of the person who speaks to be heard.

It is the right of everyone in the audience to listen and to hear.

Every time you silence somebody you make yourself a prisoner.

[belfpala]

Like I explained. It doesn't override, it compliments. Allowing MORE speech than is allowed in the First Amendment is in no way a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

I don't think that's correct. If SCOTUS is putting an upper limit on restrictions, you can't allow anything over that limit. If they're putting a lower limit on restrictions, you can be more restrictive. The First is an upper limit.

Essentially: You cannot restrict more than this vs. you must restrict at least this much.

[Matchles]

I don't think that's correct. If SCOTUS is putting an upper limit on restrictions, you can't allow anything over that limit. If they're putting a lower limit on restrictions, you can be more restrictive. The First is an upper limit.

Essentially: You cannot restrict more than this vs. you must restrict at least this much.

For the free speech portion of the First Amendment, the only restrictions the Supreme Court deals with is how much the government can restrict speech. Incitement laws aren't a requirement, the question is whether a state's incitement law restricts more speech than is allowed by the Constitution. You aren't going to find a case where someone is arguing that the state allows them too much speech.

Perhaps it is easier to think about it this way. The Bill of Rights isn't a grant of power to the people, it is a check on the power of the government. Knowing this, it doesn't make sense for the Supreme Court to tell state governments that "you must restrict the speech of your citizens by x amount." What the Supreme Court is instead doing is saying, "you cannot restrict the speech of your citizens more than the federal constitution allows."

[belfpala]

Isn't that what I just said?

[Raptor With a Saber]

Freedom of speech is the ability to say "Fuck the government all they do is screw everyone over and they need to be ousted" With out the fear of being killed,imprisoned etc by the government

[belfpala]

Freedom of speech is the ability to say "Fuck the government all they do is screw everyone over and they need to be ousted" With out the fear of being killed,imprisoned etc by the government

I think I said on the first page, at least in the US, the First Amendment puts limits on government action, except in limited cases (e.g., imminent incitement to violence). Later amendments give protection to people in certain categories.

It's not a difficult concept.

[xero5141]

Luckily, at least in the US, freedom of speech has already been well defined. No need to speculate

[belfpala]

I suppose we live in a time where people don't care about personal liberties and will willingly give them up for... no apparent reason

I'll just drop the yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater example.

[Kujako]

I'll just drop the yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded theater example.

There is nothing illegal about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. So long as there is an actual fire and your intent is not to cause harm. The yelling or speech part isn't what's potentially illegal. It's the doing harm to others, through act or deed, that'll get you in trouble.

[belfpala]

There is nothing illegal about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. So long as there is an actual fire and your intent is not to cause harm. The yelling or speech part isn't what's potentially illegal. It's the doing harm to others, through act or deed, that'll get you in trouble.

Make a distinction. Some people are afraid of clowns. I can yell, "CLOWN!" in a crowded public area without legal consequence.