Freedom of speech takes another tumble....

[Coito ergo sum]

As far as I'm concerned, people should be able to say anything they like, provided it's their opinion, and it doesn't encourage violence or other malicious acts towards others.

In other words, I'd be entitled to yell, "I hate strawberry pickers!" and call them all the names under the sun at the gates of the local fruit farm, without fear of arrest. If I yelled, "Kill all strawberry pickers!" or "Cut off their fingers!" then that's a different matter. I should also be entitled to tell them that they're going to burn in hell, because that's an entirely empty threat.

So it's okay to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater

If it's on fire, it's o.k. to let people know. Causing a panic, however, not the same thing as expressive speech.

or "Ambulance!" in a crowded law school?

Hate speech! Call the cops! We have a lawyah-hatah here!

Throw him in the paddy wagon, because we all have the right not to be subjected to hate speech!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, so if the theater is not on fire it's not okay to yell "Fire". That's a first step. You accept that speech SHOULD be limited. After that it's only a matter of where we draw the line.

[Thinking Aloud]

As far as I'm concerned, people should be able to say anything they like, provided it's their opinion, and it doesn't encourage violence or other malicious acts towards others.

In other words, I'd be entitled to yell, "I hate strawberry pickers!" and call them all the names under the sun at the gates of the local fruit farm, without fear of arrest. If I yelled, "Kill all strawberry pickers!" or "Cut off their fingers!" then that's a different matter. I should also be entitled to tell them that they're going to burn in hell, because that's an entirely empty threat.

So it's okay to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or "Ambulance!" in a crowded law school?

That's not "speech", that's misbehaviour. The only connection is that it happens to use the vocal chords. Voicing one's opinion by vocalised words or in writing (etc) is what we're talking about - at least I think it is.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Again, we're quibbling about what can and can't be said. You both admit that speech should be limited, so what's the problem?

[Thinking Aloud]

Again, we're quibbling about what can and can't be said. You both admit that speech should be limited, so what's the problem?

I dunno. Kinda bored now.

[Coito ergo sum]

Okay, so if the theater is not on fire it's not okay to yell "Fire". That's a first step. You accept that speech SHOULD be limited. After that it's only a matter of where we draw the line.

I'm not talking about what's "o.k." - the thread is about people being arrested. We're talking about what's legal, not what's "o.k."

But, yes, it should not be illegal to say "fire!" in a theater. It should be illegal to intentionally cause a panic.

But, nevertheless, I do have a line - defamation, fraud and conspiracy to commit capital crimes. The "falsely claiming fire in a crowded theater causing injury due to panic" would fall under the fraud heading (false statement, knowingly false when made, upon which someone justifiably relied, and which is the direct and proximate cause of injury and damages).

There is no line between hateful and non-hateful speech. IMHO, "I hate Muslims" and "I hate White People" and "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses" and "Religious people are deluded" and "gay people are sinful" are all legal. Expressions of opinions, even hateful ones, should never be illegal.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Again, we're quibbling about what can and can't be said. You both admit that speech should be limited, so what's the problem?

I dunno. Kinda bored now.

I've had this argument before. We can't even decide what "speech" means, so how can we decide whether or not it should be limited? I would glad take out nasty bastards like NAMBLA. I HAVE sent neo-Nazis to the emergency room. (In fact, the ER in the hospital where they were holding a "celebration of the Wansee Conference".)

[AshtonBlack]

Okay, so if the theater is not on fire it's not okay to yell "Fire". That's a first step. You accept that speech SHOULD be limited. After that it's only a matter of where we draw the line.

People are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts, especially when stating these facts leads to harm befalling others.
I think it's pretty clear cut HOW to draw the line. Please don't use the slippery slope argument.
"Does this cause a danger to others, or just hurt their feelings?"

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So the only thing different is where we draw the line. Fine, I'll use my pencil, you use yours.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Okay, so if the theater is not on fire it's not okay to yell "Fire". That's a first step. You accept that speech SHOULD be limited. After that it's only a matter of where we draw the line.

People are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts, especially when stating these facts leads to harm befalling others.
I think it's pretty clear cut HOW to draw the line. Please don't use the slippery slope argument.
"Does this cause a danger to others, or just hurt their feelings?"

And how do we define those? Do hurt feeling lead to violent retaliation or suicide or such?

[AshtonBlack]

So the only thing different is where we draw the line. Fine, I'll use my pencil, you use yours.

You are entitled to hold that opinion.

[Rum]

Then there's holocaust denial..prison-able in a fair few countries...

[Coito ergo sum]

Again, we're quibbling about what can and can't be said. You both admit that speech should be limited, so what's the problem?

We're not quibbling at all.

I simply would not draw the line at "hateful" speech, because it is a vague and unmanageable line. If you say that all hateful speech should not be permitted, then the door is wide open for anything that anybody considers hateful - like when Christians and Muslims bitch about "blasphemy" - should not be permitted. You would have to agree with the Muslim freaks who want to make blaspheming Islam a crime in the West.

The better "line" is a clear one - intentionally false and injurious speech, like defamation, libel, slander, and fraud are clear demarcations. No political speech, or religious speech flows over that line - and matters of opinion, ideology and philosophy also do not cross over that line. Once you start trying to figure out what negative characterization is hateful, and what characterization is merely "negative" but not hateful, then we just have popular speech being legal and unpopular speech being criminalized. I.e. powerless groups would have to take it, but the more powerful groups would be able to squelch their critics (because criticism is almost always hateful to those receiving it....it's blasphemy (Islam sucks and Muhammed is a pedophile) or "hate speech" (homosexuals are sinful and hellbound). We're stuck with those interest groups trying to prohibit the other side from speaking their mind, while reserving their own right to speak theirs.....

[Coito ergo sum]

So the only thing different is where we draw the line. Fine, I'll use my pencil, you use yours.

No. Your line is vague and ambiguous. Mine is clear and unmistakeable.

Your line is a fat wide swath of grey, and leaves what speech is legal and illegal up to the vicissitudes of the daily popularity contest. Mine leaves all political, religious, ideological, philsophical and other opinions free. Yours criminalizes some political and religious, ideological and philosophical opinions.

There is a big difference between our two lines.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

All a matter of opinion. And it varies from country to country, and place to place with a country.

If I called someone a "nigger" that's hate speech. If my friend Luke called someone a nigger, he's probably addressing his brother. Is one hateful and the other not? And if so, which one? The guy who saved my life the most times was a black man from Harlem. He told me to call him "nigger", having unofficially adopted me.