Freedom of Speech; Fact or Fiction?

[Thumpalumpacus]

... which is not a crime punishable with prison time, here. It's a civil offense argued by civil litigation.

There are instances where speech may rise to the level of criminal offense here. No being familiar with UK law, I can't say if this is an example. As for what I've seen under American jurisprudence it isn't.

If it costs it's not free.

The "free" doesn't refer to pecuniary cost, it refers to your freedom to speak without governmental interference. That' like, y'know, the First Amendment, which only limits the government. Of course you knew that when you wrote your post.

So yeah, you're free to slander me, and I'm free to sue the dogshit out of you in a civil court. That doesn't make what you've said criminal, nor expose you to jail-time, but if I can show your free speech damaged my income or reputation, I am free to hold you accountable legally.

That's freedom, baby.

Your insinuation that free speech should be free of consequences is silly.

[brewerb]

If it costs it's not free.

The "free" doesn't refer to pecuniary cost, it refers to your freedom to speak without governmental interference. That' like, y'know, the First Amendment, which only limits the government. Of course you knew that when you wrote your post.

So yeah, you're free to slander me, and I'm free to sue the dogshit out of you in a civil court. That doesn't make what you've said criminal, nor expose you to jail-time, but if I can show your free speech damaged my income or reputation, I am free to hold you accountable legally.

That's freedom, baby.

Your insinuation that free speech should be free of consequences is silly.

If there are specific laws that address the speech then I don't consider it free. A person speaks it at their own risk.

I don't believe I said or insinuated free speech should be free of consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...2C%20false

You can claim apples/oranges if you like.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The "free" doesn't refer to pecuniary cost, it refers to your freedom to speak without governmental interference. That' like, y'know, the First Amendment, which only limits the government. Of course you knew that when you wrote your post.

So yeah, you're free to slander me, and I'm free to sue the dogshit out of you in a civil court. That doesn't make what you've said criminal, nor expose you to jail-time, but if I can show your free speech damaged my income or reputation, I am free to hold you accountable legally.

That's freedom, baby.

Your insinuation that free speech should be free of consequences is silly.

If there are specific laws that address the speech then I don't consider it free. A person speaks it at their own risk.

I don't believe I said or insinuated free speech should be free of consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...2C%20false

You can claim apples/oranges if you like.

Okay. So is your point that speech isn't free a criticism, and that you'd prefer pure and untrammeled speech? Or do you understand that like every freedom we enjoy, it has reasonable limits?

And yes, you did insinuate that speech should be free of consequences, by complaining that our conception of free speech still allows for slander lawsuits. Yes, I know you didn't use the word "complain", but it's clear your point is not a supportive one.

Or sit and nitpick as you wish without making any useful point. All rights have limits. Of course free speech is not unlimited speech. Congratulations, you've discovered the social contract.

[jerry mcmasters]

In the U.S. harming others is the only restriction on free speech.  I think...I may be overlooking something but I can't think of what it would be or why.  Other nations I think have the same application but a more expansive definition of harm.

Brandenburg v Ohio

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3]: 702  Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. 

So, one idiot in a nursing home telling a bunch of his/her wheelchair bound cronies that the Jews were the cause of all their problems and they should go beat them up is unlikely to produce imminent lawless action because most of them couldn't get their wheelchairs out into the street.

Correct.

But, OTOH, a President of the United States telling an angry mob of assholes that they should march down to the capitol and "take their country back" not only could, but, did, create such immediate lawless action.  But the fucks on SCOTUS seem fine with that so fuck them.

SCOTUS wasn't involved.  Trump wasn't brought up on any kind of speech or incitement charges (which is good in my opinion).

[brewerb]

If there are specific laws that address the speech then I don't consider it free. A person speaks it at their own risk.

I don't believe I said or insinuated free speech should be free of consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta...2C%20false

You can claim apples/oranges if you like.

Okay. So is your point that speech isn't free a criticism, and that you'd prefer pure and untrammeled speech? Or do you understand that like every freedom we enjoy, it has reasonable limits?

And yes, you did insinuate that speech should be free of consequences, by complaining that our conception of free speech still allows for slander lawsuits. Yes, I know you didn't use the word "complain", but it's clear your point is not a supportive one.

Or sit and nitpick as you wish without making any useful point. All rights have limits. Of course free speech is not unlimited speech. Congratulations, you've discovered the social contract.

It has limits, that was the point of bringing up slander (read post #15 again). By law and more frequently by custom. We could get into the details of that but I'd prefer not.

I was not complaining, I was giving an obvious example of how some speech is not free from consequence. If you perceived it as complaining that's on you.

Congratulating me on discovering the social contract,.... nice one. Since you can read my mind is there anything else you'd like to add to the conversation , it's free............ or is it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Since you can read my mind is there anything else you'd like to add to the conversation , it's free............ or is it?

My point, since it went unnoticed, was that no right is unlimited. All rights, and all limits to them, are balanced on that social contract.

Freedom of assembly? Sure, unless you gather to storm Congress while they're validating election returns. Freedom of religion? Great, until you're practicing human sacrifice. Do you also point out these limits on freedom, ostensibly not in complaint but just sayin' that we ain't free there either? No? I mean, I haven't seen seen any posts like that from you. So what gives? Anyone who's educated, and you are, surely understands that all rights end when you step on other people. Your right to anger ends at my nose.

Whether the recourse is criminal of civil, you can't shout "fire" in a theater, you can't urge a mob to search out and kill a person, you can't throw a baby into a fire to appease your deity, and so on.

So yeah, congrats on discovering the social contract. All rights have limits. Freedoms do not mean you're free to hurt anyone by words or actions. Our system allows for recourse. You're free to slander folks, but you're not free from pushback to include lawsuits. It's pretty simple. Getting sued for slander doesn't infringe free speech, it means that if you abuse that right you may well pay.

[brewerb]

Since you can read my mind is there anything else you'd like to add to the conversation , it's free............ or is it?

My point, since it went unnoticed, was that no right is unlimited. All rights, and all limits to them, are balanced on that social contract.

Freedom of assembly? Sure, unless you gather to storm Congress while they're validating election returns. Freedom of religion? Great, until you're practicing human sacrifice. Do you also point out these limits on freedom, ostensibly not in complaint but just sayin' that we ain't free there either? No? I mean, I haven't seen seen any posts like that from you. So what gives? Anyone who's educated, and you are, surely understands that all rights end when you step on other people. Your right to anger ends at my nose.

Whether the recourse is criminal of civil, you can't shout "fire" in a theater, you can't urge a mob to search out and kill a person, you can't throw a baby into a fire to appease your deity, and so on.

So yeah, congrats on discovering the social contract. All rights have limits. Freedoms do not mean you're free to hurt anyone by words or actions. Our system allows for recourse. You're free to slander folks, but you're not free from pushback to include lawsuits. It's pretty simple. Getting sued for slander doesn't infringe free speech, it means that if you abuse that right you may well pay.

So we agree, post #15 stated (and used the word) limits. But thanks for teaching me a lesson.

[SYZ]

Spring was locked up for yelling "who the fuck is Allah" and
calling police officers "cunts" at an anti-immigration protest
near Downing St in July this year.

Here in Australia (whose system of jurisprudence is based on the
Westminster rules of law) shouting those derogatory epithets in a
public place would not result in a jail sentence.

Both and/or either would possibly result in an infringement notice
and a local magistrate's court appearance, plus a good behaviour bond.

Although in Victoria, police would normally choose to ignore this—as
long as there's no physical disruption, criminal damage, or violence
from the abuser.

[mordant]

If it costs it's not free.

The "free" doesn't refer to pecuniary cost, it refers to your freedom to speak without governmental interference. That' like, y'know, the First Amendment, which only limits the government. Of course you knew that when you wrote your post.

So yeah, you're free to slander me, and I'm free to sue the dogshit out of you in a civil court. That doesn't make what you've said criminal, nor expose you to jail-time, but if I can show your free speech damaged my income or reputation, I am free to hold you accountable legally.

That's freedom, baby.

Your insinuation that free speech should be free of consequences is silly.

Or as we software devs say in relation to free and open source software, "it's free as in freedom, not free as in beer".

[Minimalist]

Ask Rudy Giuliani about that.  He's had his ass sued off and he is still facing criminal charges in several states.