When does freedom of speech go to far?

[applepie]

I've gone back and forth today about how to present this subject. I've no desire to open up anything about current politics (mods: Please feel free to lock this immediately if you think there is no way to steer free), but the topic is of both a moral and a political nature.

Perhaps one of the most frequently touted freedoms here in the U.S. is freedom of speech. It is used as the argument to say, publish, or protest any number of things. It is used as an excuse to defend the burning of our flag by our own citizens, but in some cases it isn't upheld. In regards to the ability of speech to undermine others standing in society all to often the freedom of speech is not upheld because it violates the rights of others.

I read an article today about a case that will be presented to the supreme court. (The supreme court ruling that will come is not the discussion, this is merely a frame for the actual question) A gentleman is suing a church organization for staging a protest at the funeral of his son. His son was a soldier who had been killed, and the church is of the belief that the deaths of soldiers are due to homosexuality. This isn't the only case I have heard of since it was fairly commonplace at one of the Army bases I lived near, and I have also read of similar protests at the funerals for college students.

As I said, I've no desire to talk politics. I'm curious though, is this is a case where the right to freedom of speech has been carried too far? I've often heard of protests at funerals in over the last five years or so, and I think that it is a case where the protester's freedom of speech is in violation of a moral obligation that society has to allow families to buy their loved ones in peace and dignity. Should freedom of speech be allowed to excuse immoral/unethical behavior?

[Lulim]

In my opinion, the wishes of the family to bury their son in peace and dignity, should be respected. I do not consider it a violation of the freedom of speech when intruders are excluded. It is, after all a private event, and the family has the right to decide whom to invite and whom to deny entrance. And they shouldn't have to suffer disrespectful behavior in addition to the suffering over the loss of their son. Whoever wants to express their protest is free to do so -- somewhere else.

[papayahed]

Doh! This is the Westboro Church from Topeka right? They're a bunch of crack pots. The only members of the church are the family members of the Phelps family. That doesn't answer the question but that group makes my blood boil.

[applepie]

Doh! This is the Westboro Church from Topeka right? They're a bunch of crack pots. The only members of the church are the family members of the Phelps family. That doesn't answer the question but that group makes my blood boil.

That would be the one :lol: Here I was trying to keep names out to keep things a bit general. They're the most known, and the ones named in the suit, but they're not the only groups. I've heard of other protests unrelated to this group that also occurred.

[OrphanPip]

The expression of free speech has to be limited in certain circumstances. Invading the private lives of individuals is one of them, a funeral is not a public event to be protested.

[Paulclem]

On a slightly different tack, I've often wondered whether the freedoms enjoyed by the press are an opportunity for unscrupulous journalists and politically motivated newspapers to unduly influence public opinion.

We've got an election here in the UK in May, so I won't refer to that, but if I refer to the PM John Major from the early 90s, (not that I'm a fan of his you understand), he was portrayed as a staid, simple idiot. he has a David beckham style squeaky voice, which all went to paint this cartoon picture of him. He was hammered by the press - on the personal level, and the Conservatives lost the election. I think they would have lost anyway, but this portrayal, I'm sure, contributed to the image of ineffectuality.

The irony of it is that at the time he was being portrayed thus, he was knocking off one of his cabinet ministers who later revealed it in a book. He wasn't the staid, boring idiot of the press.

My point is that such undue influence - politically and on an individual level - is an abuse of such freedom.

[Scheherazade]

Freedom is only illusion we are fond of creating.

[Hurricane]

Freedom of speech is probably the most vital cornerstone of America. The Phelps family/Westboro Baptist Church have every right to protest at the funerals of soldiers. I look at this the same way I look at flag burning: just because you can doesn't mean you should.
This is not "yelling fire in a crowded theater" or anything like that. No one is in physical danger. Applying personal concepts of morals or ethics to the freedom of speech is a very dangerous thing. Protesting at someone's funeral, especially if that person gave their life for their country, is something that 99.99% of people can agree is morally repugnant, but it's just a couple hops away from no protesting at a whole host of other locations and events. I get pissed by the "General Betray-us" posters/news ads and people going around saying soldiers are murderers, but I have to remember that what to me may seem unpatriotic and disrespectful is, to someone else, a legitimate protest.
To paraphrase: I don't defend what they do, but I'll defend to the death their right to do it.

[BienvenuJDC]

The intent of "freedom of speech" was so that the government could not stifle opposing political expression. Several areas in which I think that total freedom to speak should NOT be allowed are:

* private events (as is this example): one should not be allowed to invade one's personal lives. This also goes with "the freedom of press" in respects to the paparazzi. Celebrities should be allowed to live in peace without constant interruption. Princess Diana would probably be alive today if it weren't for these crude invasive people.

* openly vulgar expression: whether it is vulgar verbal language, gestures implying generally unacceptable ideas, and indecent exposure or pornographic presentation. These things should obviously be considered according to societies standards. Many things today would be outlawed 100 years ago.

* protesting competitive business: This is not referring to questionable business ventures that may be offensive to certain communities (like a strip club, a warehouse, or anything that may disrupt the particular community). I am referring to one supermarket being picketed because it is non-union. This violates the business of one individual or company over another.

This is in my own humble opinion. Total freedom (in any area) is not always good.

[Virgil]

As kooky as the protest is, they have a right to freedom of speech. The only place freedom of speech should be curtailed is in the event of violence of some sort. We allow the KKK and the Neo Nazis to march and speak. This is surely not as outrageous as either of those. As long as the protestors are not intruding on private property, they have a right to make their point heard.

[Revolte]

Whats moral and what isn't is up to individual opinion.

I do not like when people shout out hate words towards other people, they shouldn't be banned from their stupidity.

People need to learn how to treat one another with respect, that's something they have to figure out on their own.

[Emil Miller]

On a slightly different tack, I've often wondered whether the freedoms enjoyed by the press are an opportunity for unscrupulous journalists and politically motivated newspapers to unduly influence public opinion.

We've got an election here in the UK in May, so I won't refer to that, but if I refer to the PM John Major from the early 90s, (not that I'm a fan of his you understand), he was portrayed as a staid, simple idiot. he has a David beckham style squeaky voice, which all went to paint this cartoon picture of him. He was hammered by the press - on the personal level, and the Conservatives lost the election. I think they would have lost anyway, but this portrayal, I'm sure, contributed to the image of ineffectuality.

The irony of it is that at the time he was being portrayed thus, he was knocking off one of his cabinet ministers who later revealed it in a book. He wasn't the staid, boring idiot of the press.

My point is that such undue influence - politically and on an individual level - is an abuse of such freedom.

There is a line to be drawn between freedom and anarchy, but the trouble is we all have our own idea where that line should be drawn. That is why we have laws to ensure that anarchy is kept at bay. If those laws are not enforced then anarchy will prevail and "freedom" will cease to exist. Obviously there are libertines who don't want laws, but only because they fondly believe that their absence won't affect them personally. As far as the UK is concerned, the press are supposed to be answerable to the Press Complaints Commission which is truly a toothless tiger; as are other government appointed quangos in our "freedom" loving democracy.

{edit}

[Jozanny]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean anything anymore mk. Americans vent but they use this as an escape valve rather than attempting true social equity, and even outside of this treasured sense of autonomy in the West, increasingly, humans are controlled by the process, whether it is a Katrina victim trying to reclaim a loved pet, or someone like me who has spent 24 months in hell trying to get a new power chair. I can scream all I want, threaten this, or that, but the system in which no one is accountable because they are following regulations, this destroys vulnerable people.

I was doing much better before the ADA ever became law, and I can tell you why: Title II recognized that disabled individuals were a minority who needed protection--once the ADA passed, the statue said, okay, when we do this, we take this away from you, which is why traditional activism winds up being fools gold.

[BienvenuJDC]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean anything anymore mk. Americans vent but they use this as an escape valve rather than attempting true social equity, and even outside of this treasured sense of autonomy in the West, increasingly, humans are controlled by the process, whether it is a Katrina victim trying to reclaim a loved pet, or someone like me who has spent 24 months in hell trying to get a new power chair. I can scream all I want, threaten this, or that, but the system in which no one is accountable because they are following regulations, this destroys vulnerable people.

I was doing much better before the ADA ever became law, and I can tell you why: Title II recognized that disabled individuals were a minority who needed protection--once the ADA passed, the statue said, okay, when we do this, we take this away from you, which is why traditional activism winds up being fools gold.
:rant:
wow...are you done?

What does this have to do with free speech?

[Jozanny]

:rant:
wow...are you done?

What does this have to do with free speech?

Everything, because fidelity to procedure takes precedence over freedom to use your voice. You don't see much of the underclass online, ever ask yourself why?

In other words, when constraints impede resources, freedom of speech becomes irrelevant. The LitNet community is primarily suburban, not exclusively, but primarily, dominated by housewives, female teachers, and their kids. Persons like myself are thieves in the night, and obviously disliked for it--but even if I publish an article about reform in medical equipment--it does not stop me from being vulnerable to being forced into a nursing home because I cannot get what I need--and this is what I mean. Human rights as an intellectual concept is meaningless if you are starving to death.

[BienvenuJDC]

Everything, because fidelity to procedure takes precedence over freedom to use your voice. You don't see much of the underclass online, ever ask yourself why?

Underclass? Who is the underclass, and how do you know that they are not online?

[applepie]

I do not dispute the right of groups to say whatever they wish. I do wonder, though, if there should be some limitations on where/when groups can protest. Funerals are really the only venue I have issues with, and it applies to all causes. I can't help but think that it isn't the place to push any sort of political or social agenda, even if it was done so with the consent of the family.

[blazeofglory]

Man is a free animal and I do not like people to be hypocrites. Let him talk what he likes on whatever subject whether it is funeral ceremonies or any other celebrations.

I have seen so many cases at funeral processions. Some people seem to mourn to keep formality. In some culture, I have witnessed in point of fact, the men and women, mainly relatives, of the deceased one follow the corpse up to the grave and start crying, but all fake,showing up. They have to keep up a formality

[Katy North]

I hope I'm not being to forward saying this... Jozanny, feel free to knock me over the head if I say anything offensive...


Underclass? Who is the underclass, and how do you know that they are not online?

I live and work in a slightly rough neighborhood, but I grew up in a relatively rich suburban one.

Let me tell you, from day one working in the grocery store over here, I was amazed by how little some people have. When food stamps are your only income, or you work a low income job and have five kids, you don't have a lot of room to move or say what you want to.

A very intelligent 19 year old guy I know recently got his family's very first computer, where in my old neighborhood, his family would have had one since he was 10. This kind of startled me, because it wasn't what I was used to. We who have the internet may take it for granted... it is the perfect blank slate for us to express ourselves with. Unfortunately, it is only accessible to people who own computers or who are willing to go to the library to use theirs.

A case like Jozanny's is even more restricted... imagine the struggles a disabled person has to go through every day just to get out of the house (okay... I can't imagine it, but when my son was a newborn we didn't own a car, so I imagine it was kind of like getting the two of us out of the house simultaneously... almost impossible). The internet is the perfect medium for Jozanny to express herself because she doesn't have to go anywhere to have good conversation and make her opinions known. It sounds as if ADA is preventing financial aid to disabled persons? If this is so, I am very sorry; it must be extremely frustrating :(.

[OrphanPip]

Blaze, it's not a matter of whether or not they should be allowed to talk about whatever nonsense they want to. It is the fact that they are disrupting private ceremonies to do so.

[BienvenuJDC]

How does...
Poor = underclass? Are those who are without a lower class of people? Is that not a terrible stereotype? People who are financially challenged (poor) are not a lower class. I think of the lower (under) class as the scum who ruin their lives burnout with drugs...those who steal and murder...those who don't care who they hurt to get ahead...(oh, yeah, that may be a wealthy individual too...)

[Jozanny]

mk, the example you use is really more about manners or lack of them than free speech, which is already restricted. A court ruling is not going to change a fringe belief, it will simply modify or not modify how such groups may behave in a legal context. We've been here before, we'll be here again, because it is a dog and pony show.

One of my colleagues once told me that European liberalism was essentially more free because it did not have these American *absolutes*. Perhaps in some cases.

[Paulclem]

There is a line to be drawn between freedom and anarchy, but the trouble is we all have our own idea where that line should be drawn. That is why we have laws to ensure that anarchy is kept at bay. If those laws are not enforced then anarchy will prevail and "freedom" will cease to exist. Obviously there are libertines who don't want laws, but only because they fondly believe that their absence won't affect them personally. As far as the UK is concerned, the press are supposed to be answerable to the Press Complaints Commission which is truly a toothless tiger; as are other government appointed quangos in our "freedom" loving democracy.

{edit}

I agree that the toothless tiger should be given teeth and a real motivation to prevent injustices. I would want to keep press freedom of course, but have a workable syste of complaint.

As an individual you would have no chance of establishing your side of the story, unless taken up by a rival paper. Politicians and celebrities are fair game up to a point, and good work has been done in exposing the expenses scandal, but there are few places where you can read the real, balanced story.

[applepie]

mk, the example you use is really more about manners or lack of them than free speech, which is already restricted. A court ruling is not going to change a fringe belief, it will simply modify or not modify how such groups may behave in a legal context. We've been here before, we'll be here again, because it is a dog and pony show.

One of my colleagues once told me that European liberalism was essentially more free because it did not have these American *absolutes*. Perhaps in some cases.

I would have to agree. The case is about manners, or just basic morality, but the right to free speech is used as a means to shield themselves from any recourse that the family may take.

I think my disgust with protests is directly tied to the venue in which it is carried out. I have no qualms with people wishing to speak their piece, and I would much rather see more people do this. A funeral is simply not the place for any sort of protest. I don't care if it is a cause that the family themselves support or don't, it just simply isn't the right place. I feel it is disrespect to the dead who you have come to see off. Does that make any sense at all??

For families who don't wish to have protests present, they have no choice but to submit, and others are allowed to turn their loved one's funeral into a dog and pony show. Both are equally vulgar to me, and it leaves me wondering if burials should be a place where protests of any variety are simply not allowed.

[Musicology]

The limits of freedom of speech are when the Golden Rule is forgotten -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at1q3lIpK3c

[Scheherazade]

:rant:
wow...are you done?

What does this have to do with free speech?Well, this is a fine example of tolerance and understanding in a "free speech" related discussion.

:rolleyes5:
How does...
Poor = underclass? Are those who are without a lower class of people? Is that not a terrible stereotype? People who are financially challenged (poor) are not a lower class. I think of the lower (under) class as the scum who ruin their lives burnout with drugs...those who steal and murder...those who don't care who they hurt to get ahead...(oh, yeah, that may be a wealthy individual too...)Regardless of how you interpret these, there is a set terminology that are used by all social scientists.

To begin with lower class and underclass are not necessarily the same. "Lower class", indeed, refer to socioeconomic status and include those who are less financially affluent and able within a society while "underclass" refers to group of people who are at a disadvantage; eg, children, people with disabilities or single mothers.

I think for the sake of a coherent argument, we all need to stick with the universally terminology and definitions, rather than individual whims.

[Jozanny]

I would have to agree. The case is about manners, or just basic morality, but the right to free speech is used as a means to shield themselves from any recourse that the family may take.

I think my disgust with protests is directly tied to the venue in which it is carried out. I have no qualms with people wishing to speak their piece, and I would much rather see more people do this. A funeral is simply not the place for any sort of protest. I don't care if it is a cause that the family themselves support or don't, it just simply isn't the right place. I feel it is disrespect to the dead who you have come to see off. Does that make any sense at all??

For families who don't wish to have protests present, they have no choice but to submit, and others are allowed to turn their loved one's funeral into a dog and pony show. Both are equally vulgar to me, and it leaves me wondering if burials should be a place where protests of any variety are simply not allowed.

I haven't read anything about this, and I am not sure I wish to, but the major headache for Scotus always seems to be about free speech, hate speech, inciting speech and religious pluralism--and I don't know that supposing soldiers dying in a theatre of conflict because they are homosexual isn't skirting the line at a hate crime. The reasoning seems twisted, but aside from that I am not sure these things are truly solvable, and whether or not the stressors come from modern life I dunno.

I do know something about the extremes one can be driven to out of sheer frustration, and it frightens me. In the 80's some of my best instructors sort of patted me on the head and said, "you'll make it, you're a minority."

I am not "making it", and maybe that creates this occasional surface ugliness that this group engages in--that they feel broken and need to blame some something, however lacking in rationality.

[JuniperWoolf]

Doh! This is the Westboro Church from Topeka right? They're a bunch of crack pots. The only members of the church are the family members of the Phelps family. That doesn't answer the question but that group makes my blood boil.

The Phelps family once tried to come to the presentation of a play promoting gay rights that was being held in a town outside of Edmonton (where I was going to school at the time). Sure, they had a right to free speech... but so did we. Turns out the RCMP told them that they should stay away from Red Deer for their own safety, so they stayed home. Like everyone else that I know, I'd just love to punch Fred Phelps in the nose. If you're going to shoot your mouth off like an ignorant jerk, then you're going to have to deal with the repercussions.

[Musicology]

If we can define politics we can define what the limits of free speech are.

[Jozanny]

This is wiki's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics) definition of politics:


Politics is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to behavior within civil governments, but politics has been observed in other group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power"[1] and refers to the regulation of a political unit,[2] and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.[3]

The word "Politics" comes from the Greek word Πολιτικά (politika) from politic (adj.), modeled on Aristotle's "affairs of state," the name of his book on governing and governments, which was rendered in English mid-15 century as Latinised "Polettiques." In Latin, this was "liticus" and in French "politique". Thus it became "politics" in Middle English (see the Concise Oxford


And it in no way provides convenient guideposts as to what the limits on free speech are, which the American courts have been expanding ad infinitum at least since the Burger Court. Money is protected speech, so are inflammatory actions, like flag burning. Obscenity falls under some obtuse haziness about community standards, and drives most jurists to vast quantities of scotch and soda, excepting that protection of children is a convenient bit when dealing with pornography franchises--because obscenity, like marriage, and disability, defies ease of legal codification.

Some specificity of what we're discussing keeps our brains exercising and happy, really.

The Phelps may be as rabid as trash can coons, but they have the right of protected speech, and freedom of assembly. The issues most likely to be adjudicated are:

1. Does their protest and subsequent actions constitute a hate crime and therefore justify restriction?

1a and if not, do they have the right to protest at a funeral, which, however private, is also semi-public and is a community event.

[applepie]

1. Does their protest and subsequent actions constitute a hate crime and therefore justify restriction?

1a and if not, do they have the right to protest at a funeral, which, however private, is also semi-public and is a community event.

This breaks it down quite nicely :)