Freedom of Speech

[Kitch]

Of course it is different, but Kitch's comment didn't restrict itself to hate speech. ("Freedom of speech should be limitless.")

Of course a bomb threat is not freedom of speech. One is a protected right, the other is an action. The question at hand is if the action is protected under that right. As I've said before, I think it does not and should not.

I think you answered your own question my friend. Actions are not protected by the rights of expression. I consider threats to be actions as well... at least potential actions. Which is not as severely punishable as is the realized potential. Murder vs. attempted murder.

My claim of limitless freedom of expression is held strong in principle, but not in scope. (Does that make sense?)

[Renegade]

My claim of limitless freedom of expression is held strong in principle, but not in scope. (Does that make sense?)

Not sure if it makes sense. Please explain.

[Kitch]

Not sure if it makes sense. Please explain.

In principle, I strongly believe in freedom of speech. But in practice, it's not clear in my own mind what constitutes an expression as compared to an action. Your bomb threat example is a good one. It's an expression in that the person making the threat is doing nothing but speaking words. But at the same time, they could be communicating the potential harm that they will cause on other people.

Obviously the main issue is that we don't want people blowing up, so the action is wrong. But if it is an empty threat... then what? The threat must be considered real until shown otherwise. So words do/can cause an effect in other people.

This particular effect is different from the potential effects of hate speech. If I repeatedly put down a particular group of people and somebody else goes out and hurts a person belonging to that group, the person who did the hurting is at fault, not me in the least. But if I personally threaten to do harm on somebody, that person CAN be justified in their actions, whatever that action is.

It's a very grey area to me. I really don't know if my claim of "limitless" freedom is at odds with this grey area or not.

[Renegade]

This particular effect is different from the potential effects of hate speech. If I repeatedly put down a particular group of people and somebody else goes out and hurts a person belonging to that group, the person who did the hurting is at fault, not me in the least.

The area is indeed grey. If Osama Bin Laden tells his followers that Americans are evil and tells his followers that they should be killling Americans and they do, is Osama's speech protected under "Freedom of Speech"?

[guyser]

If Osama Bin Laden tells his followers that Americans are evil and tells his followers that they should be killling Americans and they do, is Osama's speech protected under "Freedom of Speech"?

Not if he does it on American soil.

Especially if he does it outside a barracks...........at night...........with no one around. Apparently a judge, jury and executioner will be just around the corner. Pretty convenient.

But no,not on US soil.

[Kitch]

The area is indeed grey. If Osama Bin Laden tells his followers that Americans are evil and tells his followers that they should be killling Americans and they do, is Osama's speech protected under "Freedom of Speech"?

Yes. That is not a grey area. Those people have minds of their own and are responsible for their own actions.

[Renegade]

Yes. That is not a grey area. Those people have minds of their own and are responsible for their own actions.

So where is the line between conspiracy and simple hate speech you consider protected? If for example Osama was part of the planning is that considered protected free speech if he did not personally commit the actoin?

[Kitch]

So where is the line between conspiracy and simple hate speech you consider protected? If for example Osama was part of the planning is that considered protected free speech if he did not personally commit the actoin?

Planning is not simply an expression. It's an expression of a plan of action. Conspiring is, I think, an act... or at least a potential act similar to the way a threat is a potential act. (I'm struggling here, but I still don't think it's grey).

[Argus]

Yes. That is not a grey area. Those people have minds of their own and are responsible for their own actions.

I disagree. I understand your position, and to a certain extent I strongly support it. People are responsible for their own actions. Simply because some guy spouts hate again and again, motivating you to commit violence, that does not excuse you from making that choice and bearing that responsibility.

But...

Let's examine two situations which are quite similar.

1) A fundamentalist minister rants about abortion, decrying it as the foul murder of children, going to great lengths to raise emotions, to make people feel that "babies" are being tortured and killed, that abortion doctors are evil equivalent to the Holocaust (some use that term). There are such people who basically devote their lives to opposing abortion, to protesting, to preaching hate against abortion clinics and doctors and women who abort fetuses. If we find that this person's followers are repeatedly attacking doctors and abortion clinics, what are we to do? Should we keep arresting these crazy people after they have hurt or killed a doctor or nurse, and leave him in peace to spout and rant and campaign and launch vitriolic verbal attacks on abortion doctors simply because he, himself, never gets his hands dirty?

2) A fundamentalist Muslim imam rants about the evils of western society, about how slutty its women are, how godless its men, about how the decadent West insults and humiliates and attacks Muslims everywhere. He talks of jihad and the duty of every Muslim to defend the faith, and how God welcomes such jihadists into His arms. He does this repeatedly, day in and day out, and some of his followers attack women on the streets, set bombs, become a danger to public safety. Do we arrest those people after each attack, while ignoring the Imam and letting him say whatever he wants, because he, himself, never gets his hands dirty?

In both cases we can hold the individual responsible, but I think we have to take into account that there are weak-minded people out there who are credulous and gullible and searching for answers. And when one falls under the influence of men like that above, they're easily influenced, their emotions are raised, and in a sense, they become molded into weapons of violence which the central character is using to carry out what he sees as his mission. I don't see allowing that to continue. I don't see allowing the central guiding figure to go unpunished.