Any limits to freedom of speech?

[poohbear227]

Just want to preface this thread that I am NOT writing to cause or discuss political opinions-I"m just wondering what the limits are on freedom of speech in this situation....

I live in a small town. As you enter the center of town you come to a rotary with some businesses situated around it and a small park and gazebo in the middle. The other day, I saw a man standing in the middle of the rotary (where the small park is) holding a sign with a picture of a certain political figure (I won' say who because that is not the point of this thread) and a picture of Hitler. Under it was a very hateful message comparing the two political figures. It was a very disturbing message & I'm hoping it's OK to express on this board that any large picture of Hitler is disturbing in itself. Anyways, the man remained there with his poster for the rest of the day and returned the day after. I have not seen him there since and I'm hoping he has made his point and will let it go.

Anyways, due to freedom of speech, nothing can be done to stop this man from standing in the center of town on town property with his sign, right? He was not yelling anything-he was waving and smiling as the cars were driving by

No matter what a person's political stance is, I think that is just wrong

 

[AKL_Megs]

He has every right to stand there with his sign. In the event that his standing there holding his sign causes civil unrest, authorities can tell him to leave the area and go elsewhere, but they can't tell him he can't hold his sign somewhere else.

I may not agree with his sign, but he has the right to freely express his opinion.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

There are limits when it comes to the public welfare of the public. In example, you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded places, resulting in panic and then declar that you had freedom of speech. There is also restrictions on slander, libel and using the personal representation of an individual for financial gain without their permission.

What you described though doesn't violate any of the above provisions and no matter how much you may disagree, he has the right, as protected in the constitution to express his opinion on the matter.

 

[poohbear227]

He has every right to stand there with his sign. In the event that his standing there holding his sign causes civil unrest, authorities can tell him to leave the area and go elsewhere, but they can't tell him he can't hold his sign somewhere else.

I may not agree with his sign, but he has the right to freely express his opinion.

That's what I figured....now, if people who were driving around the rotary started slowing down and arguing with this guy, is that considered "civil unrest"?

 

[AKL_Megs]

That's what I figured....now, if people who were driving around the rotary started slowing down and arguing with this guy, is that considered "civil unrest"?

Only if they are causing such a scene that it warrants the police, such as impeding traffic, or causing a small riot. But calling the police and saying, "There is a man with a mean sign that I don't like who is waving at motorists who are gawking," isn't going to be enough to make him leave.

 

[jlewisinsyr]

That's what I figured....now, if people who were driving around the rotary started slowing down and arguing with this guy, is that considered "civil unrest"?

Why would you want to give him attention. The best way to make someone stop protesting is to ignore them.

 

[Mickey'snewestfan]

No matter what a person's political stance is, I think that is just wrong

There are lots of things that I think are wrong, yet aren't illegal. Cheating on your spouse, verbally abusing your kids,

I agree that what he's doing is pretty horrible (I'm assuming that the person pictured is not, for example, the local Klan wizard, and in fact doesn't have much in common with Hitler), but outlawing it would be worse.

There's a guy in my city who stands on a corner and holds up a sign that in graphic words accuses the Catholic church of child abuse -- he's been there for years. I have more sympathy for him because I imagine he was very hurt at some point in his life.

 

[Hannathy]

He can't make direct threats of bodily harm or death to people. Like he can't say he is going to shoot and kill a certain politician.

 

[Wall-E1]

Well, that sounds like a productive thing to be doing...not (said in the key of Borat). He does have a right to do that. Because we live in a democracy, he is in his rights to showcase his heartwarming brand of crazy in the middle of town square for all to see. Thousands of brave Americans have fought and given their lives to preserve this right so that even the lowest functioning of us can express our opinions. What I wonder about people like this is why? Do they really think their brand of crazy will connect with anybody?

 

[jlewisinsyr]

Well, that sounds like a productive thing to be doing...not (said in the key of Borat). He does have a right to do that. Because we live in a democracy, he is in his rights to showcase his heartwarming brand of crazy in the middle of town square for all to see. Thousands of brave Americans have fought and given their lives to preserve this right so that even the lowest functioning of us can express our opinions. What I wonder about people like this is why? Do they really think their brand of crazy will connect with anybody?

But is he crazy, I'm not saying I agree with the person's views, but they are views based on some logic, crazy or not. You may think they are crazy, just as those under Hitler's leadership thought that the rest of the world was. It's all relational to your frame of reference.

 

[Wall-E1]

But is he crazy, I'm not saying I agree with the person's views, but they are views based on some logic, crazy or not. You may think they are crazy, just as those under Hitler's leadership thought that the rest of the world was. It's all relational to your frame of reference.

Yes, I think we would be safe in stating that a man choosing to stand in the middle of town square for two days with a sign like that has crossed over the invisible line that we refer to as sanity.

I don't see what kind of logic you could be seeing. It's kind of like trying to assign logic to the Tucson killer who is fixated on grammar conspiracies and mind control. Logic does not play a role, hence the craziness.

 

[bunkkinsmom]

LET ME PREFACE BY SAYING THAT I AM IN NO WAY ADVOCATING ANY POLITICAL AGENDA!! I'VE ALREADY BEEN IN TROUBLE ONCE THIS WEEK!

I live just off a main road in my city. My mother and father live just off the other end of the road. There is a family planning center on this road. About twice a year there are people with signs for a couple of miles on either side of this clinic. There are lots of signs with lots of words, and I think that's fine.

What is not ok is that every once in a while these signs have VERY GRAPHIC pictures on them, if you get my meaning. THAT is not OK. I have 3 small children and any sign that literally makes them scream in the back seat has gone too far. There is a line, but I don't think the town square guy crossed it.

 

[poohbear227]

Why would you want to give him attention. The best way to make someone stop protesting is to ignore them.

I definitely wouldn't. But I've heard others get very heated talking about this person and his sign and I would not be surprised if it stirs up a verbal conflict with someone if he comes out again.

 

[tvguy]

Well, just an observaton. If the people of Germany had that freedom of speech in the 1930's.....Hitler probably never would have come into power.

 

[LisaR]

LET ME PREFACE BY SAYING THAT I AM IN NO WAY ADVOCATING ANY POLITICAL AGENDA!! I'VE ALREADY BEEN IN TROUBLE ONCE THIS WEEK!

I live just off a main road in my city. My mother and father live just off the other end of the road. There is a family planning center on this road. About twice a year there are people with signs for a couple of miles on either side of this clinic. There are lots of signs with lots of words, and I think that's fine.

What is not ok is that every once in a while these signs have VERY GRAPHIC pictures on them, if you get my meaning. THAT is not OK. I have 3 small children and any sign that literally makes them scream in the back seat has gone too far. There is a line, but I don't think the town square guy crossed it.

Unfortunately, it is okay (signs with graphic images). It may upset you and your kids but I do not believe there is anything that can be done about it. When my kids were growing up, we used to pass the same type of clinic and every Saturday the loonies and their signs were out in full force. The only time they were stopped was when one would impede traffic. So while you may feel they crossed the line, and I don't disagree, it is subjective. What upsets you and crosses the line may be perfectly acceptable to your neighbor. That is why free speech is rarely policed. Everyone has a different line in the sand and when we start making certain words or images illegal, those with a very short line will want everything censored.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, you can't share trade secrets (or national secrets), and you can't threaten a politician with death.

Besides that, there are no limits.

 

[Geoff_M]

You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, you can't share trade secrets (or national secrets), and you can't threaten a politician with death.

Besides that, there are no limits.

There are also other examples of speech that is not protected: making any threat of violence, "fighting words", inciting others to violence, libel, and slander. As pointed out this guy is free to do what he's doing.

 

[bicker]

Anyways, due to freedom of speech, nothing can be done to stop this man from standing in the center of town on town property with his sign, right? He was not yelling anything-he was waving and smiling as the cars were driving by

I believe the key distinction would be whether the speech is inciting action. There is a right to free speech, but there is also a right to personal safety, and inciting people to cause harm, for example, transgresses so far over the other person's right to personal safety, that, between the two, the right to personal safety prevails over that assertion of the right to free speech.

This issue, of conflicting rights, has come up a half dozen times over the last month, on this board.

No matter what a person's political stance is, I think that is just wrong

I haven't seen the sign, so I can't say. However, there is a very long-standing principle, online, that whoever raises "Hitler" first, loses the argument, regardless of what the argument it. FWIW.

 

[goofyernmost]

There are limits when it comes to the public welfare of the public. In example, you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded places, resulting in panic and then declar that you had freedom of speech. There is also restrictions on slander, libel and using the personal representation of an individual for financial gain without their permission.

What you described though doesn't violate any of the above provisions and no matter how much you may disagree, he has the right, as protected in the constitution to express his opinion on the matter.

I agree that the situation does not warrant public censorship, but if I were the guy that he was comparing to Hitler, I think I would have a few personal issues and would see him in court asking for damages to my reputation. Unless, of course, I had a small mustache and wore a swastika and sent people I disagreed with to internment camps. Then he might have a point, otherwise it is just plain foolish to compare a politician you disagree with to someone as insane as Hitler. I certainly think that slander fits that situation perfectly.

Like yourself though, I'm sure that he didn't convince you that his message had any sanity to it or anyone else that saw it. He just made himself look like the jerk that he probably is.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Interesting question, thanks for posting and getting my head working this morning. There are so may times in life that someone else has brought a problem to my attention that I kind of think if we didn't have the freedom to speak the world would be even worse than it is because if no-one can speak no-one can listen. If African American's never had a chance to voice their plight who could have stepped in to help? If Gays couldn't speak out would there ever have been any sort of movement towards civility at all? The Suffrage movement? The list is endless.

Also political criticisms are necessary to keep a population calm. I think of it like an open pot, if you keep a pot lid too tightly closed with the steam builds you have a mess but if you let the steam escape things just gently move between simmer, boil and almost nothing. Besides, the criticisms always get out there in one form or another. Did you know Dante's Inferno and a number of Shakespeare's plays were all extremely harsh criticisms of the rulers of their day?

Only vain & arrogant rulers believe they deserve no criticism, and they always fail miserably in the end. A wise ruler would go to the guy in the street holding a sign and ask him why he feels that way then decide what to think about it, not just assume the guy isn't worth listening to because he lacks eloquence. Remember the "Tale of Two Cities", a whole lot of damage can be done by those who aren't well spoken. Sometimes I think Congress should have a book club to prod their memories of history.