Any limits to freedom of speech?

[bicker]

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.

That's a losing proposition.

First, one uncelebrated person holding a sign will generally not constitute a significant risk to anyone's reputation. In that specific scenario, you'd have to prove that enough people actually pay attention to the guy and end up changing their minds about you as a result, to prove damages to your reputation.

Heck, if society takes action against that guy, then they'll have to start taking action against practically all the union members carrying signs bad-mouthing their employers. Often those signs are just as negative and just as ill-founded.

Second, taking it to court does more to legitimize the criticisms against you than undercuts them.

 

[ford family]

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.

Oh please, don't invent history.
The National Socialist Party was voted into power in a democratic election in March 1933 when Adolf Hitler was already the Chancellor of an incumbent coalition government. Over 17 million Germans voted for his Nazi party.

ford family

 

[Klismania]

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

In order to enjoy the privilege of free speech, the payment for that privilege is that you may see or hear speech that is offensive to you. IMO, completely worth it.

 

[dicar123]

Oh see, I LOVE people with signs. I like signs, t-shirts, bumper stickers, all that stuff.

So much easier to figure out who to avoid, if they're telling you right up front.

 

[tvguy]

Oh please, don't invent history.
The National Socialist Party was voted into power in a democratic election in March 1933 when Adolf Hitler was already the Chancellor of an incumbent coalition government. Over 17 million Germans voted for his Nazi party.

ford family

Guess my perspective is different because my family fled Germany.

 

[palavra]

Originally Posted by ford family
Oh please, don't invent history.
The National Socialist Party was voted into power in a democratic election in March 1933 when Adolf Hitler was already the Chancellor of an incumbent coalition government. Over 17 million Germans voted for his Nazi party.

ford family

Guess my perspective is different because my family fled Germany.

It is not a difference of perspective. While I think the tone of the above statement is not so nice, this person is historically correct. However, there is a good reason why a charismatic leader like Hitler would have been voted in as a leader of Germany. The German people were in a terrible situation. The devastation after WWI, the reparations that the Treaty of Versailles forced on the citizens of Germany, and the fact that many Germans felt that the terms of the treaty were too harsh made many people more than ready to listen to Hitler. He promised them that he would make the German nation a proud nation again. Furthermore, he promised to fight against the unjustness of the Treaty of Versailles. Did the people of Germany know any of what Hitler would go on to do? Of course not. In fact, once he was voted in, he forcably took command of the government as a dictator, and, no, the German people did not vote for that!

 

[Liberty Belle]

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

As long as he wasn't endangering anyone, I think he has the right to "say" what he wants, as idiotic as it may be.

 

[DMRick]

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. .

I'm curious..were they loonies because you didn't agree with their signs, or were they actually doing something that made them loonies?
At our planned parenthood, there have been people protesting for years, but many are very upright citizens and not loonies. They just don't agree with that business. It's actually very peaceful, when I have gone by.
Nurses have protesting our local hospital for a long time too, and yet I hope they aren't loonies, just because they don't agree with the hospital administration.

 

[MossMan]

The right to say anything does not give you the right to say anything anywhere.

For instance, speech is restricted in my home - it is expressly forbidden to hold up a picture of Hitler and compare him with anyone.

The question really is whether it is OK for someone to speak their mind in a venue in which they do not own nor control. Public places always represent a bit of a problem. On the one hand our society values free speech and generally we feel it is in our best interest to use our public spaces to promote that right.

However, that doesn't mean that the right to speak in a public place can't be revoked. If a community decides some speech is inappropriate in those areas owned by the public, then that's OK. Obviously we wouldn't stand for it if someone decided to exhibit graphic pornography in a public place. They could argue that such images were just an expression of free speech. But taking away their ability to express themselves in a public areas doesn't mean we have restricted their ability to express themselves. Taking away someone's ability to show pornography in a public place doesn't mean there aren't still many other venues in which they can show pornography.

 

[Wall-E1]

I'm curious..were they loonies because you didn't agree with their signs, or were they actually doing something that made them loonies?

I have seen signs such as the ones described. I also think they are loonies - not because of whether I agree with them or not. It's the content of their signs and the whole standing out there week after week. It may be legal, but it is definitely not normal adult behavior. Something had to have snapped in their heads for them to have that much internal anger that they need to display such graphic images. I tend to think about what must be going on in their minds, and to me, I can't imagine a mentally stable person thinking it was appropriate to stand outside with signs like that.

 

[palavra]

I have seen signs such as the ones described. I also think they are loonies - not because of whether I agree with them or not. It's the content of their signs and the whole standing out there week after week. It may be legal, but it is definitely not normal adult behavior. Something had to have snapped in their heads for them to have that much internal anger that they need to display such graphic images. I tend to think about what must be going on in their minds, and to me, I can't imagine a mentally stable person thinking it was appropriate to stand outside with signs like that.

But, just remember, you may exhibit behavior that to another person would make you seem mentally unstable as well. I often wonder about the "mental stability" of people who like to sky dive. To me, that is certainly not normal adult behavior.

Picketing and protests are actually quite normal adult behavior and have been throughout history. At one time in history, signs depicting the cruelty of slavery and newspaper articles such as those found in The Abolitionist were thought of a "graphic" and unfit for public viewing.

 

[DMRick]

Hmm interesting. I always wondered if I would have the nerve to stand up for something I believe in quite like the person in the OP and people at PP clinics. I've always looked at it quite differently than you do. I've never seen anger (I pass it often, especially since it moved onto a main road last year) and it's always very peaceful (I've never seen any problems in the paper and it seems it's business as usual), and many times they are just standing there with heads bowed when someone is going it. It does look like they are giving out pamplets to those going past them, although I believe there is a back door as well that people can drive around to (mentioned in the paper when they opened). I guess the signs they carry are not as graphic as you have seen. They appear to be (hard to tell when driving) babies in a womb. Most just have words on them.

As for the person in the OP, I'm surprised they wouldn't think he might cause an accident with people going around him.

I have seen signs such as the ones described. I also think they are loonies - not because of whether I agree with them or not. It's the content of their signs and the whole standing out there week after week. It may be legal, but it is definitely not normal adult behavior. Something had to have snapped in their heads for them to have that much internal anger that they need to display such graphic images. I tend to think about what must be going on in their minds, and to me, I can't imagine a mentally stable person thinking it was appropriate to stand outside with signs like that.

 

[LuvOrlando]

So are all union workers during strikes or protestors always "snapped" too. I never thought so... The way of thinking certainly seems to write an awful lot of people off as irrelevent.

 

[Wall-E1]

But, just remember, you may exhibit behavior that to another person would make you seem mentally unstable as well. I often wonder about the "mental stability" of people who like to sky dive. To me, that is certainly not normal adult behavior.

I really don't see how one could connect sky diving with the types of unbalanced protesters I was talking about. Maybe it's just the circle of friends I am around, but I have never heard anyone equate sky diving with abnormal behavior until just now.

I guess the signs they carry are not as graphic as you have seen. They appear to be (hard to tell when driving) babies in a womb. Most just have words on them.

The ones I was talking about are the ones that they have photos of under-developed dead fetuses and are made to look bloody. They often contain wording such as "murder" or "killing". They really are abnormal and inappropriate signs.

Picketing and protests are actually quite normal adult behavior and have been throughout history. At one time in history, signs depicting the cruelty of slavery and newspaper articles such as those found in The Abolitionist were thought of a "graphic" and unfit for public viewing.

So are all union workers during strikes or protestors always "snapped" too. I never thought so... The way of thinking certainly seems to write an awful lot of people off as irrelevent.

Let's not get all loony here. Nobody said that all forms of protesting and picketing signal a mentally unstable person. I was speaking of people who display signs such as the ones I have described above. The two of you have cited excellent examples of protests that one would not equate with mental instability. There is one major difference between the examples you gave and the one I was talking about. The protesters that were trying to free slaves and the protesters that strike for union reasons (increased workers' rights, equality in the workplace, etc.) are all protesting to expand people's rights. And each time our rights have been expanded or equalized, this country has benefitted and become stronger for it. The protesters I was speaking of are protesting to restrict and take away people's rights. Normal people don't protest and picket to have their rights taken away. And I don't think that the images some of them depict on their signage could ever be seen as anything but the mad views of a crazy person. I know many normal people who have opposing views on this issue. However, they don't get all crazy about it. It's all in the way some choose to present their views. That's what makes them appear loony to normal people.

 

[DMRick]

The protesters I was speaking of are protesting to restrict and take away people's rights. Normal people don't protest and picket to have their rights taken away. And I don't think that the images some of them depict on their signage could ever be seen as anything but the mad views of a crazy person. I know many normal people who have opposing views on this issue. However, they don't get all crazy about it. It's all in the way some choose to present their views. That's what makes them appear loony to normal people.

First of all. I think it depends on whose side you are on on abortion..if rights are being taken away. There is more than one opinion on that.

Second of all, you indicated all picketing at PP type places are loons. I don't believe that is true. There are surely people who are not carrying those signs, that are still picketing for what they believe are rights (perhaps just not the rights that you think should be picketed for). Thank God for our country, that they and the person in the OP have the right to do that, which leaves it open for all sorts of picketing and information giving. Are these signs that you have described pretty to look at? No, and if I had a young child, I'm sure I would avoid them. Actually I would avoid them if it was just me. But they do have the right to carry those signs apparently. And I would not want that right taken away.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Let's not get all loony here. Nobody said that all forms of protesting and picketing signal a mentally unstable person. I was speaking of people who display signs such as the ones I have described above. The two of you have cited excellent examples of protests that one would not equate with mental instability. There is one major difference between the examples you gave and the one I was talking about. The protesters that were trying to free slaves and the protesters that strike for union reasons (increased workers' rights, equality in the workplace, etc.) are all protesting to expand people's rights. And each time our rights have been expanded or equalized, this country has benefitted and become stronger for it. The protesters I was speaking of are protesting to restrict and take away people's rights. Normal people don't protest and picket to have their rights taken away. And I don't think that the images some of them depict on their signage could ever be seen as anything but the mad views of a crazy person. I know many normal people who have opposing views on this issue. However, they don't get all crazy about it. It's all in the way some choose to present their views. That's what makes them appear loony to normal people.

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Whenever you grant one group rights power has to be taken away from somewhere else, it's all very Yin & Yang truth be told. To many people, whether or not free speech is a problem depends more on whether they are the Yin or the Yang in the event than on the situation itself. When union workers were picketing for the union they are taking away power from the business owners, who I am sure, would very much like to be able to have them all tossed in jail for being 'unstable' or 'destabilizing the status quo'. I would put money on the fact that these folks you call 'normal' are quite often referred to as 'loons' at fat cat dinner tables everywhere.

The point is best put in Pastor Martin Niemöller 's WW2 words that end in:

"...Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Just my 2 cents, take 'em or leave 'em but I don't think there is anything 'crazy' or 'loony' being said. Side bar, the belittling terms you use are plainly intended to marginalize others and it's generally not OK in my world, but if it floats your boat alrighty then... I'll tolerate it. Free speech right

 

[Wall-E1]

First of all. I think it depends on whose side you are on on abortion..if rights are being taken away. There is more than one opinion on that.

Second of all, you indicated all picketing at PP type places are loons. I don't believe that is true. There are surely people who are not carrying those signs, that are still picketing for what they believe are rights (perhaps just not the rights that you think should be picketed for). Thank God for our country, that they and the person in the OP have the right to do that, which leaves it open for all sorts of picketing and information giving. Are these signs that you have described pretty to look at? No, and if I had a young child, I'm sure I would avoid them. Actually I would avoid them if it was just me. But they do have the right to carry those signs apparently. And I would not want that right taken away.

I don't think it depends what side of the issue you stand on. The protesters certainly aren't fighting to expand peoples' rights by what they are doing.

And yes, I do think the ones that protest week after week are a few cards short of a full deck. It's not normal behavior for an adult to spend week after week doing that type of thing. That said, I have never advocated for having their rights taken away. As I stated in an earlier post, they have the freedom to be as crazy as they want as long as they are not harming anyone. It's their right. They just happen to be loony, and that's fine. I appreciate having visual aids when talking to my child about some of the craziness that goes on in our society. It really brings the point home for him and helps him to identify what types to stay away from. So, it's all good.

 

[Wall-E1]

It's all in the eye of the beholder. Whenever you grant one group rights power has to be taken away from somewhere else, it's all very Yin & Yang truth be told. To many people, whether or not free speech is a problem depends more on whether they are the Yin or the Yang in the event than on the situation itself. When union workers were picketing for the union they are taking away power from the business owners, who I am sure, would very much like to be able to have them all tossed in jail for being 'unstable' or 'destabilizing the status quo'. I would put money on the fact that these folks you call 'normal' are quite often referred to as 'loons' at fat cat dinner tables everywhere.

Yes, and when we were freeing the slaves, we were taking rights away from the slave owners. Of course, most adults realize that we were not taking away rights, but instead we were righting a wrong, as is the case in many union disputes as well.

 

[LuvOrlando]

I don't think I understand you, or maybe I do. Are you trying to say that logic does not apply, and that when you feel something is morally appropriate the issue should just stand on its own and the rationale shouldn't be expanded outward beyond the scope of your own particular uses? That's whats coming across to me anyway.

 

[DMRick]

I don't think it depends what side of the issue you stand on. The protesters certainly aren't fighting to expand peoples' rights by what they are doing..

I guess it depends on what you think are 'peoples'. Some people do believe that abortion is stepping on a babies rights. And they feel they are doing the right thing, by daily/weekly/whatever picketing saving someone's rights. The OP asked if their are limits. Pretty much short of yelling fire in a crowded theater (where there isn't a fire..now that might be someone a bit of a loon), nope.

Doesn't make them loons, anymore than the previous example of slaves made those people loons, or those who fought for the womans rights to vote, or people protesting war (and until he died we had an older man protesting daily at what used to be our city recruitment office). There are people on both 'sides', and I'm sure the oposite side had trouble understanding why people didn't agree with their 'side'.

But calling people loonie for picketing or protesting, I just don't understand what makes them looney (and of course there are always the exceptions, such as someone killing a doctor, but we weren't talking about those).

looney \looney\ (l[=oo]n"[y^]) n. someone deranged and possibly dangerous.
Syn: crazy, loony, weirdo. [WordNet 1.5]
Source: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48