I agree, thanks
Shouting fire would be unbridled free speech but in our case law we've determined that it is not protected. I'm not sure how you're saying that's not related to the topic of free speech.
Free speech is the protection of opinions.When you yell "BOMB" on a plane, or something equally stupid like your example, that is not an expression of opinion. You are not expressing an opinion about anything.Your example is an intentional and deliberate attempt to create a dangerous and potentially lethal situation. There are hundreds of examples worldwide where panic created in a large gathering results in people dying from being trampled to death. When a real threat exists, only human nature's instinct to run/flee and protect themselves is at fault. When an idiot conjures that threat when none exists, that is a criminal offense when people are injured or killed.
Those aren't really speech examples. You can't stand in the middle of the road blocking traffic while combing your hair either. Or stand on private property, beyond reason. Libel and slander, if presented as opinion, are in fact legal if the subject is a public figure.
@zagorTrue, those are speech examples. But a lot of people think of it as censorship. That's especially true of internet forums that limit what people can say. Some people even consider things like copyright protection suppression of free speech (i. e. Prirate Bay etc).When I think of freedom of speech, I think about it mainly in the context of government. I think first and foremost it means that opposition voices can't be suppressed by the government. The government is the overriding authority, so suppression of speaking out against that government is a major blow against freedom as a whole, not just freedom of speech.More and more though, it's the people themselves who are suppressing speech. It comes in the form of Orwellian style NewSpeak and political correctness. There is a strong underlying current that suppresses saying anything against certain "protected" ideas. (which is why I intentionally speak out against them, because if everyone keeps quiet then we are lost)
Not being thrown in jail for what you say is a pyrrhic victory if you can lose your job or business, be kicked out of school, or vilified in the media.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
thanks for MHO
I don't know if I entirely agree, by that logic sense I'm not allowed to murder people I'm not free
Well it could be argued that true freedom doesn't exist because there will always be laws preventing you from doing things.But to be fair if that's true freedom it's probably for the best that we don't have it.
I think I disagree about limited freedoms not being free. There's different degrees of freedom, and while absolute freedom is essentially impossible in any functional society, it's still possible (and in my opinion preferable) to ensure that some degree of freedom is maintained for the populous. Just because that degree of freedom isn't absolute doesn't mean it's not freedom at all.
What does the latter half mean?
Guns, speech, and other everyday things are abused by idiots and trolls that's making it harder for those with knowledge.
@windknowsmyname Can you write that in an intelligible sentence, with a point?Guns, speech, ducks, and Quail without a point to make?
There's already limits on free speech. I don't think any country actually has 100% unlimited free speech, and honestly I think that's how it should be. If you want unlimited freedom, go live in the wilderness on your own. Limited rights are the price we pay for living in a stable society.
@cipher42 Fair enough, but having that attitude of its necessary, " this is what we have to deal with; to live in a stable society" is exactly why we are in a hot mess. I don't know if you've noticed but our society is slowly collapsing underneath us. So while your free to have your opinion make sure you remember it when they take away your right to have one.
No, it's common sense. Freedoms don't have to be unlimited to be freedoms. The idea that it's all or nothing is entirely ridiculous honestly, and a supremely flawed way of looking at the world.
@cipher42 live a little longer and you will see what i am saying, and i'm not saying you don't have a decent point either. But live a little longer and you will see that is a naive view of point to have on freedom of speech.its being complacent that has brought us to this point in time in our history, i am former military and i saw it the same way you do now when i was your age. however i decided to get out my comfort zone and see how others viewed the world. in conclusion the walls i built around how i saw things; just as i see you doing when writing your comments was broken down as i got older.like i said live a little longer and you will see things are not what they seem to be.also giving up some of your freedoms for the securities you enjoy is a nice way of painting a target on your back.
Lmao you being older than me doesn't mean shit. Study a little more political theory and maybe you'll understand what I mean. Like ever heard of social contract theory? Giving up freedoms to have security is what we have to do to have a stable society. Full, unbridled freedom is fine if you wanna live in the wilderness with no rules, but if you wanna benefit from the safety and advantages society offers you're gonna have to deal with giving up a little liberty in exchange for that.
@cipher42 i see my words fall on deaf ears, good luck with your delusions.
So basically you don't have a counter argument and you're taking the easy way out. Just because you say it pretentiously doesn't mean the real meaning is any less obvious.
@cipher42 No, personally i am doing coding homework right now, and i really don't have the patience to entertain mere speculation and semantics with you at the moment.if you would like to pick up this debate later then i will do that, but if you insist on insults then i think were done here.
So someone can say that they're going to rape and murder someone and that's within their right to free speech?
That's a threat.
So we agree, technically that's just speech, but we understand that unbridled free speech is harmful, so we've decided that threats of violence, and things which can cause harm, such as shouting fire in a crowded theater. So you agree with me, so how am I trying to fuck with the first amendment?
I consider threatening someone violently more of an action but whatever floats your boat
Cool, my point was that we agree, so why say "stop trying to fuck with the first amendment."
Because i don't believe in censorship when we have to write to say whatever we want
It's already been pretty thoroughly established that the first amendment (and pretty much any amendment for that matter) does not grant absolute unlimited rights. Establishing where the limits of freedom of speech lie is not "fucking with the first amendment", it's merely determining its scope.
The 2nd amendment annuled the first in some way.
Using SYG Laws I can block your speech if I feel 'menaced'.
You know Milo protestors and "constitution haters" are just using their own right to free speech, right? Like free speech guarantees the right to oppose free speech.
yeah, I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to be against free speech, I just think people who are against free speech are morons in the first place
No one's "against free speech". Some people think that freedom should be more limited than others, but just about no one actually thinks it should be gotten rid of entirely.
when I say against it i don't mean entirely, I mean against it at all. just because people might get their feelings hurt or be really offended by something is ridiculous. colleges not letting milo or gavin speak is plain unamerican
Colleges aren't obligated to give anyone a speaking platform? Like, it seems like you're assuming that the right to freedom of speech means the right to have your voice heard, which it isn't. It doesn't mean you have to be afforded a platform to speak, it just means the government can't unreasonably prevent you from speaking.
That's the point, I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about morality when I say the colleges should let them speak. I know they don't have to, but the point is people are sensitive pussies and get triggered by speeches they don't like
a college shouldn't turn down a speaker just because half the students disagree with him/her
If you're only talking about morality, you're not talking about the right to free speech, and you're certainly not talking about the constitution. This question is about the legal right to free speech, so either get on topic or get out.
So basically what you're saying is you don't see anything wrong with that situation? And the original question was "should there be..." should. so I'm saying yeah there should be. I'm not talking 100% about legality, I'm talking about my personal opinion as well. I just don't understand why college liberals get triggered so hard by listening to those known speakers. and if you wanna talk about legality, what milo or gavin speak of at universities is completely legal, I understand that the colleges can choose not to let them speak, and that's where my morality argument comes in
With colleges curating their speakers? No, I don't. Like, would you also claim that the college has an obligation to provide a speaking platform to any random crazy person who demanded one? That's ridiculous. The college obviously has a right to allow some speakers and deny others, and how you can think otherwise is beyond me.
I'm not saying that a college should 'have' to let people speak. I'm saying they shouldn't deny someone because they have different political views. it's not like Milos going up there and saying "let's go out and blow up abortion clinics and kill blacks." that would be provocative and against the law, of course. he just harshly expresses his political views. I don't even agree with most things he says, I like him because of what he does. he excersises free speech
Eh he did call out that trans girl and she received a lot of hate because of t
Would it be unreasonable for a college to not allow a KKK member to speak? I don't think so. So clearly there is a line to be drawn here, meaning this isn't as cut and dry as you seem to think.
I'm gonna say it again, I'm not saying a college should "have" to let people speak, of course a college prob wouldn't let the kkk speak, because that's a hateful organization. the kkk is totally irrelevant to my side. but what reason do you have for not wanting people like Milo speaking?
Milo is a hateful person. Like I'm sorry, but "differing political views" cannot be used to defend actually just being disrespectful and hateful. Like the dude shamed a trans student at one college on stage at a college speaking event. How the fuck would it be unreasonable for a college to not allow him to speak, especially after that?
I think that's shitty, like I said I disagree with probably over half the things he believes, but even if it's offensive to others I do think he should have the right to speak. unfortunate things may happen like that but it's better in my opinion to offend people and puss people off than to give up freedom of speech. just my opinion
Okay so then we're back to allowing the KKK to speak. Why Milo and not the KKK? You said because the KKK is hateful, but Milo is too so that's clearly not it.
he's never said anything that led me to believe he hates any group of people, he just has straightforward opinions on groups of people, but none seem to be in a hating way.. if u could write a quote he said or link me to a video
why the fuck did this gay shit censor me
Can you give an example?
Like calling blacks the N word or mexicans wet backs and bullying
Why should that be illegal?
Its hurtful to people and bullying makes people commite suicide
Where do you draw the line then? Can I say someone is ugly?