Should people have the right to say terrible things without facing legal consequences?

[msc545]

Yes

NO

Under certain conditions NO. (explain)

[lightbulb27]

a good example of conflict of "freedom of speech" and hazard to others, which may restrict it. And then... whose to say what truth is... for one persons brain may believe they see little cops and robbers where other brains don't see that.

What's his face that said the shooting in Newtown CT was a conspiracy is a good example. What he said... created harm to the parents.

Another is when a worker has a right to their viewpoint... they hell "Sir" to a customer they perceive as male... but that person identifies as something different. By saying "sir"... it's like gaslighting the other person, and cuts them deep. It's an offense to how they think.

Ideally... you communicate in love (Bible says that), and it solves the problems... because you love the other persons as well and so consider them.

When one thinks in terms responsibilities... maybe it gets better but still messy. Thinking in terms of laws... is a total mess.

In short... it's really starting with the wrong thought. In the end, they have a right to say what they want, as long as it is true to them. I think...

[OlderAndWiser]

Your question is very ambiguous.

Where? In the US?

Who decides whether the statement is "terrible?"

What terrible things? Is it terrible to say something that makes someone look like satan-in-the-flesh if those terrible things are facts which are true? Is it terrible to express my opinion that, e. g., a particular person is morally bankrupt?

Should they "have the right?" Are you suggesting that such things should be considered crimes? That civil liability should attach to such statements?

If you are suggesting anything which might impinge upon a First Amendment rights, you need to be much more specific with your suggestions/questions.

[whirled_up_girl]

I think basically inciting violence, slander/libel and obscenity aren’t considered protected speech.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

I think people should have freedom of speech, but not to the point of it leading to something criminal. For example, I lost an election of being Governor of Pennsylvania and I tell my supporters go stop the steal right now, this is down right wrong !!!

[abc3643]

No, of course not. That's why God gave us libel, slander, and defamation laws and lawsuits.

In fact, there should be even MORE lawsuits about that.

Trump should be hit with a new defamation lawsuit every day because he is such a profound hostile liar.

If politicians had to be legally responsible for the lies and slander they say, elections would be a lot more civilized.

I am not saying that lying should be unlawful; after all, it couldn't be because all those Congressmen and Senators having affairs can't admit that...

But when the lies are deliberate defamation, the opposing candidate should issue a lawsuit. There should be no exceptions to the law because someone is running for office.

[JacobJordan]

well freedom of speech is a right so I would say yes. in the absence of freedom of speech things devolve quite rapidly. as at that point the people who decide if you said "the right thing" is the government and those governments are very brutal soooo..

[exitseven]

you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theater but everyone has the right to express their opinion. It is what makes America great and hopefully Make America Great Again.

[goaded]

Have you seen the 275 pages of threats to the Judge and his clerk that have come at them because of Trump's lies about them? Just like Jan 6, all he has to do is tell them to stop, but he won't because it's what he wants.

[exitseven]

@goaded How about the people that threatened Judge Cavanaugh and other conservative judges? There is even a law on the books that prohibits protesting at a judge's residence. Was anyone arrested? NO. That was okay as far as Bidens DOJ was concerned.
Democrats were the ones that started the violence against conservatives. Inflammatory language by the likes of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries to bring violence against their political adversaries has divided the nation. Now they complain when they get the same treatment. They started a war and they will not like the outcome.

[msc545]

Jan 6.

[exitseven]

Body cam footage was just released by Mike Johnson that showed it was the Capitol police that incited the riot. The group of protesters were not anywhere near the Capitol steps. They even had a permit to have a demonstration. The Capitol police started firing rubber bullets and smoke and concussion grenades into the crowd. I think that considering there was over a million people that showed up in DC to protest the crowd showed amazing restraint. Only an unarmed air force veteran was killed by a member of the Capitol police. He should have been charged with murder.

[goaded]

Have you not seen Trump talk about the attack on Paul Pelosi or his audiences' reaction? Have you not heard the phrase "second amendment remedies"? Back in 2010, "Sharron Angle Floated '2nd Amendment Remedies' As 'Cure' For 'The Harry Reid Problems'" www.huffpost.com/.../sharron-angle-floated-2nd_n_614003 how is that not inciting violence? Not just violence, but deadly violence.

What did Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries supposedly say, exactly? I'm sure they didn't say anything encouraging "violence against their political adversaries".

I'm still waiting for you to post that video.

[Sargentcaptain]

The fucking irony of the fact there have been multiple entire supreme court cases about this phrase, and yeah, turns out, you can yell fire in a crowded theater.

[msc545]

BULLSHIT!

[goaded]

I think he might be right, actually. But if someone gets hurt or killed, or makes a false report of an emergency to the authorities as a forseeable result of the shout, you can be charged with causing it.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

[exitseven]

@goaded Chuck encouraged violence with his reap the whirlwind speech. Hakeem is just a dick.

[goaded]

Yeah, threatening political consequences is just the same as talking about shooting people, and you've got nothing specific about Jeffries. We've had 13 years of talk about "2nd amendment remedies" from the right, remember, including from Trump himself.

Back to the Capitol, you say they had permits to be where they were and protest, is that right?

[exitseven]

@goaded ys, there was a group in front of the capitol that protested the stolen election. They had flags and signs but were far away from the steps. I heard tha tthey had a permit. The Capitol police had started shooting yellow rubber bullets and using grenades and smoke bombs. This is what pissed them off.
A long time ago i saw video of a young guy with a bandana trying to push a bike rack through a glass door. This guy was most like ly an Antifa plant. He sure was not a Trump supporter. I only saw that video on TV a couple of days afterwards but was never able to find in on YouTube. It looked like cell phone video and not official capitol footage.

[msc545]

@exitseven BULLSHIT

[exitseven]

@msc545 If the fake news does not put something on the air does that mean it never happened?

[msc545]

@goaded My comment was in response to exit, not captain.

[goaded]

@exitseven You heard wrong (i. e. they were lying to you again). Here are the permitted demonstration zones for Jan 6. By the time they'd reached the base of the stairs, where you're saying those poor innocent rioters were being unreasonably attacked by police, they'd already gone through three layers of barricades (or maybe the one at the base of the stairs was the third, but I'm damn sure the public wasn't allowed up on that scaffolding, either).

[goaded]

@exitseven Just to be clear, the permitted zone to the west of the Capitol ended far behind where this photograph was taken from (it looks like there's a pond between the zone and where the photographer was. I think you'll agree they were somewhat closer to the Capitol than that?

upload.wikimedia.org/.../US_Capitol_west_side.JPG

[strateguy632]

obviously that is the point of prorected speech. words don't make anyone BLEED wound unless incite revenge or violence... which that should.. but doesn't get censored! anything else echoing rumors must be protected.

[AviatorTom]

No, people should have the right to say anything they want, but there may be consequences. For example, if you commit libel or slander, there are legal implications of doing so.

[BoopBoopBeep]

Depends how we define terrible. Hateful? Sure. They feel it anyway, might as well advertise who you are. Inciting riots? Not so much.

[Sargentcaptain]

Fascists love getting rid of that pesky freedom of speech thing, it just gets in the way of what's 'good for the people™'.

[slatyb]

That depends on your definition of terrible. The are laws against slander and libel, making terrorist threats, committing theft by deception or blackmail, copyright violations, etc.

[gorydetails]

People on this site really think you should be jailed for words? How do people become such morons?

[RealMarek]

In general, yes, unless they are threats of violence, defamation, and other exceptional cases that have always been recognized as criminal under common law before the 1960s.

[AaronKrieger]

Sure, as long as it isn't going to cause harm or anything of that sort.

[Chthou95]

Yes. Your feelings shouldn't be put on a pedestal over free speech

[CaptainSmartass]

Yes. Unless they're communists or activists. Then, legal consequences should be mandatory.

Simples...

[ChicoFromThe305]

Yea, I'm pro freedom of speech

[jahaims]

Words are just words

[ThrillSeeker01]

Definitely not.