Current Events > Should there be a limit on freedom of speech in the United States?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Inception:

The protection of civil liberties, including freedom of speech, was not written into the original 1788 Constitution of the United States but was added two years later with the Bill of Rights, implemented as several amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment, ratified December 15, 1791, provides (in relevant part) that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as extending this prohibition to laws enacted by the states.

Interpretation:

1969:
In 1969, the Supreme Court protected a Ku Klux Klan member's speech and created the "imminent danger" test to determine on what grounds speech can be limited. The court ruled in Brandenburg v. Ohio that: "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[5]

This test has been modified very little from its inception in 1969 and the formulation is still good law in the United States. Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law.

2017:
In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are "racially disparaging". Justice Samuel Alito writes:

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[9]

Justice Anthony Kennedy also writes:

A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government's benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.[9]

Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.

Implementation:

In the 1980s and 1990s, more than 350 public universities adopted "speech codes" regulating discriminatory speech by faculty and students.[10] These codes have not fared well in the courts, where they are frequently overturned as violations of the First Amendment.[11] Debate over restriction of "hate speech" in public universities has resurfaced with the adoption of anti-harassment codes covering discriminatory speech.[12]

---

Something as stupid as limiting freedom of speech can only come from a dumbass lefty
---

Doesn't the rule about yelling fire in a movie theater mean there already is a limit?
---

Why limit free speech? Free speech is fine. It's already limited by the consequences of what you say anyway. You may not go to jail but you can lose your job that's for damn sure. Free speech is fine because the community already loosely polices it with consequences
---

spincr posted...

Something as stupid as limiting freedom of speech can only come from a dumbass lefty

since when is the left censoring free speech rather than being censored?
---

since about three fiddy
---

No, because any proposed limitations will be exploited.
---

averagejoel posted...

spincr posted...

Something as stupid as limiting freedom of speech can only come from a dumbass lefty

since when is the left censoring free speech rather than being censored?

What leftists are being censored?
---

Pretty much this:

Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express "the thought that we hate". United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[9]

People can say dirty, hateful, disgusting things and the people that say those things are dirty, hateful, disgusting people. I'll even cheer a black man who gets called the "n word" punching someone in the face. (Even though it's illegal) But I wouldn't take a man's right away to call him that word. If all of that makes sense.
---

Freedom of speech is good as it is
---

I don't have any opinions but I say your name and wanted to say what's up :D
@Kombucha
---

InstaReturns posted...

I don't have any opinions but I say your name and wanted to say what's up :D
@Kombucha

Hey man, not too much, I'm just 'working'. I saw your topic the other day where you blogged your work. I'm pretty sure we do the same amount of work at this point. :d

How about you?
---