What limitations do you think there should be on free speech?

What limitations do you think there should be on free speech?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

People shouldn't be allowed to say what I don't like.

Guess which political party I belong to.

>limitations
>free speech
Does not compute

about what the U.S. has right now, with pretty much anything being allowed that isn't calling for someone's murder

none

As long as there is no deliberate attempt to incite violence or illegal acts people should be allowed to say whatever.

Once we have perfect brain scanning technology we won't need limitations on free speech.

1. If you have incorrect thoughts you can be reeducated.
2. If anyone commits a crime we can retrace their thoughts to identify which speech caused their crime and punish the speaker.

is that a man

Clear and Present Danger.

Only public indecency. If you want more restrictions that that, kys or move to europe.

None

You cannot use your speech to commit a crime. For example, threats of bodily harm. However, speech itself should never be criminalized, only when it is an accessory to some other crime.

Judging by the wrists/hands I'm gonna say yes.

Do I really have to be the first guy to bring up "you can't yell fire in the theater" meme so we can argue about that?

see

>limits on free speech
Oxymoron.

You should at least be able to serve a C&D against someone repeating a lie that's demonstrably false.

That's pretty silly reasoning. The US Constitution has a supremacy clause. The first amendment including your freedom of speech trumps any federal or state legislation. How is it Constitutional and how does it make sense that you would allow that free speech to be limited by whatever legislation the possibly infinite Congresses decide to pass?

Who determines what's "demonstrably false"?
Whoever it is, congratulations, you just handed them the reins of power.

Nothing is demonstrably false

That should be apparent if you've spent any time on this pseudo-intellectual board

You can't sexually solicit minors. You can't reprint and sell someone else's work without permission. You can't play music loudly enough to disturb the peace.

Wow, next you'll try to say you don't fuck horses. Shut up and go back to fucking horses, horsefucker.

The Marxist intellectuals obviously :-)

Democrat

Whoa that guy fucks horses?

Opinion discarded, horse fucker.

Why is this thread still here?

You know libel laws are already on the books right? That's actually one of Trump's campaign issues, he want's to make it easier to sue for libel.

Republican

How does yelling "fire" in a theater present a clear and present danger?

How does it incite violence?

How does it incite legal acts?

I am not following, please explain if you have the time.

Do you have a point?

Basically what the US has now, with the exception that obscenity laws should be thrown out. The miller test is buillshit.

Maybe also making private possession of CP legal since studies have shown that actually reduces abuse rates, but distribution and production should remain illegal for obvious reasons.

Are you serious?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who_concert_disaster

> The entire crowd then began surging and pushing toward the sole two doors which had been opened. This caused many people to get trampled while some suffered more serious injuries. Eleven concertgoers were unable to escape the throng of people pushing toward them and were killed by asphyxiation. There were a total of twenty-six other injuries.

>You can't sexually solicit minors

???????????????????????????????

People panic causing a danger when you scream about fire in a crowded and tiny place

Kek, you can't walk into a bank and say "Gimme all the money" and then when the cops show up you tell them you were just expressing yourself/it was just a prank bro

So? I oppose those laws and I oppose his stance on it, horsefucker.

It incites panic which can result in deaths from trampling.

When speech becomes an action, like inciting mob mentality in this way, or advocating for somebody's murder; then we enter grey waters.

1) The building didn't have sufficient emergency exits

2) How was he supposed to know that uttering of that phrase would cause that reaction?

That it already exists.

>people panic

It's not his fault they're little bitches who overreact

>how does yelling fire in a theater present a clear and present danger?

Did you not pay attention in civics? Clear and Present Danger is the name of the doctrine used by the Justice Department to determine cases in which speech isn't protected by the Constitution.

And the example given was exactly "yelling fire in a crowded theater."

You can incite a panic and create a situation of clear and present danger.

>Veeky Forums
>not agreeing with /pol/ on everything
Please remove yourself from my echobox

>The victim didn't wear enough bulletproof vests
>How was he supposed to know that a bullet through the chest kills people?

Libel laws are much more limited in scope than what user is proposing.

I hate humanity, we are such a cancerous species. It said the ages for two of those victims were 15 fucking years old

How awful, because fucking idiots couldnt wait patiently to watch a concert

That is irrelevant to what we were discussing

Not even that guy but that's not really relevant to the question OP asked. It's about your personal belief. I assumd this thread is for us to argue our ideologies, not argue whether or not they already have been applied in law.

If you want to go further and say some words about how effective/ineffective it is/was, then that is different, and would indeed be relevant to the discussion.

Maybe I'm just sperging.

Yes, that's why Trump wants to expand the reach of libel laws, what don't you understand?

When you shoot a bullet at someone, you can reasonably suspect that it will pierce their skin and injure them

When you speak loudly, you do not expect a bunch of low iq proles to freak out and start trampling each other

>Life should be eternal
>I hate humanity

Grow a spine you pussy

Libertarian

>When you shoot a bullet at someone, you can reasonably suspect that it will pierce their skin and injure them
Not if you're 4 and don't know how a gun works

>When you speak loudly, you do not expect a bunch of low iq proles to freak out and start trampling each other
If you've been told that inciting panic leads to shit happening, then there's a reasonable expectation that shit happens when you incite panic.

>children killed by very easily avoidable deaths doesnt bother me xD

Mental defective

Yeah, that's why the phrase is "fire in a crowded theater", not "JASON GET THE FUCK OVER HERE in a park"

>When you point a metal object towards a guy you don't expect him to die

Define "incite panic"

Also, what is the threshold of "panic"?

>15
>child
LOL, maybe if they had a mental handicap

How is shouting "fire" equivalent to inciting panic. There's not even any context to what type of fire it is so why would any group of people assume its one type over another?

Are you implying a 4 year old should be prosecuted for shouting "fire" in a crowded room?

How it's relevant to your personal beliefs on free speech limitation, you haven't expressed the wins/losses of current or future policy, just stated it exists. It's like if I asked you "should there be limits on gun ownership" and you just kept repeating that there already are and some gay Muslim president wants to expand those laws.

It's still not answering the fucking question of how you personally feel about it or how the current situation or how some politician's viewpoint is viable/unviable.

Thats considered to be a child everywhere in the developed world

Inducing panic is when a person causes the evacuation of any public place, or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience or alarm, by doing any of the following:

Initiating or circulating a report or warning of an alleged or impending fire, explosion, crime, or other catastrophe, knowing that such report or warning is false;
Threatening to commit any offense of violence;
Committing any offense, with reckless disregard of the likelihood that its commission will cause serious public inconvenience or alarm.

Define "developed world"

t. American

Post-industrialised secular liberal democracies

The law isn't literally written down as "no yelling fire in crowded theaters" you actual autist. It's a phrase that helpfully explains the law against falsely inciting dangerous panic. For example yelling "I've got a bomb" in a busy airport is illegal even if you were "just pretending xD"

So about 15% of the world sets the standard for everyone else in the population?

Please remove yourself from that horse's anus.

???
Pretty sure 15 is old enough diddle everywhere but like 3 countries.

Then how is "black lives matter" allowed?

The same way that White supremacists are allowed

They tried #KillAllWhiteys first but apparently it wasn't allowed

Well, it's Veeky Forums, we'll all be relatively liberal about speech since we all sift through tons of shitposts that say "nigger," "faggot," or just outright call jews evil, just so we can see less than 10 good posts a day.

What is there to even argue about between us? Everyone here obviously doesn't mind people being offensive in public speech or they'd fuck off to reddit by now.

Women shouldn't be allowed to have it, and I'm dead serious about that.

the official stance of BLM leaders is not to promote violence, regardless of what some outliers do. It's not even comparable to something like the KKK or ISIS where the message is outwardly violent or overtly promoting a race war.

If you disagree with the BLM shit (I do) that is one thing but if you are just gonna be an ignorant sensationalist faggot about it then you are no better than the SJWs. Fight fire with fire, house burns down you retarded faggot.

why on earth should there be any?

Independent

It's not free speech if it's limited.

Not mine, that's for sure.

Did you know that in Nazi Germany, they had bodies that had the power to legally declare certain statements true and competing statements false? They were called "courts".

I don't think you understand law

The problem isn't in having courts, it's in banning all speech that goes against the courts.

You should be able to say whatever you want as long as it does not promote / call for violence in a serious way (i.e. someone saying "gas the kikes race war now" on Veeky Forums is different from someone literally instructing people to kill someone)
You should only be able to sue someone for slander if what they said was both provably false and provably damaging to the person slandered, both of which are hard to gauge anyways.

Basically free speech should be unlimited to the point where it provably causes damages something/someone in the real world

I probably don't, but doesn't convicting someone of a crime mean for the court to decide that the statement that they committed it is true and the defendant's alibi is false? The decision of the judge hinges on the truth or falsehood of the claims of the defense and prosecution, and it is his job to determine it.

Tumblr

The Strawman Party

t. Donald J. Trump.

>I'm so tough, I don't even need mummy to kiss my boo boos any more

I don't think people should be able to spout unwarranted slander or make threats of violence

>is on 4chins

Things that aren't in the interest of the state

>He believes that ANY limitations on the vibrations of your throat in a just society is just.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

let's start off by legalising holocaust denial

Absolutely none.

However threats don't come under Free Speech.

Publicly announce you hate blacks? Sure
Publicly announce death to all blacks? That's a threat and action is needed.

Depends on your wording, I guess?

"I wish all black would die" - expressing your hate for them

"I'm gonna kill all blacks" - Showing murderous intent

But, even so there is a lot of grey area. I mean people talk a lot of shit, but that doesn't mean they would actually go through with it.

You can say what you want so long as you're not being a major shit cunt.

Threatening to kill someone should merit a reaction, however, the problem these days isn't really the State.

It's that people themselves really don't believe in free speech, and the mob mentality is strong. It really doesn't matter if you have free speech on paper if you lose your job, get your reputation destroyed, or get killed by someone because of your opinions.

>Publicly announce you hate blacks? Sure
>Publicly announce death to all blacks? That's a threat and action is needed.
That statute is manipulated heavily by leftists, the former statement will be INTERPRETED just the same as the latter statement in their mind, which warrants the same punishment as the latter statement, I learned this through several discussions with leftists on the topic of free speech, they believe that if you state. "I hate niggers," then this is a threat to them and warrants a legal reaction, and they will certainly carry that out if they have the power to do so.
>He allows his laws to be subject to that level of bogus interpretation and subjectivity.
Better to have no limits whatsoever instead.

You have the right to your opinion.
You do not have the right to say false information with the intent to hurt someone, whether to attempt to incite violence on them, to attempt to make them seek self afflicted harm, to harm their reputation, or to personally gain from lying.

Basically I think you should be able to say whatever you believe, lying should be illegal.

There should be no limitations on the profession of beliefs.

No calling for physical harm or sedition should be allowed, either.

>lying should be illegal.

There are problems to having no limits, either. Let's say that someone states his clear intentions to harm someone if they don't do what he tells them to. At what point should he be able to be stopped? If there are no limits to free speech whatsoever, then he can threaten the victim(or his family) however he likes and he can only be stopped once the victim decides that the chance of violence is the lesser of two evils. This is clearly a situation where something should be able to be done before violence actually happens.