> Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
The US Bill of Rights is simply an acknowledgment of the inalienable right to free speech, is it not a definition. The role of the US Constitution is to define the powers of the US federal government. The absence of a protection from private attacks on free speech is not an endorsement thereof. It's simply the nature of the document.
All too often I see the expression, "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences." In fact, that's precisely what it is. The freedom to say what you want without being punished for doing so, whether that punishment be execution, imprisonment, social exclusion or anything else. Society seems to be accepting some limitations to free speech (i.e. shouting fire in a crowded theater, personal political opinions having professional ramifications, etc.). If we've decided, as a society, that it is necessary to limit free speech then let's be honest about it. We should not present those limitations as some inevitable part of having free speech in the first place.
Freedom of speech is freedom from consequences. That we have decided consequences are sometimes necessary is a testament to how much we value freedom of speech.
Don't confuse punishing someone for yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater regardless of reason for doing so, with punishing someone for instigating a crushing stampede by yelling "fire!" in a theater when there knowingly wasn't a threat thereof. Both are certainly "consequences"; I'm concerned that some here seem unclear of the difference and would protect the speaker in the latter case on grounds conflated with the former.
I disagree that the difference you've identified truly exists. In some cases we punish a speaker based on how others reacted to what they said, in some cases we don't. We deliberate on these things on a case-by-case basis, there's no consistent rule.
Absolutely we can, but we need to be careful in how we do so and we really should be limiting those restrictions to the smallest number possible.
Niceties like "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" help us easily accept more restrictions on speech - in fact they make those restrictions seem like common sense! As a society, though, we should be ultra-vigilant when it comes to protecting our speech and only restrict it when we are absolutely sure it is necessary. I'm not just talking about legal restrictions here, either, cultural restrictions are just as important. We don't want to find ourselves in a situation where the "mode of expression" being restricted is, say, talking to friends in a bar.
Agreed. I was only trying to produce a notion of speech that we can safely declare inviolable. There may be a gray area between that which is certainly black or white. Having those boundaries lets us explore it while mitigating the slippery slope.
In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh? It's your fault for saying whatever you said! You should have been more careful!
Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.
Monty Python addresses that issue quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7D8A7e4TEY
You do realize that the kind of speech that needs to be protected is not the kind with negative consequences for innocent bystanders, don't you? It's not like I'm defending yelling "fire!" in a movie theater.
The poster whom I responded to didn't seem aware of these distinctions, which is why I snarked at him.
> Do I really have to explain the concept?
No, you don't.
> Apparently some people can't discern the difference between punishment of speech and punishment for consequences of speech. Obviously such people need be kept out of legislative office.
But I guess it's alright to have liars, crooks and wannabe-tyrants in there?
I absolutely do defend the right to yell "fire!" in a movie theater. I also absolutely think you are subject to the consequences thereof.
If there IS a fire, then by all means yell "fire!" accordingly.
I've twice seen Penn Jillette stand on stage before thousands, juggling flaming torches, pontificating loudly about and proceeding to yell "fire!"
I've seen the movie _Backdraft_ in a movie theater; there was much yelling of "fire!" therein.
And, of course, if you scare a crowd into a life-threatening stampede by yelling "fire!" when there isn't one, then you're culpable for any harm that follows.
All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat.
That's still not the kind of speech that needs to be protected and heard, as I'm sure you're aware. So I can't see a reason to spend this much time discussing yelling "fire" in a theater.
> All of this is different from what you portrayed, which was incarcerating someone for yelling "fire!" in a theater purely on grounds of doing so, regardless of whether there was/wasn't a fire and whether (in case there was) it posed a threat.
I portrayed nothing of the sort. Here's what I originally said:
>> In other words, say what you like, but don't be surprised when they haul you off to a concentration camp for being a naughty little thought-criminal, huh?
But nevermind, we've probably wasted enough of each other's time here.
This is the whole point of the discussion, right here. You're discriminating against a certain type of speech because you've judged it to be the wrong kind of speech. Once you've set a precedent that the wrong kind of speech can be infringed, you no longer have free speech - you have a struggle for the power to define allowed speech and disallowed speech.
It seems like you are unnecessarily conflating speech and the consequences of speech.
You probably know it, but that's a lazy false dilemma.
The point was just that there are much more obvious problems with people in positions of power than not being able to distinguish with punishment for using one's vocal chords and punishment for whatever it caused.
A person can say <controversial opinion> and in response others can choose to no longer associate with them, do business with them, etc.
(There is an issue when the primary means of communication become privatized, but that is an area I've yet to work out.)
A problem is that the fourth amendment is itself under attack as well...
Well put ... and does not absolve anyone of the consequences of their speech. People keep forgetting that exercise of rights have consequences for which they may/must be held accountable for. Say what you like, but be aware that you are still accountable for how you obtained that content, or what happens as a result of what you say.