# Are there limits to free speech? What tests you? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 11, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044 "2009-05-11T16:13:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/181 "2009-05-14T23:59:11Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Not all rights are enumerated. Or honored everywhere, even. You may interpret my statement as an _assertion_ that I think people have this right, to at least have a say in what sort of visuals they are exposed to when on shared community property that they nominally have a partial ownership of. OK, so it your opinion, not that there is a right. Or maybe both. Can you make a compelling case in tems that at elast somewhat matches laws or cases you can cite that ties your opinion to something more tangible? Not saying you can’t, jsut trying to see what led you to your opinion. > [@](#): > > The issue of whether you may expose your genitals in schools and elsewhere is a dead and settled field. That is the sole extent of your ide of how clothing may be regulated as speech then? > [@](#): > > People would be required to comply with the local laws, or go to somewhere where those laws don’t apply when they wish not to comply with them. This is pretty common, really - Nevada makes a living on people traveling there to gamble. Don’t local laws have to comply with the Federal Constitution, including the 1st Amendment? If not, cite please. If so, how does restricting locale by location not fall afoul of that, including a cite, since I am sure it must have come up somewhere before. > [@](#): > > I can’t parse this. majority “rules” sorry, although that is a good typo 🙂 > [@](#): > > “Now we have established that you can be bought. All that remains is to nogotiate the price.” 😛 great joke, but the price is free. Make a compelling case if you have it. > [@](#): > > My position on this issue is merely that it is not absolute - the specific level at which the line is drawn is pretty immaterial to me. There can be (and are) regions that decide that billboards aren’t offensive, and it doesn’t hurt my point - if there _are_ places where billboards are removed due to public outcry, or even _could_ be, that’s all I need. That is the basis? Whichever way the wind blows is OK for you? OK, I guess I won;t be getting any deep insight here, but that’s OK, I was hoping, but not expecting. > [@](#): > > As I just **said** , I don’t care if they’re on public property or not. If they’re visible _from_ public property, then the issue may be raised, and they might possibly be required to be removed, depending on the reaction to them. Ah. So what legal basis do you have for this “taking” of property. Not saying there isn’t one, and I could think of a theory or two, but I want to see what drives you to your conclusion, not justify it for you, that doesn’t seem to work well 🙂 > [@](#): > > The fact that there was even debate supports _my_ point. Were such billboards given inviolate protection by the first amendment, that would have been that. Actually, that pretty much was that. Whatever changes may have been made, if any, were business decisions, predicated on the fact that the original stuff had the right to be there and the city could not make an ex post facto law. Once that was agreed, then settlement was possible, but it was not over first amendment disputes - that the speech was allowed was ceded by the city iirc. probably the settlement was something like the city agreeing to buy some of the space itself for a certain amount of time for PSA (public service announcements). Which cost the company nothing as they likely paid the going rate. > [@](#): > > Answer to first question: _somebody_ puts up statues and monuments. Answer to the rest: the fact that it’s complicated supports my position, not the absolutist position. (And if we’re allowing these mere conflicts to stop it from being a limiting of speech at all, then I think I’ve just won.) It is not a game to win or lose, not a game at all. I am trying to understand what your level of insight is so I can have it too. The first answer doesn’t even make sense though. Monuments on public land are put up by the agency managing the land - they are public. I asked if _anyone_ can put up _anything_ on public land. > [@](#): > > I’ve been talking. And as I’ve been saying I think that your right to be a flasher or to disturb the peace is in conflict with other people’s right not to be flashed or have their peace disturbed - and I think the law backs me up on this one. So, as I said, your examples are only about (it seems to me) when one right (explicit or implicit, whatever floats your boat) is in conflict with something else. In cases like this, OK. In cases where a billboard is visible from a road, what is the right that is in conflict that outweighs the right of the sign, any sign visible from there, even from miles away, to be there? I don’t get it. > [@](#): > > I stated why it was wrong. And the that other reasons _could_ outweigh the first amendment concerns is the core of my point. Heck, as far as I’m concerned you are _proving_ that I am right in practice…so I’ll graciously accept without question that your anecdote is true. 😃 It seems to me your claim is that when first amendment claims abut other rights. that they must be weighed fairly. As I presume you sould say if other rights not including 1st claims conflicted. Fair? If so, then OK, not much interest really, just common sense. More interesting is if you suggest that 1st rights can be limited _without_ support from claims that other rights are in conflict, without such weighing. Is that your case? > [@](#): > > The difference is that the people who are inclined to complain will be dissuaded from doing so by their conflicting belief that a man’s home is his castle, increasingly so the further inside of the castle you get. So they will be less inclined to pursue their complaint and would be more easly dissuaded from doing so. OOOKAy. May I refer you to the Stoid threads in the pit to see why teh like;lihood of someone complaining is not a good basis for determing to take a risk where the cost may be harsh? [/QUOTE] I stated why it was wrong. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand where you got this odd idea that I’m only applying the “the public has a say about **all** content that’s viewable from the road” principle to public property. That really doesn’t make any sense. Because you said anything visible from a road (or other public land I presume) can be made to be removed. I am just exploring what limits you might really have in mind now, if any. > [@](#): > > Thank you for accusing me of dishonest argument. No one said that or even implied it. Maybe you are not familiar with the colloquialism “to be honest”? 🙂 > [@](#): > > The _exception_ isn’t the media - it’s the stuff viewable from the road. Do whatever you like elsewhere. So a plain text sign on a lamppost that says “call 1-900-fuck-her” is OK? How about “call 1-900-call-god”? If not, precisely how do you determine what is? Not us, but in your mind, how do you determine when faced with a choice? Those are probably pretty easy calls really, but I could bring them closer to your lines to see if three is a bright line or a fuzzy line. It seems to me if we do that exercise, and the line turns out to be fuzzy, then the sign maker will have a first amendment claim to make, and a right to be heard on the merits, and might turn out to be allowed where it was felt not allowed earlier. then the fuzzy line will simply move, and the process repeat. That is the problem really, it just becomes arbitrary, and that is what 1st was meant to prevent. Unless you can make a more case that another right needs to weighed against the 1st, and that the other right outweighs the 1st. But 1st alone? I am skeptical and would love to see some case references. > [@](#): > > Public, private, whichever. (I am no longer going to respond to statements regarding the public/private dichotomy that I am not presenting.) OK, fair enough, but I think that treating private property as though it is public under the law is going to be considered a “taking” and without following eminent domain law, is not going to fly either, regardless of 1st issues. Would you agree? > [@](#): > > And you can get on your cell phone and call your city council - perhaps not quick enough to save _this_ trip, but perhaps soon enough to protect your sensibilities the next time through. Not my town - we have big signs by the exits 🙂 And it is not a local decision - it is State agency decision. And you are the one saying that any signs, especially ones that are images rather than text, can be made to go away by anyone, even a competitor if they are visible from the road. Personally, I find it a specious argument, but I am trying to see where you are coming from. Hey, one more public private thing (maybe). City tells me to move/remove sign in my house that is visible from the sidewalk. I comply. Now itis visible to my neighbor next door, where there is no intervening public land at all, no easements or anything like that. Not visible from ground level due to fence. Visible from neighbor’s window upstairs if he makes effort to look. Neighbor has option of closing his shades. Do I have to move sign again? If so, on the same grounds or other grounds? > [@](#): > > No change - this stuff is already _happening_. So then you are agreeing that unless one right is being weighed against another, if the issue is just one right, the right is absolute? Trying to understand, that is my take on everything so far… > [@](#): > > You’re the goof who proposed interpreting a _yeild sign_ as a giant vagina. I can’t be held accountable for the ridiculousity _you_ propose. Even if you dreamed up the signs with vaginas in the first place, goofball 🙂 Seriously, you have to anticipate the objections ahead of time, then you will probably have a stronger example. I think even with vagina-laden signs, you can do that 🙂 > [@](#): > > I, personally, propose nothing except that they have the right to do so. OK, well I guess you are not really debating anything we can learn from then. Your position is, without a doubt now, “status quo, whatever that is, is good with me”. Yes? > [@](#): > > I completely saw this coming but hoped you wouldn’t try to muddy this issue. It is not muddying the issue. You raised it when you first say vaginas, then you say text only is OK. Now you have to clarify what you mean by “text”. I jsut want to see what you mean by that - I worked on the Unicode standard so I have some significant experience on academic type discussions about what constitutes “text” vs. “glyph” and other related matters. I want to see what your take on it is. > [@](#): > > If the letters are pictures, they can be judged as such - even if the message in the text is fine. Similarly, if cars are legal, it doesn’t mean you can’t do cosmetic things to them to make them illegal while cars in general are still legal. OK, what constitutes “pictures” then? Suppose I simply use the chinese character for “vagina”? Is it a “picture” or is it “text”? For that matter, what if I use the word vagina in English characters, like I typed it here? What if I encoded the word somehow, and publicized in a wide campaign that the code and its resulting characters, e.g. “qazw” which are on signs everywhere, mean “vagina”? I can’t tell you the amount of effort that went into these sorts of questions in defining Unicode with help from around the world - and now throw free speech issues on top of it! Whew! Fun all over again!😃 Imposing your lack of morals is too. This is a conflict of interest where somebody will have to lose. And I see it as being arguably better to make everybody mildly unhappy by making them keep their offensive materials inside, than to make everybody more unhappy by getting them into an offend-each-other-with-our-speech contest. > [@](#): > > PSA? Public Service Announcement. > [@](#): > > My argument doesn’t draw a distinction between commercial and non-commercial displays - if something is considered by some to be offensive and is posted alongside the road, it would be subject to consideration for removal. What is the process exactly? > [@](#): > > Allow anything until there is a protest. You can’t fix something until you know it’s a potential problem. Will any prior opinions be binding on later speech, merely suggestive of how a ruling might work in a similar case, or would everything start anew each time independent of past and present cases? > [@](#): > > Based on what I know of how tribunal committees and the like work in this country, I suspect the material would be covered or removed until the determination could be made - though it would be up to the tribunal to figure out how it wanted to handle that, or if it wanted to assess that case-by-case depending on the difficulty of removing/concealing the thing. Other that the recent news regarding guantanamo, I am not aware of “tribunal committees” in the US. Can you provide me some links as to where they are and how they work please? > [@](#): > > I propose that it’s pretty doubtful that the image is essential to your message - regardless of what your message is Isn’t that making a new and novel application, defining one form of speech using images as acceptable, and others, as text, as unacceptable in the same circumstances? If it is not new and novel, can you provide me with some actual citations on in similar cases please? Because I am not aware of such a thing. > [@](#): > > I think that ‘public area’ content sterilization should be strictly restricted with no exceptions to things that are plainly visible to a person minding their own business traveling down a public throughfare. I What does “minding your own business” mean in this context? That yo are looking straight ahead at eye level? Or something else? Wouldn’t cases hinge on a decision on this each time, based on circumstances? What if the designer wen to some effort to make the sign not plainly visible, such as in some tree branches, or up high, or down low, or in some color contrast combination that required active effort to read once you saw the sign at all (like a 60s psychadelic poster e.g.)? > [@](#): > > but it doesn’t create a slippery slope leading to books and computer games being banned, because the initial slope was executing in a limited and separate context. With one group having successfully implemented new and novel restrictions in one media based on content, what is to prevent another group from doing the same in another media once the precedent is set? > [@](#): > > This dictatorial entity would have the authority to override the minority. (And would probably also be the entity that was enforcing the minority will in other cases, actually.) Isn’t this precisely the power you would give to a “tribunal committee”? Or is it something else they do other than what Kobal2 suggested? > [@](#): > > You merely holding the opinion that other people shouldn’t be such prudes is fine - but if you try to wave signs in their face for no other reason than to horrify them and force them to have to ‘man up’ and face what they wish to avoid…I’m thinking that’s not so fine. Maybe, but you are not requiring banning on any active waving, you are allowing removal based on a sign coming into view essentially. And then only some signs, those that have pictures, but words to the same effect are fine. Weird! > [@](#): > > Okay, fair enough, I missed that - though I’m pretty sure that’s not actually part of the law of noise pollution at all. I think that it’s the noise level at the source, outside, not the noise level inside the adjacent houses, that they use to assess it - though I could be wrong. Is it possible, just a little bit, that you are missing some other elements of your position too, in the same or substantially the same way? because ti seems to me that the visual part of it DOES depend on public vs. private, protestations otherwise notwithstanding. You take about stuff on private, even inside, being game for protest if it is visible outside. So why would there be a public/private distinction for sound but not sight other than a media specific, and hence content specific, restraint? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/182 "2009-05-15T10:35:25Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Well, I do have my handy-dandy exception for text-only materials to hide behind here. Unless the _font_ was offensive at a pure imagery level, I’d let you keep your billboard, assuming it was text. So Luther is safe. 🙂 Hm. I guess I don’t really get the reasoning behind the exception. It’s perfectly possible (hell, it’s downright _easy_ :)) to offend someone by text alone, as the atheist billboards have oh so very proved. Speech is speech, whether it’s conversation, written word, images or music. So why drawing a line here ? > [@](#): > > But supposing that it was a billboard with a gory picture of an aborted fetus on it, or perhaps the old standby of the giant vagina. (“Equal rights for all genitals!”) I propose that it’s pretty doubtful that the image is _essential_ to your message - regardless of what your message is. And even if you can’t come up with a ‘nicer’ image, there’s always plain text to fall back on. Or you can always hold meetings about it and wave your horrific/stimulating picture around somewhere else than right off the road. > > The thing that kept those things from being a contradiction is that I think that ‘public area’ content sterilization should be strictly restricted with no exceptions to things that are plainly visible to a person minding their own business traveling down a public throughfare. I can be in favor of draconic restrictions there, and no restrictions anywhere else, because the two areas are separate and, if not _prefectly_ clearly defined apart from one another, they’re pretty close and the difference could be made explicit in practice. > > Which is to say, banning bilboards based on not liking this content or that makes a slippery slope that could lead to _any_ billboard being banned, but it doesn’t create a slippery slope leading to books and computer games being banned, because the initial slope was executing in a limited and separate context. So, correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument boils down to something like “you can say whatever you please, but not however you please”, that is to say content isn’t to be restricted, but form can. But what about messages where form is undistinguishable from content ? To give you an example : [one of Penn&Teller’s acts](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4&feature=related) consists in “burning” an American flag, to make the point that they can, and that’s what makes America great. A non-subversive message, that can’t be made without its subversive form. - it’d be stupid to say “America’s great because you can burn a flag and not get arrested !” if you \*are \*arrested should you try. Now, lots of people think burning a flag is tantamount to treason, which I don’t get but hey, whatever works for them. And they’d be damn angry if Penn&Teller were to take their act to the streets, based on form rather than content, even though they’d totally agree with the content if they listened for a bit instead of screaming treason :). > [@](#): > > Well, you’d have to make an entity with dictatorial power that there are some things, like street signs, power poles, and the brick and concrete sides of buildings, that the offended people are just going to have to learn to live with because for reasons of need, difficulty to fix, or public good they can’t be removed. This dictatorial entity would have the authority to override the minority. (And would probably also be the entity that was _enforcing_ the minority will in other cases, actually.) > > And yeah, we tend to _elect_ such entities by majority, but that’s a problem of democracy itself, not of my argument so much. But where’s the veto power of the minority in there ? Veto isn’t just a vote, or making one’s discontent heard, it’s an un-overturnable interdict. My contention was that the idea of giving the minority ultimate “STOP!”\* power over the majority pretty much invalidates or goes against the idea of democracy. Minority protection goes so far as to protect them from having their rights disregarded, abridged or voted away specifically _because_ they’re the minority, but no further. > [@](#): > > You merely holding the opinion that other people shouldn’t be such prudes is fine - but if you try to wave signs in their face for no other reason than to horrify them and force them to have to ‘man up’ and face what they wish to avoid…I’m thinking that’s not so fine. But again, that’s what the concept of distributing seditious material _is_. Pamphlets and political flyers aren’t only handed out to those who already share the idea, that wouldn’t make any sense or accomplish anything. At some point, you’re going to try and convince someone else that you’re right, and especially those who hold opposite views. Luther didn’t politely inform people that he was going to say some non-specific things tonight at 11 behind the cathedral, BYOB. > [@](#): > > Okay, fair enough, I missed that - though I’m pretty sure that’s not actually part of the law of noise pollution at all. I think that it’s the noise level at the source, outside, not the noise level inside the adjacent houses, that they use to assess it - though I could be wrong. Dunno how it really works in practice either to tell you the truth, and obviously the standards vary from location to location. However, from [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_regulation) : > [@](#): > > Most city ordinances prohibit sound above a threshold intensity from **trespassing over property line** at night, typically between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., and during the day restricts it to a higher sound level; however, enforcement is uneven. emphasis mine. So it does seem to me it’s about the noise level on the complainer’s side of the fence, or at the fence itself, rather than at the source. Which makes sense to me, it’d be silly to prohibit or restrict the production of \*any \*noise above a given threshold, no matter the distance, status of noise insulation etc… between the complainer and complainee. A tree falling in the forest still makes a sound, but if there’s no-one to bang on the forest wall to make it stop, who cares ? 🙂 - Hammer time ! ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/183 "2009-05-15T18:47:58Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > OK, so it your opinion, not that there is a right. Or maybe both. Can you make a compelling case in tems that at elast somewhat matches laws or cases you can cite that ties your opinion to something more tangible? Not saying you can’t, jsut trying to see what led you to your opinion. I’m not much for citing cases - I’m _certainly_ no lawyer. However it can easily be observed that there are both legal and voluntary concessions towards not offending people - codified public nudity taboos and the tendency not to say “fuck” on daytime television being notable ones. Now, obviously, this right only goes so far - if you’re offended by the mere _existence_ of something, even if it’s happening in the privacy of someone’s own home, then clearly you don’t have the right to curtail their behavior. (And by “clearly” I mean “I immediately concede that there are piles of laws saying you can curtail people’s private activities, starting with smoking marijuana and escalating from there”.) But I maintain that there is a longstanding societal tradition of keeping the “worst” of the offensive visuals off the street - enough of a tradition to believe that there is a legitimate basis for the idea. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Don’t local laws have to comply with the Federal Constitution, including the 1st Amendment? > > If not, cite please. > > If so, how does restricting locale by location not fall afoul of that, including a cite, since I am sure it must have come up somewhere before. Dude, laws against public nudity laws _exist_. I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to repeat that to you. > [@not\_alice](#): > > majority “rules” sorry, although that is a good typo 🙂 Well, I also am quite explicitly not arguing that the majority should rule in this matter…though I admit they currently seem to in most cases. > [@not\_alice](#): > > great joke, but the price is free. Make a compelling case if you have it. Who’se joking? You said “Perhaps the right to be let alone outweighs the free speech right to run your harley at 4am.” From where I stand, that’s a complete concession that there are cases where free speech is trumped by the desire of other people not to be irritated. A **complete concession**. By your own words free speech doesn’t trump all. QED. All that remains is to dicker over how bad an irritation has to be before we start banning it. Which is a detail that’s largely immaterial to me, because I don’t much care _where_ this particular slope slips to. > [@not\_alice](#): > > That is the basis? Whichever way the wind blows is OK for you? > > OK, I guess I won;t be getting any deep insight here, but that’s OK, I was hoping, but not expecting. I think you may be misunderstanding the case I’ve been arguing. I’m arguing _against_ the position “free speech completely trumps the consideration of whether others are _forced_ to encounter material they find offensive when they leave their home.” I’m arguing against a position. That’s as deep as it’s likely to get here. > [@not\_alice](#): > > The first answer doesn’t even make sense though. Monuments on public land are put up by the agency managing the land - they are public. > > I asked if _anyone_ can put up _anything_ on public land. I don’t understand the question - are you asking whether there are restrictions on what can be placed where and who can place it? Clearly there are such restrictions: try putting your artistic re-interpretation of Venus De Milo in the middle of the interstate and see how far _that_ gets you. Also I will note _again_ that I don’t give a crap whether the land it’s on is public or private - it’s whether it’s clearly visible _from_ public land that makes it susceptible to consideration for this. > [@not\_alice](#): > > So, as I said, your examples are only about (it seems to me) when one right (explicit or implicit, whatever floats your boat) is in conflict with something else. > > In cases like this, OK. > > In cases where a billboard is visible from a road, what is the right that is in conflict that outweighs the right of the sign, any sign visible from there, even from miles away, to be there? I don’t get it. God, man. It’s one thing to _reject_ that people have some slim pretense of a right not to be bashed over the head with vaginas on the way to work. It’s another thing to _not understand_ that that is the issue we’ve been discussing for posts and posts. > [@not\_alice](#): > > It seems to me your claim is that when first amendment claims abut other rights. that they must be weighed fairly. As I presume you sould say if other rights not including 1st claims conflicted. Fair? > > If so, then OK, not much interest really, just common sense. > > More interesting is if you suggest that 1st rights can be limited _without_ support from claims that other rights are in conflict, without such weighing. Is that your case? …And pretending that you have already _established_ that there is no such right is pretty poor argument. > [@not\_alice](#): > > OOOKAy. May I refer you to the Stoid threads in the pit to see why teh like;lihood of someone complaining is not a good basis for determing to take a risk where the cost may be harsh? Link what you like. (I’m not going to _guess_ what you’re referring to.) The discussions may or may not be relevent, even. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Because you said anything visible from a road (or other public land I presume) can be made to be removed. > > I am just exploring what limits you might really have in mind now, if any. Removed or concealed. And given that I _said_ it wasn’t limited to public property, and you just referenced that fact, I’m not sure what limits you’re exploring. > [@not\_alice](#): > > So a plain text sign on a lamppost that says “call 1-900-fuck-her” is OK? How about “call 1-900-call-god”? By my proposal they’re fine. (I will go into this more in response to **Kobal2**.) > [@not\_alice](#): > > That is the problem really, it just becomes arbitrary, and that is what 1st was meant to prevent. > > Unless you can make a more case that another right needs to weighed against the 1st, and that the other right outweighs the 1st. > > But 1st alone? I am skeptical and would love to see some case references. Nudity laws exist… And if you make a law banning a specific category of speech (like extremely loud noise, or unclothed genitals), that’s not necessarily arbitrary. Such things can actually be quite specific, in fact. > [@not\_alice](#): > > OK, fair enough, but I think that treating private property as though it is public under the law is going to be considered a “taking” and without following eminent domain law, is not going to fly either, regardless of 1st issues. Would you agree? Given that we already _do_ it, I disagree - certainly such things fly. A cop can come tell you to stop exercising your right to blast death metal on your property at midnight, and if that’s “taking”, then clearly “taking” can happen. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Not my town - we have big signs by the exits 🙂 Irrelevent - that it hasn’t happened doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Hey, one more public private thing (maybe). > > City tells me to move/remove sign in my house that is visible from the sidewalk. I comply. Now itis visible to my neighbor next door, where there is no intervening public land at all, no easements or anything like that. Not visible from ground level due to fence. Visible from neighbor’s window upstairs if he makes effort to look. Neighbor has option of closing his shades. Do I have to move sign again? If so, on the same grounds or other grounds? Debatably it would be a different issue - keeping the roads hospitable for casual travelers is a public good; stopping you from specifically targeting your neighbor for harassment is not. (Or if it is it’s not the _same_ public good. Maybe.) And I’m currenlty holding that it’s not the issue at hand, I’m not going to address it. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Even if you dreamed up the signs with vaginas in the first place, goofball 🙂 > > Seriously, you have to anticipate the objections ahead of time, then you will probably have a stronger example. I think even with vagina-laden signs, you can do that 🙂 Seriously, interpreting yeild signs as they currently appear as vaginas is a pretty ridiculous stretch. And regardless, all special cases, even non-ridiculous ones, would be met by “the arbitrating authority would weigh the case and consider all the issues, and there may be cases where the public good is better served by the offensive material staying up. _Even_ if the offending material is a triangle.” > [@not\_alice](#): > > Your position is, without a doubt now, “status quo, whatever that is, is good with me”. Yes? Given that you totally misunderstand my position and/or are completely misrepresenting it accidently and/or deliberately, I recommend that you reread my prior posts until you no longer have that problem. > [@not\_alice](#): > > It is not muddying the issue. You raised it when you first say vaginas, then you say text only is OK. Now you have to clarify what you mean by “text”. I jsut want to see what you mean by that - I worked on the Unicode standard so I have some significant experience on academic type discussions about what constitutes “text” vs. “glyph” and other related matters. I want to see what your take on it is. The _following paragraph_ was my take on it. > [@not\_alice](#): > > OK, what constitutes “pictures” then? Suppose I simply use the chinese character for “vagina”? Is it a “picture” or is it “text”? For that matter, what if I use the word vagina in English characters, like I typed it here? What if I encoded the word somehow, and publicized in a wide campaign that the code and its resulting characters, e.g. “qazw” which are on signs everywhere, mean “vagina”? > > I can’t tell you the amount of effort that went into these sorts of questions in defining Unicode with help from around the world - and now throw free speech issues on top of it! Whew! Fun all over again!😃 You’re overthinking (or obfuscating) this. A glyph is a picture. If somebody is offended by the visual shape letters of the alphabet then their case will almost certainly be thrown out by the judging authority because it would be an undue hardship on society not to have letters to write with on publicly visible signs. And I don’t care if qazw means vagina or if vagina means vagina - we’re no longer talking about the glyphs being visually offensive, we’re talking about word meanings being offensive - which falls under my textual exception _regardless_ of how it’s spelled. And the unicode isn’t typically posted on the side of the road. Incidentally. > [@not\_alice](#): > > What is the process exactly? > > Will any prior opinions be binding on later speech, merely suggestive of how a ruling might work in a similar case, or would everything start anew each time independent of past and present cases? The process is however they want to do their governement and make rulings, with the according longevity. They can defer all their governmental decisions to an animatronic monkey for all I care. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Other that the recent news regarding guantanamo, I am not aware of “tribunal committees” in the US. Can you provide me some links as to where they are and how they work please? Replace “animatronic monkey” for “tribunal comittee” if you prefer. Which governmental body makes their determinations on civic policy is of no interest to me. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Isn’t that making a new and novel application, defining one form of speech using images as acceptable, and others, as text, as unacceptable in the same circumstances? > > If it is not new and novel, can you provide me with some actual citations on in similar cases please? Because I am not aware of such a thing. It’s legal to _say_ “nude” but not _be_ nude. Ah, anti-nudity laws. You serve me well, buttressing my argument most solidly. > [@not\_alice](#): > > What does “minding your own business” mean in this context? That yo are looking straight ahead at eye level? Or something else? Wouldn’t cases hinge on a decision on this each time, based on circumstances? > > What if the designer wen to some effort to make the sign not plainly visible, such as in some tree branches, or up high, or down low, or in some color contrast combination that required active effort to read once you saw the sign at all (like a 60s psychadelic poster e.g.)? I’m getting tired of the nitpicking. When it comes to details, ask the animatronic monkey. > [@not\_alice](#): > > With one group having successfully implemented new and novel restrictions in one media based on content, what is to prevent another group from doing the same in another media once the precedent is set? By “new and novel” you mean “older than america”, right? Public nudity has been illegal in most places and circumstances for a _long_ time. And I might similarly ask what’s to stop people from banning compliments based on the precedent that we banned slander. The answer is: nothing. People can make stupid laws based on fallacious slippery slope arguments if they want to, assuming the animatronic monkey lets them. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Isn’t this precisely the power you would give to a “tribunal committee”? Or is it something else they do other than what Kobal2 suggested? An animatronic monkey _is_ a dictatorial entity - it makes determinations which have enforcable authority. > [@not\_alice](#): > > Is it possible, just a little bit, that you are missing some other elements of your position too, in the same or substantially the same way? because ti seems to me that the visual part of it DOES depend on public vs. private, protestations otherwise notwithstanding. You take about stuff on private, even inside, being game for protest if it is visible outside. So why would there be a public/private distinction for sound but not sight other than a media specific, and hence content specific, restraint? There is no difference - the issue in both cases is whether it’s visible/audible from the public area, not whether it can be seen/heard from behind the walls of the neighboring house. And if you think I’m missing elements of my position, feel free to simply state directly what they are. Because the leading question approach doesn’t seem to be working. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/184 "2009-05-15T18:51:05Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Hm. I guess I don’t really get the reasoning behind the exception. It’s perfectly possible (hell, it’s downright _easy_ :)) to offend someone by text alone, as the atheist billboards have oh so very proved. Speech is speech, whether it’s conversation, written word, images or music. So why drawing a line here ? A fair question. Objectively speaking, the notion that public spaces should be as non-offensive as possible does not _inherently_ stop at text; in theory it could push _all_ content to within the walls and behind the fences of private property. I personally argue to make text immune from this because 1) I’m not actually opposed to the ‘freedom of ideas’ aspect of free speech, despite what some may intimate, and 2) I don’t see it as being possible for text to be offensive in the same way as imagery can. Expounding on the second point, I am of the opinion that images can inspire an instant visceral reaction that is much stronger than can be gotten by glancing at text. Additionally, a picture is worth a thousand words (and at 30fps, a video is therefore worth 180000 words per minute. ;)), by which I mean that for text to impact you, you have to actually stop and _read_ it. There is a limit to the amout of text you can incorporate at a glance, and beyond that a person who is offended by the initial glance has fair warning that if they keep reading beyond that, any offense accumulated was gotten by their own choice. With pictures and you don’t have nearly that kind of buffer - you can find yourself wanting to scrub your brain out with merely a glance. So to sum that up, I just don’t think that text has the _potential_ to offend people passing by it to anywhere remotely near the level that images do - so I’m more willing to be lenient about it. Expounding on the first point, and regarding the atheist signs, I consider there to be a difference between being offended at a visceral level and being offended at a higher, conceptual level. I think it’s reasonable to protect the kiddies from things that might make them puke or recoil, but if they’re offended by the fact that some text reminds them that some people don’t believe in their particular supernatural pantheon, well, tough titties. As with being offended by triangles, there are limits to the level of protection I think people have a right to expect, and being protected from ideas is outside those limits (though I still think that free speech wasn’t designed with the _intent_ to force unwanted ideas on people.) > [@Kobal2](#): > > So, correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument boils down to something like “you can say whatever you please, but not however you please”, that is to say content isn’t to be restricted, but form can. > > But what about messages where form is undistinguishable from content ? To give you an example : [one of Penn&Teller’s acts](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF2iX2VG6e4&feature=related) consists in “burning” an American flag, to make the point that they can, and that’s what makes America great. A non-subversive message, that can’t be made without its subversive form. - it’d be stupid to say “America’s great because you can burn a flag and not get arrested !” if you \*are \*arrested should you try. > Now, lots of people think burning a flag is tantamount to treason, which I don’t get but hey, whatever works for them. And they’d be damn angry if Penn&Teller were to take their act to the streets, based on form rather than content, even though they’d totally agree with the content if they listened for a bit instead of screaming treason :). “you can say whatever you please, but not however you please - _alongside the public throughfare_”, if you please. It’s kind of a relevent part of the argument. And I guess in the America I’m describing you might be banned from burning a flag _in the streets_, if enough people were offended enough (which as I’ve noted, I’m abstractly willing to let slide to “one person” and “enough to complain” for the sake of argument). This would be a bit of a less-free america than we have…but based on existing things like anti-nudity laws and such, I’m not sure it would be _that_ much less free. > [@Kobal2](#): > > But where’s the veto power of the minority in there ? Veto isn’t just a vote, or making one’s discontent heard, it’s an un-overturnable interdict. My contention was that the idea of giving the minority ultimate “STOP!”\* power over the majority pretty much invalidates or goes against the idea of democracy. Minority protection goes so far as to protect them from having their rights disregarded, abridged or voted away specifically _because_ they’re the minority, but no further. Vetos _can_ be overturned, though. So being overturnable by a higher authority on legitimate grounds doesn’t mean the veto power has been removed. (I think that answers this sufficiently.) > [@Kobal2](#): > > But again, that’s what the concept of distributing seditious material _is_. Pamphlets and political flyers aren’t only handed out to those who already share the idea, that wouldn’t make any sense or accomplish anything. At some point, you’re going to try and convince someone else that you’re right, and especially those who hold opposite views. Luther didn’t politely inform people that he was going to say some non-specific things tonight at 11 behind the cathedral, BYOB. Actually distributing seditious material is _usually_ done between confederates and like minded people, so far as I know. Underground movements and all that. And when you want to convince others, well, for that I offer the textual exception. You may be as seditious as you like so long as you leave the horrifying images off the placards and keep your pants on. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Dunno how it really works in practice either to tell you the truth, and obviously the standards vary from location to location. However, from [Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_regulation) : > > emphasis mine. So it does seem to me it’s about the noise level on the complainer’s side of the fence, or at the fence itself, rather than at the source. Which makes sense to me, it’d be silly to prohibit or restrict the production of \*any \*noise above a given threshold, no matter the distance, status of noise insulation etc… between the complainer and complainee. A tree falling in the forest still makes a sound, but if there’s no-one to bang on the forest wall to make it stop, who cares ? 🙂 The question is, is that the threshold at the noise-maker’s property line, or the complainer’s? The issue is muddied when the fence is one and the same, so let’s put the complainer on the opposite side of the road. They call the cops, who are pedantic enough to bring a device that measures decibels to determine whether it’s _techically_ a violation. Which side of the road do they measure at? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/185 "2009-05-15T19:13:05Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I > > Who’se joking? I was referring to the punchline from a well known joke you dropped. Anyway, up above I mentioned I wanted to explore the way that you came to your conclusions, because it was not clear to me on the surface. I think you have been gracious in answering a lot of questions designed to ferret that out, so thank you. I think I have a better understanding now of the sort of thinking you did to come to your conclusions, so I don’t really have anymore to add to this line. In the sense that you have illuminated your thinking process, I think you have done your part to fight my ignorance about what that process was. Thank you again! ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/186 "2009-05-15T21:13:48Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > A fair question. Objectively speaking, the notion that public spaces should be as non-offensive as possible does not _inherently_ stop at text; in theory it could push _all_ content to within the walls and behind the fences of private property. Yup. > [@](#): > > I personally argue to make text immune from this because 1) I’m not actually opposed to the ‘freedom of ideas’ aspect of free speech, despite what some may intimate, and 2) I don’t see it as being possible for text to be offensive in the same way as imagery can. > > Expounding on the second point, I am of the opinion that images can inspire an instant visceral reaction that is much stronger than can be gotten by glancing at text. Additionally, a picture is worth a thousand words (and at 30fps, a video is therefore worth 180000 words per minute. ;)), by which I mean that for text to impact you, you have to actually stop and _read_ it. There is a limit to the amout of text you can incorporate at a glance, and beyond that a person who is offended by the initial glance has fair warning that if they keep reading beyond that, any offense accumulated was gotten by their own choice. With pictures and you don’t have nearly that kind of buffer - you can find yourself wanting to scrub your brain out with merely a glance. > > So to sum that up, I just don’t think that text has the _potential_ to offend people passing by it to anywhere remotely near the level that images do - so I’m more willing to be lenient about it. Well, to take an example from _Die Hard 3_ (hey ! If Scalia can use 24 to make legal points, I’m allowed too ! :)), walk around Harlem or Compton holding a placard that reads “I hate niggers” in big bold letters, and you’re going to find out pretty fast, and might I add pretty permanently, how visceraly offensive mere words can be to some ;). I also don’t think the length of the text matters, since you can pull a textual bait-and-switch to great effect, in fact to greater effect than plain rethoric. Bathos example : “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no enemies, because I’m a mean motherfucker and I got a gun”. I’m convinced there’s at least one rabid Christian out there who’ll yell SACRILEGE ! YOU DON’T DEFACE SCRIPTURE ! upon hearing/reading that. > [@](#): > > Expounding on the first point, _frothing_ Why did you expound on the second point first ?! WHY ?! Are you consciously trying to offend my sense of order ?! 🙂 > [@](#): > > and regarding the atheist signs, I consider there to be a difference between being offended at a visceral level and being offended at a higher, conceptual level. I think it’s reasonable to protect the kiddies from things that might make them puke or recoil, but if they’re offended by the fact that some text reminds them that some people don’t believe in their particular supernatural pantheon, well, tough titties. Not sure I agree with the distinction, or if it’s meaningful - or if it is, not sure that distinction can be precisely and unambiguously framed with words. I mean, I instinctively know whether what I’m watching is porn or merely explicit sex, but I’m not sure I could frame or explain why this is this and that is just that. In any case : is the text exemption still valid here ? Is viscerally offensive text reluctantly OK to you ? > [@](#): > > As with being offended by triangles, there are limits to the level of protection I think people have a right to expect, and being protected from ideas is outside those limits (though I still think that free speech wasn’t designed with the _intent_ to force unwanted ideas on people.) … but at one point you’re gonna have to make up your mind. Either there are limits to the level of protection individuals can expect, or one person offended enough to complain is enough to get any offending item removed. > [@](#): > > “you can say whatever you please, but not however you please - _alongside the public throughfare_”, if you please. It’s kind of a relevent part of the argument. Yes, you’re right, my apology. > [@](#): > > And I guess in the America I’m describing you might be banned from burning a flag _in the streets_, if enough people were offended enough (which as I’ve noted, I’m abstractly willing to let slide to “one person” and “enough to complain” for the sake of argument). This would be a bit of a less-free america than we have…but based on existing things like anti-nudity laws and such, I’m not sure it would be _that_ much less free. Well, yeah, but you boil a frog by slowly raising the temperature and all that. Walking veeeery carefully and with baby steps along the slope doesn’t make it any less slippery 😛 > [@](#): > > Vetos _can_ be overturned, though. So being overturnable by a higher authority on legitimate grounds doesn’t mean the veto power has been removed. (I think that answers this sufficiently.) It’s a turtles-all-the-way-down thing. If the veto can be overturned by a higher authority, and the minority isn’t represented in the higher authority with a similar veto power, then the lower veto is essentialy meaningless - it might take longer to get intimated to suck it, but the net result is the same. Again, I don’t think I can come up with a system where the minority can enforce its will on the majority without it either not being democratic, or the enforcement not “real”. > [@](#): > > Actually distributing seditious material is _usually_ done between confederates and like minded people, so far as I know. Underground movements and all that. > And when you want to convince others, well, for that I offer the textual exception. You may be as seditious as you like so long as you leave the horrifying images off the placards and keep your pants on. Pfff, party killer. I don’t care, I’ll get my pants off and hide my hanging bits with my textual placards. Neener, neener ! 😃 > [@](#): > > The question is, is that the threshold at the noise-maker’s property line, or the complainer’s? The issue is muddied when the fence is one and the same, so let’s put the complainer on the opposite side of the road. They call the cops, who are pedantic enough to bring a device that measures decibels to determine whether it’s _techically_ a violation. Which side of the road do they measure at? You know, that’s an excellent point. I believe you’ve caught me confirmation biasing all over myself, there. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/187 "2009-05-15T21:53:11Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Well, to take an example from _Die Hard 3_ (hey ! If Scalia can use 24 to make legal points, I’m allowed too ! :)), walk around Harlem or Compton holding a placard that reads “I hate niggers” in big bold letters, and you’re going to find out pretty fast, and might I add pretty permanently, how visceraly offensive mere words can be to some ;). > > I also don’t think the length of the text matters, since you can pull a textual bait-and-switch to great effect, in fact to greater effect than plain rethoric. Bathos example : “Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no enemies, because I’m a mean motherfucker and I got a gun”. I’m convinced there’s at least one rabid Christian out there who’ll yell SACRILEGE ! YOU DON’T DEFACE SCRIPTURE ! upon hearing/reading that. Not to be picky, but the _Die Hard 3_ example doesn’t meet my understanding of the term “visceral”. (After all, they had to take a second glance and process the text a bit before realizing they were offended.) That may be a personal definition problem and is probably irrelevent to the point anyway, however - Even if text _is_ capable of offending (which it clearly is), I remain unconvinced that text offends in the same manner that images do, and taking that in combination with the fact that textual and verbal speech seems somehow more integral to discourse than pictures I conclude that were I the animatronic monkey in charge I might unfetter the restricting of public imagery based on trying to avoid offending people, but I would not be willing to allow the restricting of speech and text for the same reason. > [@Kobal2](#): > > _frothing_ Why did you expound on the second point first ?! WHY ?! Are you consciously trying to offend my sense of order ?! 🙂 I am a consecutivity terrorist, and a harbinger of anarchy! Bwahahaha! > [@Kobal2](#): > > Not sure I agree with the distinction, or if it’s meaningful - or if it is, not sure that distinction can be precisely and unambiguously framed with words. I mean, I instinctively know whether what I’m watching is porn or merely explicit sex, but I’m not sure I could frame or explain why this is this and that is just that. > > In any case : is the text exemption still valid here ? Is viscerally offensive text reluctantly OK to you ? I can see a distinction, which is good enough for me - even if it is a little fuzzy around the edges. And I enthusiastically and happily approve of offensive text! Even if it manages to be viscerally offesnive, despite my not thinking that’s possible! > [@Kobal2](#): > > … but at one point you’re gonna have to make up your mind. Either there are limits to the level of protection individuals can expect, or one person offended enough to complain is enough to get any offending item removed. I’ve been saying all along it depends on what the item in question is, so clearly there _is_ a limit. It just doesn’t line up perfectly with the limit “anything that’s offensive to at least one person”. For example, in theory you might make somebody take down their giant schlong statue due to one complaint, but you wouldn’t remove all the yield signs even if two or even _three_ people complained. It’s not so much a double standard as a _different_ standard, that accomodates the sensitive pansy types where it can but doesn’t sacrifice everything else to do so. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Well, yeah, but you boil a frog by slowly raising the temperature and all that. Walking veeeery carefully and with baby steps along the slope doesn’t make it any less slippery 😛 There _is_ a bumper stop on the slope a short way down, though. It’s not like I’m advocating a complete and unfettered decay into anarchy, except with regard to consecutivity. > [@Kobal2](#): > > It’s a turtles-all-the-way-down thing. If the veto can be overturned by a higher authority, and the minority isn’t represented in the higher authority with a similar veto power, then the lower veto is essentialy meaningless - it might take longer to get intimated to suck it, but the net result is the same. Again, I don’t think I can come up with a system where the minority can enforce its will on the majority without it either not being democratic, or the enforcement not “real”. \ So there’s no such thing as a veto then. Big deal. Restricting me from using the term “veto” doesn’t change the fact that I am theoretically supporting letting a single man make you put your pants back on or go inside, should we let the slope slip that far. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Pfff, party killer. I don’t care, I’ll get my pants off and hide my hanging bits with my textual placards. Neener, neener ! 😃 The animatronic monkey says that as long as you obstruct the view from all angles that a person on the public road is likely to find themselves viewing you from, placard pants are a-okay! 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2009, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/188 "2009-05-15T23:34:55Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Not to be picky, but the _Die Hard 3_ example doesn’t meet my understanding of the term “visceral”. (After all, they had to take a second glance and process the text a bit before realizing they were offended.) To be totally picky, I think it was less a matter of processing the text, but rather the idea that there could really be a guy with a sign like that in that place. Total cognitive dissonance, there. Thankfully, one that can be empirically resolved through applied firepower : if the impossible guy dies when shot, he’s not a figment of the imagination :D. > [@](#): > > That may be a personal definition problem and is probably irrelevent to the point anyway, however - Even if text _is_ capable of offending (which it clearly is), I remain unconvinced that text offends in the same manner that images do, and taking that in combination with the fact that textual and verbal speech seems somehow more integral to discourse than pictures I conclude that were I the animatronic monkey in charge I might unfetter the restricting of public imagery based on trying to avoid offending people, but I would not be willing to allow the restricting of speech and text for the same reason. All right, then. I think I disagree (on the basis that I’ve yet to be offended by any image - yucked yes, shocked yes, offended no), but I understand your point and can respect it. > [@](#): > > I am a consecutivity terrorist, and a harbinger of anarchy! Bwahahaha! When my glorious revolution seizes power, your loathsome kind will be the first against the wall. > [@](#): > > I can see a distinction, which is good enough for me - even if it is a little fuzzy around the edges. But in practical terms, whether or not that distinction can be framed and articulated unambiguously in the form of a law is the big issue, isn’t it ? > [@](#): > > And I enthusiastically and happily approve of offensive text! Even if it manages to be viscerally offesnive, despite my not thinking that’s possible! Groovy. May I push my luck and ask “even if it’s a direct incitation to crime ?” (which, amongst the varieties of harmful speech offered to me earlier in the thread, is the one I find the least actually harmful, paradoxically) > [@](#): > > I’ve been saying all along it depends on what the item in question is, so clearly there _is_ a limit. It just doesn’t line up perfectly with the limit “anything that’s offensive to at least one person”. For example, in theory you might make somebody take down their giant schlong statue due to one complaint, but you wouldn’t remove all the yield signs even if two or even _three_ people complained. It’s not so much a double standard as a _different_ standard, that accomodates the sensitive pansy types where it can but doesn’t sacrifice everything else to do so. Yes, yes, I understand and acknowledge your point. But to me the big hurdle isn’t that there are some things that are more reasonably objectionable than others, that’s fairly evident - Principles aside, I realize that, for a variety of cultural rather than objective reasons, to most rational thinkers me walking around _au naturel_ is a tad more difficult to sit down and shut up about than me walking around wearing the wrong, offensive shade of orange (you know the one). The problem is, again, to unambiguously articulate the various deciding factors governing where and when a complaint becomes “one complainer is enough” sort of reasonable without that law either not covering everything you would find one-complainer-worthy, or being liable to abuse & banning things that you \*would \*find unreasonable to. > [@](#): > > The animatronic monkey says that as long as you obstruct the view from all angles that a person on the public road is likely to find themselves viewing you from, placard pants are a-okay! 🆒 Hurray ! I’d do a victory dance, but there’d be a risk of placard slippage ☹ ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2009, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/189 "2009-05-16T00:23:00Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > To be totally picky, I think it was less a matter of processing the text, but rather the idea that there could really be a guy with a sign like that in that place. Total cognitive dissonance, there. Thankfully, one that can be empirically resolved through applied firepower : if the impossible guy dies when shot, he’s not a figment of the imagination :D. I think there’s _both_ delays - the first one being perhaps one second long. > [@Kobal2](#): > > All right, then. I think I disagree (on the basis that I’ve yet to be offended by any image - yucked yes, shocked yes, offended no), but I understand your point and can respect it. I actually am as much or more concerned about the ‘yucking’ images than the ones that cause actual offense. The basic principle I’m arguing from is that a person has a right (within certain limits) to travel through public spaces and not have their day ruined by what they see en-route, if at all possible. Based on that, if there was a picture that didn’t offend anybody but instead caused everybody who saw it to feel queasy and half of them to puke, that would _definitely_ be something to consider removing. > [@Kobal2](#): > > But in practical terms, whether or not that distinction can be framed and articulated unambiguously in the form of a law is the big issue, isn’t it ? You don’t have to be distinct about the reasoning behind the law if the law itself is sufficiently unambiguous. And “Nothing will be considered for removal based on the type of content it conveys through interpretation of printed text or verbal speech” is just about as unambiguous as it gets. > [@Kobal2](#): > > May I push my luck and ask “even if it’s a direct incitation to crime ?” (which, amongst the varieties of harmful speech offered to me earlier in the thread, is the one I find the least actually harmful, paradoxically) Even if it’s a direct incitation to crime. If the crime is actually incited, then the crime is of course still illegal and must be dealt with, of course. And I am completely unimpressed with ‘fighting words’ as a justification for physical violence. (The proper response to fighting words, is, of course, to reply in kind with as loud and rude of invective as you can contrive. That’s the _civilized_ response to such things.) > [@Kobal2](#): > > The problem is, again, to unambiguously articulate the various deciding factors governing where and when a complaint becomes “one complainer is enough” sort of reasonable without that law either not covering everything you would find one-complainer-worthy, or being liable to abuse & banning things that you \*would \*find unreasonable to. Well, presuming that a municipality decided to implement a policy of sanitizing the view from public roads, they would clearly have to make grant some individual, group, or groups the authority to judge complaints and arrange some method by which the determinations would be made and enforced. (I’ve lately begun calling such groups the ‘animatronic monkey’.) Presumably the monkey would either handle every case individually, start building a ‘case law’ where the determinations of later cases would refer back to prior cases, or go all the way to writing everything out in formally codified rules/laws that would take effect after they had been written and apply to everyone thereafter. It would also be up to the monkey to decide which complaints had sufficient merit, support, vehemence, and/or practicality to be granted, and which would not be. Presumably when all these mechanisms were in place the mere existence of the specific mechanisms used would remove some of the ambiguity you are concerned about. For myself, I’m not worried about any of that, because I’m more arguing the broad principle than any specific mechanics. As far as I’m concerned there are various ways the monkey could set up and enforce this, and any of them are as valid as any other. (Well, give or take if they torture offenders on the rack or something, obiously. You know what I meant.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044.md?page=9)