# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/41 "2009-05-12T02:05:27Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I live in a country where [an openly racist, negationist, antisemitic and fascist party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Front_(France)) garners 15 to 20% of the votes in every election, **and might have had a real shot at getting a President elected in 2002.** And of course, there was that whole collaboration thing during WW2 which for many, many French wasn’t unwelcome at all. > I stand by my own viewpoint 🙂 That’s not how I remember it. Wasn’t it a result of a combination of the French electoral system and the splitting of the right wing vote allowing Le Pen to finish just ahead and thereby become entitled to participate in the run-off? And wasn’t there a massive landslide in the actual election resulting in a Chirac victory? And wasn’t this preceeded by huge demonstrations against Le Pen? checks wikipedia… yes Chirac wins with 82% of the vote - pretty major for a Presidential election in a western democracy. So he never had a “real shot” at becoming President. And he only got as many votes as he did because everyone hated Chirac (thought of as a crook). In the next election - the [2007 Presidential election](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2007) - he finished fourth which sounds good until you look at the parties he finished ahead of (in order): the Revolutionary Communist League the Movement For France (anti-islam, euro-sceptic) the French Communist Party the Greens the Workers Struggle Jose Bove (an anti-globalisation candidate) the Hunting, Fishing, Nature, Tradition candidate the Workers Party French politics, sheesh. Mind you, I wouldn’t want it any other way. ---
**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 12, 2009, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/42 "2009-05-12T02:07:43Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > But films are considered speech. So you accept that there can be limits on speech. Now, we have a starting point. Actually, I haven’t. I merely stated that this particular speech cannot be made without committing a crime, but that is not equivalent to saying the speech itself is a crime. > [@](#): > > And, just for the record, there are thousands of videos showing many, many real crimes, that are protected. Simply saying that the speech involved showed the commission of a crime doesn’t seem to be the determining factor in whether it is protected or not. Nitpick. Yes, showing a security cam video of a murder taking place is protected. That might have to do with the fact that the guys didn’t install the camera for the purpose of shooting a murder. Kiddie porn is a crime committed for the express purpose of showing it. > [@](#): > > Intriguing idea. But, as I pointed out, rights have always had limits, including when the exercise of those rights harms another person. The same is true of libel/slander. When the exercise of your “right” causes distinct and actual harm to another, it’s no longer a “right”. Or does my right to swing my arm not matter if it connects with your face? I believe you have the right to bear arms, not swing them. _rimshot_ I contend that while actions can harm, speech cannot. If (as in the above example) my boss fires me over slander, it is my boss firing me I have an issue with, not the slander itself. > [@](#): > > And, again, we’re back to the fact that much speech that shows a crime has been considered free speech. See above. > [@](#): > > We’re not talking about “usually”, you made an absolutist statement. You must defend it. Provide an example of secret information the lawful knowledge of which wouldn’t involve a written, oral or implicit contract not to spread it. > [@](#): > > The idea is the same expressed earlier for advocating immediate lawless action being another limitation on free speech. And I contend that it’s not. If someone tells me to “kill the cops ! kill the cops !”, I’m still the one who thought it was a good idea and threw a molotov cocktail. No one put a gun to my head (and if they did, that not speech, is it ? ;)) > [@](#): > > Rights are not absolute. They never have been, and, thankfully, they never will be. Rights are limited when the exercise of those rights effect others. Repeat after me : speech can’t hurt me, or society. Only actions can. Speech is not an action. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/43 "2009-05-12T02:12:56Z")
How is speech not an action? And how do you feel about false advertising? ---
**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 12, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/44 "2009-05-12T02:14:19Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > In a nutshell, when the exercise of a “right” has the direct effect of harming another or society, it is reasonable to limit that right. The basic idea behind that is that actions are judged by their consequences, and negative consequences can be limited by the government. If you’re looking for more, I suppose we could spend a few years going over utilitarianism, libertarianism, and the entirety of social theory, but I thought my statements wouldn’t require that much detail. > > And, again, it seems to me that using the term “reasonable limits” would kind of negate the idea of “absolutes” in favor for a case by case determination. To each their own. I was asking you specifically about your views of child pornography, since you seem so certain about that, despite the link in the OP that indicates laws are very different in Japan from the US for instance, and the complex relationship of pornography and free speech issues in the US and probably elsewhere. I just wonder where you come about your certainty in discussing such legal matters, because I noticed not a single citation to any legal analysis of the issue. ---
**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 12, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/45 "2009-05-12T02:15:10Z")
> [@mutantmoose](#): > > That’s not how I remember it. Wasn’t it a result of a combination of the French electoral system and the splitting of the right wing vote allowing Le Pen to finish just ahead and thereby become entitled to participate in the run-off? > > And wasn’t there a massive landslide in the actual election resulting in a Chirac victory? And wasn’t this preceeded by huge demonstrations against Le Pen? > > checks wikipedia… yes Chirac wins with 82% of the vote - pretty major for a Presidential election in a western democracy. So he never had a “real shot” at becoming President. And he only got as many votes as he did because everyone hated Chirac (thought of as a crook). Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time it wasn’t all that clear cut :). There wouldn’t have \*been \*demonstrations (and calls to outlaw the party alltogether) if nobody thought there was a chance, however slight. Anyway, I’d be happy to discuss it somewhere else if you will, but let’s not hijack the thread, shall we ? ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Mouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mighty_mouse/32/7776_2.png) [@Mighty\_Mouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Mouse)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/46 "2009-05-12T02:15:35Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Go to their competitor, and tell them I’ve got a golden story for them 😉 “XYZ (some obscure person) is not a child molester.” isn’t much of a headline. ---
**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 12, 2009, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/47 "2009-05-12T02:16:15Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The only “claim” I’ve made that is open to citation is that libel and slander are, by definition, false. Do you actually need me to cite that? I thought it was fairly self-evident. Yes. I think if you research the available defenses to slander and libel claims for various types of parties in various places in the world, you might find that they are not what you think they are. So, yeah, I do need citations. ---
**Author:** ![mutantmoose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a87d85/32.png) [@mutantmoose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mutantmoose)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/48 "2009-05-12T02:27:00Z")
> [@](#): > > let’s not hijack the thread, shall we ? ok. But it _was_ that clear cut - I remember it very clearly (I’ve got a degree in French politics so I’m always interested in their elections). There was no chance Le Pen was going to win. Even at the time, we all knew that. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/49 "2009-05-12T02:37:46Z")
9/11 Conspiracy theories really really bother me for some reason. I can’t really explain why - it’s not like I’m a Republican or anything. I’ve spent a lot of time reading about the subject and I’m convinced that the CTs aren’t innocent or misguided or mistaken - they’re deliberate lies. I guess I’m afraid of the slippery slope of using every major event to promote your ideology, no matter how much you have to lie to do so. And IME, at the heart of almost every conspiracy and conspiracist is radicalism and/or racism. That being said, I’m afraid of the slippery slope of censoring them too. Free speech means free speech and sometimes that sucks ass. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/50 "2009-05-12T02:50:35Z")
> [@not\_alice](#): > > Yes. I think if you research the available defenses to slander and libel claims for various types of parties in various places in the world, you might find that they are not what you think they are. > So, yeah, I do need citations. [Slander.](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander) [Libel.](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel) Happy now? ---
**Author:** ![Isamu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/7c8e57/32.png) [@Isamu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Isamu)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/51 "2009-05-12T03:20:19Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > - invasion of privacy : not sure about that one, can you give me an example ? Sure. Say you contracted HIV and you want to keep it a secret. Not for any nefarious purposes, you just don’t want anyone to know. But your doctor thinks differently and decides to tell your friends, family co-workers etc. ---
**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 12, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/52 "2009-05-12T03:37:09Z")
> [@Isamu](#): > > Sure. Say you contracted HIV and you want to keep it a secret. Not for any nefarious purposes, you just don’t want anyone to know. But your doctor thinks differently and decides to tell your friends, family co-workers etc. Oh, OK. Thank you. I would say the doctor/patient confidentiality contract would be the actionable item in this specific case, but I can also now see a more common scenario : gossip. Well, is that against the law ? Should it be ? [QUOTE=Miller] How is speech not an action? [/QUOTE] How is speech an action ? > [@](#): > > And how do you feel about false advertising? Can’t abide pleonasm, that much is true. ---
**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 12, 2009, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/53 "2009-05-12T04:02:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > [Slander.](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander) > > [Libel.](http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/libel) > > Happy now? The sun depth of the understanding of these complex legal issues is a couple of definitions in an online dictionary? Did you even understand my question? ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/54 "2009-05-12T04:10:21Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Free speech which is an simply an expression of ideas, however retarded, should be unrestricted. A pamphlet on “Why we should kill and eat nigger babies” is going to get about the attention it deserves. There is a larger good served by not trying to regulate the expression of ideas. Among other things, outlawing words and ideas simply weaponizes them. Ignore flag burning–it goes away with the peanut minds expressing themselves. Outlaw flag burning and you give the same boobs a stage upon which to make their statement with their newly weaponized behaviour. It is not the law which protects us from the idea that raping women is wrong. It is a common consensus of propriety. If all ideas are protected equally, I am confident that a consensus proscribing rape will prevail. I agree. This is just wrong: > [@](#): > > [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap\_on\_re\_us/us\_terrorism\_tv\_1](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_re_us/us_terrorism_tv_1) > > 6 years in prison for airing Hezbollah TV in NYC > > A Pakistani immigrant whom a prosecutor called “Hezbollah’s man in New York City” has been sentenced to nearly six years in prison for airing the Lebanese militant group’s television station. > > Javed Iqbal (jah-VED’ IK’-bahl) was ordered by a federal judge in Manhattan on Thursday to serve five years and nine months for putting the broadcasts of Al Manar among stations he sent to customers in New York. > > Prosecutor Eric Snyder says Iqbal helped the TV station get out Hezbollah’s message. He says the organization had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group before Sept. 11, 2001. > > Iqbal lawyer Josh Dratel says his client didn’t intend to aid Hezbollah as he tried to build his television station distribution company. ---
**Author:** ![Knightrunner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/7c8e57/32.png) [@Knightrunner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knightrunner)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/55 "2009-05-12T04:58:40Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > It serves to expose the lie, and giving me the means to counter the baseless accusation. One paper says I’m a bad guy, the other says the first are lying liars who didn’t do the research, and prove it without a shred of doubt. I come out on top, don’t I ? Of course, people might still believe the first paper on account of “where there’s smoke”, but that kind of stinkin’ thinking survives a lawsuit. > Besides that, if my fiancée trusts a random unsourced newspaper over my word, good riddance ;). As to the other two, I dunno the legal situation in the US, but wouldn’t I be able to sue either my boss, my landlord or both of them under anti-discrimination laws ? It is illegal to fire someone for having a prison record, isn’t it ? And again, I fail to see how suing the newspaper for slander is giving me my job, house and girlfriend back… Your idea in the first paragraph doesn’t really resolve anything; it’s just two competing claims. If libel and slander are legal and there is no recourse, then my newspaper could counter every story your newspaper prints with more made-up garbage. Since we are both free to lie without fear of penalty, we are free to invent our own “evidence” and (since, presumably, the public realizes this) I fail to see how one source would be considered much more reliable than another. As for the second paragraph, perhaps your fiancée/boss/landlord trusts you, but just can’t handle the media/legal/social pressure. Even if you eventually exonerate yourself with some self-made media blitz, you have expended a great deal of time, effort, and money that you will never be compensated for. A well-funded slander campaign could distract or bankrupt a political opponent or business competitor- such things do happen in areas of the world where libel/slander laws are weak or not enforced. And yes, these accusations can cause real financial hardships to the victim. Unnecessary legal fees, time taken off from work, and added personal security measures are some of the real costs that might be incurred by a libeled individual. Suing the newspaper won’t get your house, job, or girlfriend back (maybe). But the threat that you might sue would prevent the newspaper from ever printing slander about you in the first place, preventing the problem entirely. Or, they could be legally obligated to print a retraction/correction. Does sending a violent criminal to prison help the victim in any way? Unlikely, but the threat of being sent to prison can be a deterrent, and prevent the potential victim from being hurt in the first place. Libel and slander laws work the same way. If you can’t imagine what use they would be, it’s because they are working. Your original post seems to suggest that it is perfectly legitimate for a newspaper (or TV station, etc.) to deliberately and maliciously lie to sell papers (or airtime) or to damage those they perceive as enemies/competitors- and that they have no obligation to publish corrections even if proven wrong (although without court involvement, I’m not sure how a slander/libel victim could legally ‘prove’ anything). Is this really what you’re advocating? ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/56 "2009-05-12T05:30:46Z")
Hey **not\_alice** , name a U.S. state. ---
**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 12, 2009, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/57 "2009-05-12T05:36:26Z")
> [@Randy\_Seltzer](#): > > Hey **not\_alice** , name a U.S. state. Gee let me look up Disney Maps or [BibleStudy.com](http://BibleStudy.com) Seriously, you go and argue that all anyone anywhere in the world needs to know about libel and slander is in an online general dictionary, and that it is definitely the same everywhere. It is not like, say a “law dictionary” might have more nuance, or that differences in such cases are not noted regularly in the news when such cases involve celebrities for example. No, none of that ever happens. Yeah, you go ahead and do that. Amuse us with your verbal legerdemain 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/58 "2009-05-12T05:40:09Z")
I figure a government censor can do harm than any number of skeevy writers. And I’ve played the game described in the OP. It got boring. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/59 "2009-05-12T05:49:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > I figure a government censor can do harm than any number of skeevy writers. > > And I’ve played the game described in the OP. It got boring. It _sounds_ boring. The developers probably started the controversy themselves for some much-needed publicity. I wouldn’t be surprised if Equality Now (whoever the fuck that is) is on their payroll. ---
**Author:** ![Randy\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee7513/32.png) [@Randy\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randy_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044/60 "2009-05-12T05:51:57Z")
Well, you didn’t mention a state, but you did mention Disney, so I’ll take that to mean Florida. > [@19 Fla. Jur 2d Defamation and Privacy § 2](#): > > “Defamation,”[FN1] which is libel and slander,[FN2] may generally be defined as the unprivileged publication of false statements that naturally and proximately result in an injury to another.[FN3] I wouldn’t argue that you can learn everything you need about the law from a dictionary, but as a law student who wrote his first year memo about libel, I can tell you that falsity is always a requirement for a defamation claim. Every legal definition of libel from every U.S. jurisdiction will say so. Arguing otherwise is just silly. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-limits-to-free-speech-what-tests-you/496044.md?page=4)