Drawing the Line Between Free Speech and Terrorism.

[griffin1977]

@Isamu

Well, no not in a way that directly effects freedom of speech. More of a case where you first said the discriminatory remarks and then impeded an official investigation, for example.

Yeah, and if you rob a bank on the way to the work before the interview that also would put you in danger of prosecution, that’s not really relevant to this discussion however.

[DavidwithanR]

@griffin1977

I thought you meant civil libel which is a fundamentally different thing to criminal prosecution as discussed in my last post.

If you mean obstruction of justice (by deliberately reporting crimes that did not happen), then again that is a crime can include speech, as with the other examples.

I was asking based on your assertion that all these words are part of a crime, and not cases of infringing someone else’s rights. I think it’s clear that your assertion is not true, and that freedom of speech is indeed limited because of the effect it can have on another person’s rights.

[griffin1977]

@DavidwithanR

I was asking based on your assertion that all these words are part of a crime, and not cases of infringing someone else’s rights. I think it’s clear that your assertion is not true, and that freedom of speech is indeed limited because of the effect it can have on another person’s rights.

No it is not.

Speech CAN be part of a crime (obstructions of justice, making threats, conspiracy, etc.).

Speech does not in and of itself infringe anyone’s rights, that is not why those things are defined as a crime.

Saying thing unpleasant or offensive (even saying someones rights should be infringed) does not infringe anyone’s rights. No matter how offensive that might be to all right thinking people.

[WillReadmore]

@griffin1977

No it is not.

Speech CAN be part of a crime (obstructions of justice, making threats, conspiracy, etc.).

Speech does not in and of itself infringe anyone’s rights, that is not why those things are defined as a crime.

Saying thing unpleasant or offensive (even saying someones rights should be infringed) does not infringe anyone’s rights. No matter how offensive that might be to all right thinking people.

In my experience it is a matter of scale and the context.

The speech itself can be excessive in some way - dependant on what the “speaker” is saying, etc… You are NOT free to simply say any damn thing you want.

It can have to do with what’s going on - whether the “speaker” has been ordered to desist by the government for some reason, whether the location is not included as a location for free speech (such as private property), whether volume is too high, whether it is causing unacceptable disruption, whether it’s a case where permits are required, etc.

[D_Anconia]

@Kimstu

Well, IANAL, so we’d need one of the Doper legal eagles to address this question authoritatively, but I have some cites of other lawyers addressing it:
Some jurists seem to situate the right to physical security ultimately within a constitutional right to bodily integrity/autonomy manifested in, e.g., “the constitutional guarantee of respect for personal immunities protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment”. That source also notes that

To turn your dime-store version of Socratic elenchus around, let me ask, whence do you think that jurists derive the validity of legally prohibiting violent assault (and forms of speech that directly incite violent assault) if not from an underlying concept of the right to be physically secure? Do you think they just say “ooh, hitting people’s not nice so laws against it are okay”?

The Constitution limits the government, not individuals.

Calling someone a pedophile, to use an example from this thread, does NOT take away anyone’s rights.