I don’t want a debate ( but I can already see this become one).
This is mainly a question for the mods or admin (“hi”), but feel free to share your thoughts… please try hard not to make this into a debate, as I do want a factual answer.
In this thread I learned about the US bill of rights re Free Speech and was surprised to learn (through reading further into googled articles) that a group can publicly spread ratial hate against another racial/religious group, without fearing the law, and further, being able to sue if it is restricted from doing so. (This is the gist of it, and stop me here if I’m wrong on this)
NOW to my question.… can I sue Cecil (and the gang) for stopping me from spreading my (theoretical) hatred here on the SDMB? The rules state that I cannot “…use the SDMB to post any material that [is] defamatory, inaccurate, […] hateful, harassing, […] threatening…”
In aust we have free speech, but we also have the ratial hatred act, in which case the SDMB gang would have the RIGHT to ban me, without fear… but how can the SDMB gang do that without fear according to the US law??
You have the right to free speech in a public setting. The SDMB is privately owned and controlled so they can moderate however they chose. You have no right to go into a private institution and be heard.
As has been said, freedom of speech applies only to the government. This message board is a privately owned entity, and can place restrictions on what is posted here.
Ahhhh… that makes sense. Thank you for the quick replies.
One more question…
I have a “we hate [a group]” protest, on public property (road), in the middle of a quitet neighbourhood 2am in the morning, with drums and trumpets playing loudly. Can I be stopped?? (for “disturbing the peace” maybe) … and if I can, why isn’t a daytime ratial protest “disturbing the peace” as well?? (cites?)
because “Time and Place” legal restrictions that are neutral as to content are not considered a breach of the constitutional protection of free speech. If a municipality passes a noise bylaw that says “no public demonstrations in residential areas between 9p.m. and 7 a.m.”, and that restriction is applied to any and all demonstrations, without favouring or opposing any particular message, there’s no infringement of free speech.
So… can a municipality restrict demonstrations from 7am to 7am (ie 24/7) ?? Or is there a law restricting a municipality from restricting protests 24/7??
(and I’m not trying to be a smartass… I actually want to unerstand these laws)
I’m going to bet the answer to that one is “no” since that means they are in fact totally banning protests and they don’t have any rational reason for doing so. I’m certain that there are circumstances where it would be valid to have a “no loud noise 24x7” ordinance (say, immediately around a hospital for people with Perpetual Agonizing Headaches) but that’d be a mighty narrow situation.
Yes… that’s common sense. The reason to me starting this thread was becasue in yet another thread, I was caught out for using MY common sense. I don’t want a discussion on that particular matter here, so I wont mention the specifics, but when I used common sence in saying a person had no right, I was corrected by being pointed to the US bill of rights.
So I would like proper cites - not saying your contribution isn’t valid (and I would totally agree with you in any other discussion).
Freedom of Speech is not absolute. The best example is “yelling fire in a crowded theatre.”
You have a right to say what you want, but there are limitations. For instance, if what your saying is liable to incite a crowd to riot, you cannot say that. Now that becomes a judgement call. For instance, something said in public, could cause one reaction one day and another reaction another day.
For instance, if after the Rodney King verdict you started saying racial things, you may be inciting a crowd, if you said it now years later, it might not be.
So it’s not only what you say but the context of what you say.
Municipalities may restrict things, like perfoming on subway platforms, to one location on that platform. They can restrict noise and talk in hospital zones.
As long as there is a clear and beneficial reason for restricting one’s speech, courts will generally say it’s OK. But the freedom to speak is top UNLESS you can show WHY it shouldn’t be, such as danger to public safety or disturbing the peace.
There are also restrictions on commercial speech, libel and slander laws and obscenity is not protected (although as a big fan of obscenity, I think it should be).
‘Reasonable’ time and place restrictions. Can’t say “never” unless there is a reason that is reasonable (say, for example, right outside the White House windows).
It’s been proven out in the courts time and again that the Klan and Neo-Nazi groups and everybody else are pretty much allowed to march in common-sense places, and that so are counter protesters. Just don’t throw any rocks.
Maybe I can clarify/confuse this a little more. A city has a right to make you get a permit for an in-the-street demonstration. They might not let you have the street you want, or the time you want, but they are obligated to give you a permit for a non-violent demonstration.
Sadly we are seeing more and more use of “Free Speech Zones” where, essentially, the government lets people protest but makes sure they are well out of sight.
The first amendment doesn’t just protect free speech:
The part I bolded means that the government can’t restrict you from getting together in a protest, subject to certain limitations, such as noise ordinances, requiring permits, etc.
And up until I read your post, I was jokingly thinking that, why don’t governments/cities just make “free speech areas” , but build them in Whoop Whoop (slang: far away), protect the freedom act and at the same time “censor” people.
The government is a republic, so also need to answer to the people why a certain restriction is made. They also are required to treat all people equal regardless of their message. They need to be able to justify any restrictions are for the safety of the people and the intent is not censorship. Balancing these things together can often be a difficult task.
The populace may have a much different opinion when the city says all assemblies may only happen in whoop whoop and when they realize they themselves have to go to whoop whoop to watch the traditional memorial day parade. If the memorial day parade is on main street the KKK parade has a similar right to have their parade there.
Free speech zones are typically the result of counter groups that want to be present at the same time. Say the republican party holds a rally they ask to use a specific area for a specific time. The democratic party has interest in voicing objections to what will be said there. Since the republicans have already ‘reserved’ the right to a specific area at a specific the city can reasonable claim protesters can’t occupy the same place at the same time. This leads to protesters being forced to an area where they may be out of view.
Some aspects of the laws may still be unclear and will not be clarified until yet another court case comes along.