What is specifically NOT covered by free speech?

Great Debates
1

Pit Thread staple Fred Phelps, best known for his charity work, has just been found liable to the tune of several million dollars for protesting at the funeral of a dead serviceman (who was not gay of course, but that’s no longer necessary). Here’s the pit thread and the current MPSIMS thread on the lawsuit, while google news has the stories.

Many (including the ACLUS) are complaining that this violates Phelps’ free speech rights. While I can understand why it would be censorship and violation of free speech to close down god hates fags dot com or to refuse to allow him to preach his bile in his church or in auditoriums, I honestly don’t understand how it’s a violation to stop him from screaming obscene-vulgar-profane (not necessarily in the 7 words you can’t say on TV sense but in the decency sense) and psychotic vitriol at completely innocent people in a moment of grief and in so doing clearly and without cause or provocation intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon grieving relatives and loved ones.

What is NOT covered by the right to freedom of speech/expression? I know the Fire in a Crowded Building cliche, but I’m talking more about stuff that isn’t potentially harmful in and of itself as that would be or subject to libel/slander. If I were to hold up a sign or wear a shirt covered with sexual vulgarities, is that protected? Suppose it had racist or homophobic slurs- is that protected? If not, why not if Fred is protected when he uses the hate term fags especially, or signs depicting sexual acts [albeit with stick drawings] where children, including children from his own family, are present?

This is truly an informational request but I figure it’s more apropos to GD than GQ since there’s bound to be disagreement.

2

“Fighting words” is generally not protected speech.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

Several supreme court case link on that page

3

Has anyone else wondered what might be at the root of Fred Phelps obsessional hatred of gays?

Could it be that deep down he might be a trifle concerned that he might have HARRUMPH ! some sort of urges that he is desperately bottling up?

Personally I’m not gay,though I’m pretty fucking gorgeous and would definitely be a target for any predatory gays,but I dont feel any hatred against gays.

I think Freddy "candy arse"Phelps should come clean about one or two things myself.

4

But no actual real-life predatory gays have propositioned you yet :slight_smile:

Though I agree that people like Phelps, who have such serious issues about homosexuality, must either be putting up a big public front to hide their raging queerness, or be suffering serious doubts about their own sexuality. Nice straight guys like us don’t hate gays like that.

5

I actually don’t think that’s the case with Phelps; if it weren’t gays he’d probably be hosting racist or misogynistic or anti-Cuban bandleaders married to zany redhead sites. The man’s just first order psycho, always has been. (He’s also brilliant- a child prodigy and excellent student in college- but malicious and nuts all his life.)

6

It is possible to cause harm to another with nothing but words. While the constitutional protection of the right to free expression constrains the government from prior restraint of your expression, it does not excuse you from responsibility for that harm. The Phelps faction was deliberate, and cruel in their expression, and caused suffering. Their right to do so was honored by the government, and the right of the victim to sue for damages is also honored. There is no real issue of constitutional violation.

With every right comes a responsibility. The entire action was taken with planning, and complete cooperation of the congregation, so the entire congregation is responsible to pay the damages. Not only that, but every other victim of the many instances of the WBC should sue as well. Their suffering is certainly worthy of compensation as well.

Tris

7

Eh! no real life Gays have propositioned me yet but only because they probably think that they’d have no chance,not because I’m straight but because I am so obviously out of their reach.
Fucking hell I’m lovely!

I detect a touch of irony in your post !
Sorry me old mucker but a young lissome woman,a young lissome male,how long would that take me to make my mind up?

I Know my answer.

8

Hey baby, how 'bout I give you the Michelangelo treatment? What’s that you ask? Some Italian dinner and wine, then you’re on your back with your legs in the air thinking about God and Jesus and heaven…

From: Sampiro, real-life gay
(Now you can say you’ve been propositioned by one)

9

Thank god for that !Iwas starting to think that I was somehow unattractive!
Quite honestly if I’m ever in your neck of the woods I’m more then ready to go for a meal with you and your mates,but not Italian ,if I want to eat shit I’ll go to a stable.

I’m not gay and even if you try to get me pissed up you still wont have your evil way.
That apart its good talking to you .

10

I’m guessing that Trisk has it, here.

The man wasn’t charged with a crime, which would make it a state v. citizen issue. He was hit with a civil lawsuit/damages. The government itself hasn’t involved itself much here, other than to provide the venue for the litigants to seek redress for a perceived wrong in an orderly “civilised” manner.

No 1st amendment issue here.

11

I found a really comprehensive list of non-protected speech on wiki once. Hold on…

:searches:

Here it is.

[quote]
[ul][li]Defamation (slander and libel) [/li][li]Product defamation (criticism of commercial products; sometimes called product libel or product disparagement; for example, the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act) [/li][li]Obscenity [/li][li]Lying in court (perjury) [/li][li]Talking out of turn during a trial, or talk that causes contempt of court [/li][li]Speaking about a trial outside the court room after the judge forbids it (subjudicy). [/li][li]Speaking publicly without a permit [/li][li]Speaking publicly outside of a free speech zone [/li][li]Limits on the size of public demonstrations [/li][li]Profanity on television [/li][li]Hate speech that is defamatory or causes incitement to violence [/li][li]Noise pollution [/li][li]Speech that contains a copyright infringement [/li][li]Company secrets (trade secrets), such as how a product is made or company strategy (Example: Seven herbs and spices of KFC chicken) [/li][li]Political secrets: campaign strategies, dirty past/deeds of a politician, etc. [/li][li]Classified information: sensitive or secret to protect the national interest.[2] [/li][li]Lies that cause a crowd to panic or causes Clear and present danger or Imminent lawless action, such as Shouting fire in a crowded theater [/li][li]Fighting words doctrine:(U.S. 1942) “insulting or ‘fighting words’, those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” [/li][li]Sedition: speech or organization (vs Freedom of Assembly) that is deemed as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. [/li][li]Treason: to talk publicly of the death of all countrymen or the overthrow of the government [/li][li]Blasphemy is illegal in several Western countries (freedom of religion as well as speech could be given here) [/li][li]The first clause of UK’s Terrorism Act 2006 punishes “Encouragement of terrorism” with up to seven years in jail. [/li][li]In Sweden a law called “Hets mot folkgrupp” (“Agitation against an ethnic group”), usually translated to hate speech, denies promotion of racism and homophobia. [/li][li]In Finland, a new copyright law was enacted in October 2005, which prohibited “services making possible or facilitating the circumvention of effective technical [copy prevention] measures”. (See 2005 amendment to the Finnish Copyright Act and Penal Code) [/ul][/li][/quote]

12

The whole modern day idea of freedom of speech has been blown so far out of proportion that it’s no wonder we find ourselves in the situations like this. I want to grab the American collective by the lapels and jack it up against the wall.

This is the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This is a very obvious and direct single line, where the most important part is the first five words. Congress shall make no law. This means precisely what it says. In order to get the full understanding of what was meant, simply repeat the first five words before every new element in the line. It would read like this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and Congress shall make no law that prohibits the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So far as I know, Congress has never made any of these laws, and has thus never violated the First Amendment. Nowhere in there does it say that you can say what you want, when you want. Nowhere in there does it direct courts (especially civil courts) how to rule on a particular case.

It does not protect you from printing anything you want. It does not protect you in saying anything you want. And as a matter of fact, it shouldn’t even be mentioned in 98% of these kinds of cases in America. It simply states that Congress shall make no law.

In the Phelps case(or any other case actually), they are not protected by the constitution at all, because nowhere in the amendment does it mention that you have a right to say or write anything you want any time you want. It simply states that congress will make no law.

And they most certainly are not protected by any First Amendment law in a civil case where the opposition can show emotional damages because the First Amendment does not stipulate how you can act or what you can write, because all it says is that they will make no law.

Why has this been taken so far out of the realm of what it originally meant? Just read it!

13

IANAConstitutional Authority, but it seems to me that the 1st Amendment has been broadened over the years in order to protect forms of expression that the founders either didn’t think of or couldn’t (radio, TV, internet, etc.). Plus, the courts often have to interpret laws based on arguments and precedents when ruling, so I can see how they would tend to extend freedom of expression pretty far as a protection against creeping oppression.

That said, I also think Trisk hit it on the head. As much as I despise the Phelpsoids and would love to see Phreddy sentenced to walk in a pride parade while wearing an evening gown and tiara, I was concerned about this as a free speech issue too. I feel more at ease now.

14

Do not misunderstand me or put words in my mouth. I think the Phelps family is a bunch of morons and the death penalty would be too good for them. However it is not hard to see the ACLU perspective, that a state law allowing an award for intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress for political speech (or religious ranting if you prefer) can be construed as government action. I see this in the same way as the KKK marches in Skokie Illinois, disgusting but permissible.

15

Contrary to the many assertions I’ve read recently in various threads, no one (that I’m aware of, anyway) makes the claim that speech (expression, more generally) is totally unrestricted. Yes, everyone gets it. “Fire in a crowded theater”, state secrets, inciting violence, etc., etc.

Ignoring that strawman, surely you’ll agree that the Sedition Act of 1918 was not only passed by Congress (i.e., made into law), but also abridged free speech (i.e., curtailed what citizens could say). While the act was repealed in 1921, it was just the first actual law that came to my mind that would serve as a counterexample.

Now, certainly, the fact that the WBC case is a civil suit puts a different spin on things. But: isn’t that the point of this thread?

16

So in your view, the myriad regulatory agencies which Congress creates to carry out its laws can flout the First Amendment with impunity? The TSA could bar me from boarding an aircraft wearing a Hillary Clinton T-shirt, or the FCC could fine a broadcaster for airing a program critical of Bush, or the FEC could fine political campaigns which it deems extremist, and we would have no First Amendment recourse against any of these actions?

I don’t think I’d like to live in your country.

17

This made me laugh. Well done.

18

No he’s not. He’s best known for going to the funerals of people he doesn’t know and causing extreme emotional trauma to grieving relatives.

Free speech is the right to communicate with others and exchange ideas. It’s does not grant the speaker the right to an audience. When the speech interferes with the rights of other people to assemble peaceably then it is in conflict with that right. It then becomes a public nuisance. Phelp’s right to speak to people is not an unfettered right to cause distress in what amounts to a captive audience. He cannot force someone to listen to him and in a communal space that is what he is doing.

Frankly, I’m amazed he’s still walking. When I was in college we had a similar type of incident where a guy walked into the commons and starting flinging verbal crap in every direction. It was funny until he started to call individual women whores. He was lucky the campus police dragged him off. He was minutes away from getting the shit kicked out of him. He was basically inciting a riot.

19

Because the 14th Ad etc “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” extends the limitations on Congress to the various States etc.

Wiki "Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named rights from being abridged by laws made by Congress, the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all law-making (“legislative”) authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment’s terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” the limitations of the First Amendment to restrict also the states."

Thus, you are wrong.

20

So I guess we’ll be avoiding all use of irony in this thread.