Freedom of Speech

[PLATO]

It disgusts me, too; I still think they should be free to do it.

Totally agree on both points. The question would become: Who decides which speech to control? In a political system, that question has no good answer.

[Lorizael]

With a few exceptions, I think we've done a good job of regulating speech here in the United States. My personal preference, however, is that only speech meeting the "imminent lawless action" criteria not be protected.

[The Mad Monk]

There are a few exceptions, that cause direct harm to people, such as (tightly defined) libel and false advertising.

[Lorizael]

Yes. Also reasonable exceptions.

[kentonio]

It disgusts me, too; I still think they should be free to do it.

Totally agree on both points. The question would become: Who decides which speech to control? In a political system, that question has no good answer.

It's a fair question, but I think it can fall into the same kind of area as public nuisance or public disorder laws. Picketing funerals is outrageous regardless of the message of the protesters.

[kentonio]

*Double post, please delete

[Wezil]

Aside from the moral offence where is the harm? Do you have a right not to be offended?

[kentonio]

Nope, absolutely not. I think this goes beyond that though to the deliberate causing of emotional and psychological harm. Don't you have laws on the books about harassement?

[Lorizael]

It's a fair question, but I think it can fall into the same kind of area as public nuisance or public disorder laws. Picketing funerals is outrageous regardless of the message of the protesters.

I think most public nuisance and public disorder laws are pretty stupid, too.

[kentonio]

Don't you have laws on the books about harassement?

Don't know why I said 'you' when you're Canadian, I meant America obviously. My bad.

[Wezil]

That's a pretty weak premise that would be easy to claim and impossible to disprove.

"We" probably have laws of that sort on the books but "we" (in my case Canada) don't understand the concept of free speech as well as the US does.

x-post - np, I don't think it really impacts our discussion.

[kentonio]

I think most public nuisance and public disorder laws are pretty stupid, too.

Without them don't you inevitably end up with people disrupting everyday life though?

[Wezil]

By definition I can see a harm from public nuisance and disorder.

The harm from funeral picketers is hurt feelings. Sorry but the State shouldn't be in the business of protecting you from trolls.

[Lorizael]

Without them don't you inevitably end up with people disrupting everyday life though?

I don't know, do you? People disrupt my life everyday as it is. Ever driven anywhere? Christ, people are dumb.

[kentonio]

By definition I can see a harm from public nuisance and disorder.

The harm from funeral picketers is hurt feelings. Sorry but the State shouldn't be in the business of protecting you from trolls.

I don't know, I just think there needs to be protections at some point. If someone was following a bereaved parent around laughing at their loss, then surely it would be necessary at some point to prevent that as it would be clearly harrassement? I just don't see a difference between that and this.

Would it really cause such a massive harm to freedom of speech to limit it in close proximity to a funeral? There are already plenty of specific instances where freedom of speech is already curtailed, so why not this one?