Free Speech

[Gerr]

Are/should there be limits to freedom of speech beyond not yelling "fire" where there is no fire? 

[Sojourner]

I find it interesting in Australia that the many liberals who so vehemently favoured the artists display of "Pi$s Christ" (A crucifix in a jar of urine) along with posters that many Christians found offensive, are refusing to characterise Muhummad or Islam in the same manner and in many cases joining the criticism of those that do. It is interesting that liberals favour free speech when its to sledge Christianity but not Islam? 

 

As to your question, I am pretty sure that denying the holocaust in Germany can get you jail time. I suppose there are other similar examples over the world. My thoughts are that if you wish to have free speech and choose to use it to slander someone, you are likewise responsible for your own actions and can expect to face the consequences accordingly. 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

there *are* laws against slander (spoken) and libel (written)...

[Gregory Matthews]

Freedom of speech, under U.S. law, does not absolve one of consequences.

[Tom Wetmore]

Here are some specific examples that do limit freedom of expression by having legal consequences.

Lying in certain defined circumstances have adverse legal consequences. (That would include civil liability as distinguished from criminal liability.) Libel and slander, as Pam has noted, are effectively a type of lie. Generally, libel and slander may not be a crime but it will still give rise to a civil cause of action for those who are slandered. The truth is a defense. If what is said is found to be true it is not slander.

Another form of lying one could say is fraud which would have both civil and criminal consequences. There frequently is going to be some form of false communication that is part of fraud.

And then their is lying under oath, or perjury.

And even beyond truth telling, disclosure of certain confidential or private information that may be absolutely true can have legal consequences that effectively put limits on free speech. In the news these days are a number of noteworthy examples of the consequences of disclosing classified governmental secrets. People can also be contractually bound to not disclose confidential information and be penalized for doing so. And in some jurisdictions a person could have a cause of action for invasion of privacy which could involve disclosure of private information.

[Gregory Matthews]

Pay attention to what Tom said:

 

The truth is a defense. If what is said is found to be true it is not slander.

 

Truth is not an absolute defense.  Slander, which is true, may have civil consequences.

 

 

[Tom Wetmore]

That is not really correct. If it is true, it is not slander. It may be something else with civil consequences, but it would not be slander.

For a basic legal definition of slander - http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/slander/

[Gregory Matthews]

Thank you Tom, for your comment.  I have learned something.  Here is what I really had in mind: 

 

 
Fair Comment

 

A form of qualified privilege applied to news media publications relating to discussion of matters that are of legitimate concern to the community as a whole because they materially affect the interests of all the community. A term used in the defense of libel actions, applying to statements made by a writer (e.g., in the news media) in an honest belief in their truth, relating to official acts, even though the statements are not true in fact. Fair comment must be based on facts truly stated, must not contain imputations of corrupt or dishonorable motives except as warranted by the facts, and must be an honest expression of the writer's real opinion.

Fair comment is a privilege under the First Amendment to the Constitution and also applies to invasions of the right of privacy.

In order for a statement to fall into the category of a fair comment, it must not extend beyond matters of concern to the public. It must be a mere expression of the opinion of the commentator.

Cross-references

Freedom of the Press.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

fair comment

n. a statement of opinion (no matter how ludicrous) based on facts which are correctly stated, and which does not allege dishonorable motives on the part of the target of the comment. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that to protect free speech, statements made about a public person (politician, officeholder, movie star, author, etc.), even though untrue and harmful, are fair comment unless the victim can prove the opinions were stated maliciously---with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm. Thus, a public figure may not sue for defamation based on published opinions or alleged information which would be the basis of a lawsuit if said or published about a private person not worthy of opinion or comment. Fair comment is a crucial defense against libel suits which is put up by members of the media. (See: defamation, libel, public figure, slander)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

 

Well, actually the above does NOT totally represent what I had in mind!    I am going to have to think about this some more.  For now, I have to go to church.

[Neil D]

Are/should there be limits to freedom of speech beyond not yelling "fire" where there is no fire? 

Depends....are you exercising limits to YOUR freedom of speech or SOMEONE ELSE?  If you like the idea of limiting other's freedom of speech, then you are trying to control the outcome.....and entering the political realm.....

 

However, if you are exercising the limits of your freedom of speech, then you are controling the outcome of your character.....and the results in your character are all yours....