At What Point Do False Accusations Trump Free Speech???

Freedom of speech should cover nearly everything with the exceptions of:

1) Slander and libel.
2) Credible threats of violence.
3) Speech designed to cause a clear and present danger to others ( Shouting fire in a crowded theater and the like ).
4) Extreme and blatantly obvious obscenities ( This is the most tricky to find consensus about - but to me it would basically mean being graphically sexual with people who do not want to hear it and those who are not capable of understanding it - like kids and the senile, mentally challenged etc. )

Anything else should be fair game - no matter how personally offensive or distasteful.

Then again I'm also a firm believer in the idea freedom of speech comes with implied accountability. IE feel free to insult my mother, but do so knowing that it's quite possible I might punch you in response.

a reply to: Hefficide

Words do not infringe on another's rights.

Actions do.

Actions should be punished.

Words? Not so much.

imho

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JoshuaCox

So if I accused you of being treasonous because of a political stance, you'd want my speech censored?

Treasonous, no.


But if I accused you of flat out treason....

And not in the figure of speech way. In the literal "your a traitor, who has commited treason."


And politacal stance would in no way be treason. That requires you to intentionally take action to purposfully aid our enemies.

If you go join Isis, that is treason.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Hefficide

Words do not infringe on another's rights.

Actions do.

Actions should be punished.

Words? Not so much.

imho

So if you tell the Russians American military secrets , your not the one actually killing soldiers, but...

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
I predict a busy overloaded court system in the near future with all the SJW millenials suing frivolously for micro aggressions. A smart youth would invest their time in a law degree, one could get filthy rich without ever winning a case.

That would make Trump the biggest SJW of them all and he's not a millenial. But he sure does love to sue people that say stuff about him that he doesn't like.

Simply saying that he's not as wealthy as he says he is has gotten more than one person sued by him. Not that they ever go anywhere though since it's just Trump trying to use the courts to intimidate people.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Hefficide

Words do not infringe on another's rights.

Actions do.

Actions should be punished.

Words? Not so much.

imho

Calling some one treasonous,

Is the difference between saying..

"Your comment sure sounded rapey."

And

"Your a rapist."

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Joining ISIS would be an action.

Saying words is not an action.

Look, I hate ISIS and I think they should be destroyed. But I don't think we should limit speech if someone supports it. That scares me worse than ISIS.

I just can't believe the people promoting censorship!

a reply to: Hefficide

You sure about only #1-4? What about other restricted speech, like copyrights, patents, trade secrets, classified information, insider trading, fraud when selling products, etc? All of these also involve restrictions on what people can legally say to others.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Joining ISIS would be an action.

Saying words is not an action.

Look, I hate ISIS and I think they should be destroyed. But I don't think we should limit speech if someone supports it. That scares me worse than ISIS.

I don't think accusations of a major felony is free speech.

"I felt like falsely accusing X of rape" doesn't seem like they are speaking as much as taking an action.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Then what about conspiracy charges to join ISIS or to commit an act of violence? Conspiring to do something is also just words. So going by your example, there's nothing wrong until someone acts on the conspiracy. By extension, that would also mean hate preachers and radical imams shouldn't be charged for their words; only the people who act on them should be charged.

Just pointing out how these concepts actually play out.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Interesting point.

I'm not sure, really. I'm one who would side for freedom over censorship as a knee-jerk reaction.

We can isolate specific instances and use them as blanket examples of free speech, I suppose.

If I say "I'm going to kill John Doe at 3 o'clock on Tuesday", I don't see that as the same as saying "I'm gonna murder someone!"

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Interesting point.

I'm not sure, really. I'm one who would side for freedom over censorship as a knee-jerk reaction.

We can isolate specific instances and use them as blanket examples of free speech, I suppose.

If I say "I'm going to kill John Doe at 3 o'clock on Tuesday", I don't see that as the same as saying "I'm gonna murder someone!"

I think both of those are presently considered a crime. Only because it is threatening violence though.


And I'm not sure there is a whole lot of daylight between a threat and a false accusation. Morally nor functionally...

Brings an even more interesting thought when considering what happens if the law fails???

Can a victim not accuse there attacked AFTER he is found innocent??

Guess it's breaking the system to plan on the worst case, like its the acerage.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think the law should apply when something infringes on the rights of another individual.

Hurt feelings because of something spoken doesn't infringe, in my opinion.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think the law should apply when something infringes on the rights of another individual.

Hurt feelings because of something spoken doesn't infringe, in my opinion.

Agreed emotions are subjective and unmeasurable...


Which is why I find the police being able to shoot some one if they FEEL threatened, crazy. you should be required to verify a threat.


Pull your pistol when you feel threatened and take aim and that's fine. But don't squeeze until you have confirmed an actual threat.

If they pull before confirming a weapon, Afterward if they had a gun, no harm no foul. No gun and your AT LEAST fired. Maybe reckless endangerment.

a reply to: DBCowboy

There can be no liberalism without censorship.

In their eyes-the truth MUST be censored because it exposes their anti American treachery.

Why else would there be things like hillary's "Correct the Record" internet censors that go around deleting facts that show her true communist colors?

(as if the Kim Jong outfits don't already scream communist)