If free speech is provocative, should there be limits?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Tue, 05 May 2015 04:53:36 -0400

I found this article rather disconcerting and wanted to get some reaction from the RP community.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/after-texas-shooting-if-free-speech-is-provocative-should-there-be-limits/ar-BBjb6Mp

After Texas shooting: If free speech is provocative, should there be limits?

WASHINGTON _ Organizers of the Muhammad Art Exhibit in Garland, Texas, knew violence was a possibility. They shelled out $10,000 for extra security to patrol the controversial event, which featured a speech by a Dutch politician who is on al-Qaida's "hit list" and a contest for the best cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad. Local law enforcement was on the alert. A SWAT team and a bomb squad patrolled. The two gunmen who opened fire with assault...

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 6:36 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 May 2015 06:36:03 -0400

Here's my two cents for what it's worth. You can say whatever you want but, you should be prepared for any consequences that follow. If you are dumb enough to burn a Quran, draw a picture of Muhammad, protest at a Soldiers funeral with signs that say God hates Soldiers, stomp on the American Flag, use racial slurs, say I am going to kill all white cops etc. etc. You should be prepared to defend yourself from an ass whoopin, incarceration, or death.

Almost every fist fight I have ever been in has been started by someone running their pie hole.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 6:50 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 May 2015 06:50:56 -0400

The problem with limits is - who sets the limit.

What SGM Olsen said is right on. You have free speech. I have to right to react to that as long as I do not break the law doing so.

As I said in another comment I have the right to ignore and to not help you up should you fall.

If you didn't see the banana peel that is not my problem.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made May 5 at 2015 7:04 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 05 May 2015 07:04:28 -0400

There is either freedom of speech or there is not. Once you start putting "socially acceptable norms" around it, it is no longer free. There was a time when folks would not intentionally try to provoke a fight or rile a crowd but those days of polite discourse are long gone.

The left in this country for decades thumbed their nose at conventional wisdom, long standing institutions and did so under the protection of freedom of speech. The speech turned to action with things like piss christ, Mother Mary made from cow dung and many other openly hostile acts. Well, the pendulum has swung the other way and the left ifs no longer comfortable.

The ideas or speech that are uncomfortable are the types that need some protection. If we are going to say now that ideas/speech that are openly hostile deserve whatever they get, then prepare for a bloodbath. If I took a swing at everyone that pissed me off with some stupid remark or statement I would look like a fan on high gear most of the time.

You reap what you sow. We sowed the wind, now we will reap the whirlwind.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 5 at 2015 7:24 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 05 May 2015 07:24:50 -0400

The article actually does a fairly good job with its explanation of "fighting words" and in tying it to the example.

If you express yourself in such a way that you are actually expecting violence, should your Constitutional PROTECTIONS (not Rights) be limited on said expression?

In the case of "Draw the Prophet," how could this not be an "incite a riot" scenario? They hired additional security. Historical data had shown this was a topic likely to create problems. That shifted it into the realm of public safety.

That made it no less Freedom of Speech, however the Individuals were actively risking others' safety through use of their Rights. You don't have that specific Right. Your Rights are not greater than another's Rights, and that is what happened.

The theoretical here is whether we can "pre-weigh" these cases.

When it comes to "shock art" of a known commodity, we delve into a "maybe" though I truly hate to say that. Much like issuing permits to Protesters if we know they will be blocking streets (or anyone who would be blocking streets for that matter).

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 5 at 2015 7:59 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 May 2015 07:59:54 -0400

When people start placing limits on speech, it's impossible to stop. The 1st amendment isn't there to protect the speech everyone agrees with. It's there to protect the speech that's controversial. That's how you have a dialogue.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made May 5 at 2015 8:36 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 05 May 2015 08:36:59 -0400

No. One of my upper level classes in undergrad was specifically on the first amendment and limits on it. I've heard all the arguments regarding where the supreme court has held to be reasonable limits. I don't buy them. Perhaps the sole place I might draw a line is speech clearly used in service of planning to imminently initiate violence.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 5 at 2015 9:51 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Tue, 05 May 2015 09:51:55 -0400

The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

Fighting words - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage.