Should our right to freedom of speech always be protected, even if we make hostile statements?

Question

I believe in the freedom of speech and the press. I am almost Libertarian in this one specific arena. However, I have been thinking about something- should speech always be protected and allowed, even if an individual makes hostile remarks?

Okay- for example- what if a man walks into a store, and threatens to kill a customer there (for no apparent reason). The man who made the threat keeps threatening the customer, so in self defense, the customer gets into a fight with the man threatening him.

Does my point make sense? If it isn't clear, what I am trying to point out is that there are words that may impel action- some good, some bad. So, in particular, do words that may lead to negative actions deserve to be protected by the 1st Amendment?

What things are not allowed to fall under the umbrella of protected speech?

Answer 1

Freedom of speech is not absolute. You make a good point. The Supreme Court, years ago, stated that you can't go into a crowded movie theater and yell "fire". The ensuing run for the exit can reuslt in numerous injuries and people being trampled and you would be responsible for those injuries. In the example you gave, one must consider a few things. The person who threatens is commiting a crime (menacing, haraasment, assault, etc.) yet in general, words alone ae insufficient provocation to justify a physical response. Usually, if the threat is merely words and the victim them puches the threatening person in the nose, the original victim may be in trouble. BUT, as I said "word alone" are usually not sufficient justification, if those words are accompanied by some action, then the question is whether a reasonable person would be justified in striking out, even if in an attempt to prevent a perceived or possible future violence. What action must accompany the threat? How about a raised fist, a shove, a display of a weapon, etc.

As you can see, we have free speech, but like most everything else, it is rstricted by "reasonable" standards. generally if your speech represents a liklihood of harm to others, it may be restricted. (It can be restricted in two ways. First, if you are aware that the speech is coming, you might, although this is very rare, be able to get a Court to prevent the speech before it occurs. Second, the speaker may be subjecting themselves to criminal prosecution or civil action, and as such may therefore shose to restrict their speech.)

The last thing to consider is when a hate group gets a permit to march or hold a rally. Well, in an effort to encourage free speech, such permits will be granted, but this gives the local police an opportunity to be present to ensure that the speech remains just speech and not anything that would constitute physical vilence or criminal activity.

Answer 2

Dude...Freedom of Speech is already pretty much the way you "want it'. You CAN'T go into a store and say the things you outlined. That would be assault (assault is the verbal threat of violence-battery is the actual laying on of hands..or feet...or whatever), making terroristic threats and probably a few others. While you can, in a public forum, say..."It is my opinion that the people that run that store are a bunch of idiots"..you couldn't walk into the store and say to the owner, or a patron .."you suck..I'm gonna kick the $hit out of you". That would be assault and making terroristic threats.

Relax..you're freedon of speech rights are protected and NO ONE can go around making threats and so forth. Do you live under a rock or something???

Oh..and just saying "Im' going to kill you!" is more than enough. If you have witnesses and you believe that the threat has some basis in reality..you can prosecute.

Answer 3

Under the freedom of speech are a couple of elements called Speech Plus and Plus Speech. These issues address things associated with speech that incites an action or hostile approach. Speech that incites actions of violence are not protected and can be found in violation. Speech that follows with an action against the government or sector of the population is not protected either.

Answer 4

The right to free speach is limited to the point that it is peaceful speech as is the right to free assembly. The moment that the speech becomes a menace to the peace it becomes problematic. However, written speech is not the same as oral communication. You can close a book or ignore a sign. The sign would have to be in some way profain, vulgar or hateful to be a problem there. Basically the things you need to watch out for are statements that are pornographic, hate related, or treasonous. And, the threashhold for whether they are a problem or not is credibility, the more credible the statement, the more that statement may get you in trouble.

Answer 5

OK if someone threatens a customer in a store, it would be wise to leave the store. You could also dig it in by calling the police and filling out a report onthe person. In no way does a persons words cause you to do anything.
Also, self defence tactical approaches are helpful to learn.

Answer 6

This is a good point.
I think libel laws do a lot of good in this area. There are also laws against incitement (hatred, violence etc.) but these can sometimes go too far.
You must somehow prevent the radical Islamist from encouraging people to blow up the school bus but allow the comedian freedom to insult whomever he wishes.

Answer 7

Just as you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater or say "BOMB" on an airplane, you cannot walk up to someone, get in their face, and threaten to kill them and continue to act in a hostile manner. Just saying "I'm going to kill you" isn't enough, but when you pair that with actions and menace you cross the line into violating someone elses freedom to live a life free from harrassment.

It should be fine to walk around and say things like "I hate gays" or "I hate whites" or whatever. That is our freedom to express ourselves (this makes me mad since in Canada you can no longer say "I hate gays" or "Gays are unnatural").

Does this make sense? Expression is one thing until you cross the line to harrassment and causing harm to others.

Answer 8

Ask yourself this question, Should freedom of speech only be extended to those who say what you want to hear?