Mel Gibson may have been drunk but doesn't even a drunk have the freedoms that free speech provides? If I don't like brand x and think it is not a good soap don't I have the right to say it even if scientists say it is a good soap?
2006-08-03 03:31:52 · 18 answers · asked by Mr. PDQ 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
to notyou311 a duh, it was just an example if you cannot see the similarity then go on to another question.
2006-08-03 03:44:57 · update #1
Free speech is specifically about the right of a citizen to criticize the government without fear the government will take action against that same person.
It is not about what some one says any other time or in a different situation. We do not have free speech to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
The difference in this type of speech is whether it is slander or libelous. If Mel said things that can be shown to have caused actual harm to a person or group he may be held accountable in a court and fined. If you tell people that brand x soap caused you to go impotent and it becomes national news you had better have a wet noodle. The lawyers for brand x are going to come after you like three kinds of bear as their sales plummet.
People get confused about what free speech is, because it is so commonly used for any situation in which one side or the other is trying to justify extremist or despicable speech by one character or another.
2006-08-03 03:37:39 · answer #1 · answered by DMR 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It may not be against the rules of free speech. But it is contrary the standards of polite discourse. Should one insult people just because one can? It then falls to the speaker to decide if he/she minds being thought of as rude and thoughtless.
Yes, you have the right to say you don't like the soap. You don't have a right to conclude that your dislike gives you latitude to slander or injure the company, or the person, or to assume that the same dislike holds true for anyone else.
I personally think Mel Gibson is nuts. It's a shame. I think the alcohol only loosened his tongue and his inhibitions ... it didn't make him anti-semitic; he was there already, just discreet when sober. "Passion of the Christ" was a bizarre film on so many levels. I'm a big fan of South Park's take on his complete fruit-loopitude.
2006-08-03 10:47:23 · answer #2 · answered by Tara 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there is any law against what Mel Gibson said. If he would have acted on it, then there is a hate crimes law that could be enforced (tho it rarely is) However, with Gibson being a public figure, he's just trying to do damage control by apologizing the way he is. He probably does feel the things he said, and he has his right to his opinion and he does have the freedom to say what he wants. He's just afraid of the publicity and backlash and how it will affect his pocketbook.
2006-08-03 10:40:00 · answer #3 · answered by pittsburgh-girl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of speech doesn't protect the use of profrain language in public. Also, Mel Gibson won't be criminally charged for saying what he did. He will be charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and possibly resisting arrest.
2006-08-03 10:37:09 · answer #4 · answered by bmgleason 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He has not been sent to jail. The government has not & will not ban any of his movies. People who are offended by his statements may choose to express their opinions by not going to see his movies. This possiblilty naturally limits his chances at doing business in hollywood again. But it is not a violation of his freedom of speech.
If I owned a cafe near a military base & choose to participate in an anti-military protest at the gates of the base, the word might get around & the soldiers & their family might choose never to eat at my cafe again. That is their choice & they would not be violating my freedom of speech in that choice, even if the result is my business going under. Freedom of speech is not a promise there will be no effects of what I choose to say.
And many people choose what movie to go see as much on the image of the performers as the performances themselves. If an artist's image changes, that will naturally change they're popularity.
2006-08-04 06:56:03 · answer #5 · answered by Smart Kat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hate speech is a violation of the Civil Rights act. How you can compare talking about soap brands to saying hateful things about a religion is beyond me. You must be thick as a plank and just as brainless.
2006-08-03 10:38:52 · answer #6 · answered by notyou311 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are talking about two entirely different situations. Mel Gibson knows and has stated that he was totally wrong
2006-08-03 10:35:52 · answer #7 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You have the right to speak out against anybody or anything.
As long as it is not against Israel. They are sacrosanct.
According to reports Mel Gibson said the Jews/Israelis are 'troublemakers', and many people agree with him. I do.
2006-08-03 10:42:51 · answer #8 · answered by Tokoloshimani 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can say what you want as long as your present it as opinion. If you make a specific claim that is untrue, then it could be slander/libel/defamation. Or do what the Tabloids do and say "a source or an insider and then begins to libel." As long as you have a source it's legal.
2006-08-03 10:36:26 · answer #9 · answered by Steven H 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think you can talk about brands on TV without consent. Have you noticed on movies or TV shows that they censor brands on billboards, stores, and people's clothes. You can walk down the street and talk about any brand you want but on TV its a different story. But, its wrong to talk about people on TV because it brings up issues with prejudice and racism.
2006-08-03 10:38:01 · answer #10 · answered by Coco 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋