Does the first amendment give us the right to free speech, or only quasi-free speech?

Question

Many argue that the first amendment protection of free speech is not absolute. The comment example being you can't shout fire in a theater. I strongly disagree, and feel you do have the right to shout fire in the theater, and you should be held liable for any damages your exercise of free speech causes, but you have the absolute right to exercise your right, any riots that result are a seperate matter of law. So what does freedom of speech mean to you? And does the alleged war on terror at all change your view on this essential freedom?

Answer 1

I believe that freedom of speech implies that if you feel you have the right to bellow your beliefs at the top of your lungs, then you must be prepared for the next guy to do the same, only with his beliefs which may be completely opposite and repulsive to you. And no, the war on terror does not change my view of this.

Answer 2

You don't have the right to say things you know will cause harm to others. This is a moral right from wrong question not 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment was a means to prtect politcal speech because you could be arrested for sedtion for talikg against the king. You still have those right even with the war on terror . Just some people will say anything to hurt the current administration in if it undermines the war and especially for some to bring the US down to defeat.

Answer 3

It is not absolute, you can't deliberately use a falsehood to endanger or cause damage to others. Well, you can get away with it to a certain point, but that is the basic premise.

"The absolute right to exercise your right" doesn't hold water in a reasonable society. You have the right to bear arms, but that doesn't give you the right to do whatever you want with them. Your rights may end where they infringe upon others rights.

Freedom of speech to me means that I can say the government sucks (I do think it sucks) in public virtually anywhere I want in the U.S. of A. and the secret police won't haul me away and lock me up. Well, maybe not exactly, but that's the premise :)

The alleged war on terror doesn't change it for me at all, I don't see why it would. Privacy yes, speech no.

Answer 4

You do not have the Right to exercise your Rights in a way that is harmful to others or infringes upon their Rights.

For that reason, shouting "fire" when there is none, is not your Right.

The First Amendment prohibits Government from imposing any prior restriction on Free Speech. That means, Government cannot put some sort of muzzle on you to prevent you from shouting "fire". But, don't confuse that with having the Right to shout "fire".

This is particularly important when one considers whether we have the Right to say things that we know are designed to cause or instigate harm, such as preaching to a crowd to violate civil laws. The person doing so does not have any prior restraint, such as a muzzle, preventing that act. However, they do not have a Right to commit that act either.

Your Rights do not include any act that infringes upon the Rights of others or works harm against others.

Answer 5

Neither. The constitution limits government laws (federal via 1st, state via 14th) that regulate or control speech.

Under most circumstances, any such regulation is allowed only where there is a compelling need (such as to preserve life) and when only the least amount of speech is restricted. That's why riots, inciting violence, shouting 'fire' are all unprotected. Those are the least restrictions that can be imposed necessary to preserve life and limb.

And being unprotected speech, that means you can be punished for such statements. Not that you can be silenced in advance. With protected speech, you cannot be punished (by the govt) afterward.

The same standards should apply, whether we're fighting a war or not. Speech should only be punished when its expression results in direct and measurable harm to life or limb.

The government doesn't get an unlimited blank check to silence anyone they don't like, in the name of national security. Especially if their justification is an unlimited unending nebulous conflict against everyone who has ever hated us.

Answer 6

Alleged war on terror? Excuse me, perhaps you haven't noticed the twin towers are missing?

Freedom of speech allows you to present your opinion, but you are restricted somewhat as to how you can do that. As you said, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not allowed because of the injury it can cause. Likewise, you shouldn't go into a church and cuss and deny the existence of God. It wouldn't be a good idea to walk into a meeting of the Black Panthers and denounce the blacks either. Bottom line, add a little common sense to freedom of speech.

Answer 7

It doesn't matter what the First Amendment means to me, or to you. What matters is what it means to the Supreme Court. The Constitution is written to be continually defined. The body that tells America what the Constitution means is continually updated and replaced. So what the Constitution means this decade, may not be what it means in twenty years.
The Constitution is a living thing. It continually changes as it grows and shrinks.
Freedom of Speech has changed a lot in the last 200 years. Be patient and in 200 years you'll have a First Amendment that you like.

Answer 8

Of chourse I do not belive that you should be allowed to shout fire in a theater or anywhere else, unless there is really a fire, but I do feel that our freedom of speech has been and is still being infringed upon. It seems to me that with George Bush spying on all Americans he is forcing us to be very careful of what we say, or else he might catagorize us, and have us sent to prison if we speak out against him too much. I feel that he is highly abusing his power as president.

Answer 9

Banning the speech would not ban the approach! greater useful to permit the speech, whether you do no longer trust it, a minimum of you will comprehend the place the folk stand! Bans as an entire are a bandaid on a severed artery! they actually do no longer something, yet look like they are assisting!

Answer 10

The right to free speech was originally intended to ensure that the people could voice their opinions on issues effecting them, not so that they could cause a theater full of people to panic.