Where does freedom of speech become an infringement on the rights of another?

Answer 1

I'll give an example.

When muslims come to Britain and then try to change our lifestyle to their own taste. Example, The veil row, I could not go into some shops with a ski mask on so why should they?

They then demonstrate about freedom of speech?

They are the ones who hold demonstrations telling people to behead disbelievers? And we put up with this?

Leader of BNP has just been cleared of calling them a wicked race, end of story.

That is an example when a religion tries to force on others its views.

That is an example of the British peoples rights being infringed on.

Answer 2

When it endangers any of their basic american rights. An American has the right to life, liberty, and happiness (happiness is actually in the constitution property but thats not the point lol) it infringes on their rights.
One example of this is hate crimes. When we use freedom of speech to cause pain on another person/group it is opposite of what our freedom of speech intends us to do. Freedom of speech was supposed to be a constructive way to openly criticize our government but somewhere along the lines we got the idea that freedom of speech means saying what we wanna say even if it is incredibly disrespectful because we feel it. Yes, we can do that, but it does tend to get us in trouble. Freedom of speech is an awesome gift, lets use it responsibly! :)
so thats my answer/opinion. I hope it helps somewhat.

Answer 3

Generally, if the speech is advocating immediate illegal violence, or falls under the definition of a true threat. These are both considered unprotected speech, because of the danger posed to others.

Also, speech that is tortious, such as defamation or nuisance, or fraudulent commercial speech -- none of these are protected, and so can be punished where there is actual harm to others.

There is one other exception, where a person's speech is being used solely to drown out another speaker. Speech is protected where it is intended to express a message, not where sheer volume is being used solely to impede someone else's message.

Answer 4

When that speech endangers another. Such as yelling fire in a crowded theater or inciting a riot. Other than that the courts have held out that we have the right to say whatever we want no matter how hurtful of idiotic. Although I don't think the framers had any idea that the Ku Klux Klan and NAMBLA would be around spouting their particular brand of filth.

Answer 5

When someone attends a meeting for the soul purpose of shouting and ranting to distrupt the planned program would be an example.

Let's say a satanist goes into a Christian church on Sunday morning and pushes his way behind the pulpit and shouts how satan is God..... and the worshippers cannot continue their service, which would be freedom of speech and expression on their part. that would be an infringment of their right to hold their meeting peacefully.

Sue

Answer 6

'Freedom of expression' perhaps would be a more all-encompassing term. In a mature democracy, (does anyone know of one?) the weapons of choice should be debate and discussion, with a modicum of humour thrown in. Crying 'fire' to cause panic and injury hardly qualifies as expressing belief in an ideology. Libel and slander and perjury are already dealt with under our existing statutes.In everyday life, people who say spiteful, malicious or just plain daft things, tend very quickly to get simply ignored. (just like changing the channel, or pushing the 'off' button). Nick Griffith's (BNP) statement about Islam is both ludicrous and sterotypical, we have academics and learned clerics to easily refute and discredit him. Abu Hamsa(?) the mad one-eyed, hook-handed cleric.. I found his performance simultaneously offensive and comic beyond belief. Also the Islamic man who at the 'cartoons' protest called for troops to be brought back in body bags or another 9/11 or 7/7 to be visited upon us? what sane responsible person would act on their rants? If any people did so act, it would be THEIR responsibility and THEY should face the consequences. Censorship should be absolutely the last resort. Banning films, plays or burning books runs counter to our 'liberal, mature democracy'. I can rant in Latin too!
'Dicunt, dicant, dicent!' et 'Quis custodes ipsos custodiet?' (on censorship) or even 'Bene disserere est finis logices?'

Answer 7

When muslims kill in the name of allah or whatever his name is.

When you can not express real views for fear of being hurt or killed, ie muslims.

Sorry to get on there back but they are a big problem in the UK at the moment what with the veil row etc, every time anyone moves they are upset and take to the streets with signs saying kill the non believers, behead them etc.

Wicked faith? Someone was cleared in court recently for saying that so you decide.

Answer 8

no where article sjix (6) in the convention of hauman rights european gives the freedom of speech a new lease of life

Answer 9

The Supreme Court said it best, 'When you yell FIRE in a crowded movie theater..."

Meaning that your actions (freedom of speech) causes harm to another person or it could reasonably be presumed that such action would cause harm to another person....

Answer 10

When your free speech actually infringes on those other people.

If you incite insurrection, riots, lynchings etc, those sorts of things brought on by somebody's speech infringes on others rights. Also, if you commit liable, slander, defamation of character, you are also infringing on others rights.