Neil Gaiman: Why defend freedom of icky speech?

Post by jules » Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:39 AM UTC

VladRussian wrote: post #17

mikeryan wrote: post #8

Its funny I had a similar argument with someone last week (2 weeks ago?) when the Westboro Baptist's won their supreme court case [1]. Speech is free, period. Once you try to put any restrictions on then the whole thing isn't even a slippery slope, its a frictionless cliff. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03...

>Speech is free, period. There is situations when one fundamental right conflicts with another fundamental right. Your statement is that the fundamental right of free speech must always take precedence. I see how fundamental right of a child for the privacy of his/her body [ note: a child can't give an informed consent to waive the right ] can be given priority over somebody else's fundamental right for free speech.…

Post by enjo » Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:39 AM UTC

VladRussian wrote: post #17

mikeryan wrote: post #8

Its funny I had a similar argument with someone last week (2 weeks ago?) when the Westboro Baptist's won their supreme court case [1]. Speech is free, period. Once you try to put any restrictions on then the whole thing isn't even a slippery slope, its a frictionless cliff. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03...

>Speech is free, period. There is situations when one fundamental right conflicts with another fundamental right. Your statement is that the fundamental right of free speech must always take precedence. I see how fundamental right of a child for the privacy of his/her body [ note: a child can't give an informed consent to waive the right ] can be given priority over somebody else's fundamental right for free speech.…

Post by thaumaturgy » Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:42 AM UTC

waqf wrote: post #22

thaumaturgy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what, then, is the difference between my calling your phone number multiple times and leaving harassing messages ("You're going to hell! Fag!"), and what the WBC does at semi-private gatherings, like funerals? I don't disagree with the justifications behind protecting speech, even (and especially) things that I find reprehensible. However, I think it's a bit of a lie to say that law doesn't have fine lines or dist…

Well, the difference is that you're expressing your opinion, which is fine, and also harassing the guy, which is a crime. Just as if you announced "mikeryan is going to hell! the Fag!" while chainsawing live babies you're committing a crime. The expressing of your opinion is not a crime, but the fact that you're expressing your opinion doesn't exempt you from other criminal liabilities.

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:47 AM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #25

waqf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the difference is that you're expressing your opinion, which is fine, and also harassing the guy, which is a crime. Just as if you announced "mikeryan is going to hell! the Fag!" while chainsawing live babies you're committing a crime. The expressing of your opinion is not a crime, but the fact that you're expressing your opinion doesn't exempt you from other criminal liabilities.

Thank you for being the only person that responded to the point (might've been my fault, maybe I wasn't clear). I think most people would say that what the WBC does is harassment; so, other than the fine legal difference between whether the harassment occurs on public grounds or private property, how is one form of harassment protected as free speech and another form of harassment not?

Post by VladRussian » Thu, Mar 24, 2011, 12:48 AM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #25

waqf wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the difference is that you're expressing your opinion, which is fine, and also harassing the guy, which is a crime. Just as if you announced "mikeryan is going to hell! the Fag!" while chainsawing live babies you're committing a crime. The expressing of your opinion is not a crime, but the fact that you're expressing your opinion doesn't exempt you from other criminal liabilities.

Thank you for being the only person that responded to the point (might've been my fault, maybe I wasn't clear). I think most people would say that what the WBC does is harassment; so, other than the fine legal difference between whether the harassment occurs on public grounds or private property, how is one form of harassment protected as free speech and another form of harassment not?