http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ment_does_the_u_s_overvalue_free_speech_.html Very good and important background reading for anyone who wants to talk about "free speech" with some basic knowledge without taking a constitutional law class. The view of present day Americans regarding a very broad and universal right of free speech is not shared even by all other western or liberal democratic countries and did not come into existence in it's present form until the 1960s. People, including Obama, like to talk about free speech as a universal and timeless concept. While most liberal democracies have some concept of free speech, there really is no univeral agreement on its scope and this right has certainly evolved over time. Eric Posner is a law prof at the University of Chicago (and the son of US Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner). Not to say that I agree that the law should allow the US government to do anything about the Muhammed video. Just want to point out that you don't need to be a lunatic fundamentalist to question the first amendment as currently interpreted by US courts. You can, in fact, just be a garden variety legal scholar who knows something about the history of first amendment law.
There is a difference between questioning how far free speech should go and rioting and killing people over it. Also, I think this article is badly written. What does Posner suggest? He writes: "So symbolic attachment to uneasy, historically contingent compromises, and a half-century of judicial decisions addressing domestic political dissent and countercultural pressures, prevent the U.S. government from restricting the distribution of a video that causes violence abroad and damages America’s reputation. And this is a video that, by the admission of all sides, has no value whatsoever." As a legal scholar, he should understand that free speech is free not because he or someone else assigns "value" to it. By writing that paragraph, he embarrassed himself. If restrictions on free speech would depend on whether the government assigns "value" to the free speech, we would not have free speech. Maybe he should have just followed in his father's footsteps and should have focused on economic analysis of the law instead.
Two things: 1. I agree with the notion that many western liberal democracies don't have absolute free speech laws (in fact, we are one of the only ones). Glorification of terrorism is outlawed in the UK, denying the holocaust in Germany and of course wearing religious symbols in France. 2. I absolutely disagree with the above laws. I think that free speech should be an absolute right and I am thankful that I live in America to have such a right. I disagree with a lot of the rhetoric that my fellow liberals have been posting here recently about the video on Islam and the disparaging it's taken for its mere existence. Yeah, the video was absurd (have any of you guys seen it? The production quality is actually hilariously bad), but I think that they have every right to say it. The solution to bad speech is counter-speech. Ridicule its content, argue against against its argument. The Libyans have absolutely personified this principle with it's inspiring counter-protests. It's really cool to see.
Nice post, and I agree though I haven't watched the video nor searched for it. From the descriptions I've read, it sounds like it was intentionally made to anger Muslims.
Absolute free speech is one of the few things preventing the oligarchy in this country from becoming a dictatorship. Other countries don't have absolute free speech because they don't need it as badly.
I agree they have a right to make the video. To me it's not a values issue, it's a practical issue. Should they make the video knowing full well that someone may be killed as a result? Of course violence over a video is ridiculous, nobody is arguing that. The question is if you know violence will come from that video do you make the video anyway? I wouldn't and I think most responsible people wouldn't. It's irresponsible to put out speech that puts lives in jeopardy however screwed up and wrong it is that anyone feels violence is a reasonable response to speech. It's the world we live in that matters not the world we wished we lived in. Would you put your family at risk to crazies just to make a video? I doubt it.
The US has obscenity laws, which are limitations on absolute free speech. Whether something qualifies as "obscene" is sort of subjective and probably its "artistic value" plays into it, wouldn't you say? Edit: From wikipedia: [rquoter] The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[3][/rquoter]
Obscenity laws are stupid. It has too much interpretation. The only thing banned should be yelling fire in a crowded theater.
I thought I might create a separate thread on this earlier, but I might as well just ask the question here. I'd like to know where people really would draw the line on free speech. Would you mind going through this list and letting me know which of these you think should be allowed in a public place? Blasphemy ... yes/no? Profane speech ... yes/no? Hate speech against particular racial/ethnic groups ... yes/no? Flag Burning ... yes/no? Burning public figures in effigy ... yes/no? Kissing or touching in a sexually-suggestive manner (straight) ... yes/no? Kissing or touching in a sexually-suggestive manner (non-straight) ... yes/no? Nudity ... yes/no? Masturbation ... yes/no? Sexual intercourse ... yes/no? Self-mutilation ... yes/no? Call for criminal activity that doesn't physically harm others (e.g. theft, vandalism) ... yes/no? Call for criminal activity that does physical harm to others ... yes/no?
Actually, assigning "value" to various types of speech (political, commercial, artistic expression, p*rn, obscenity, etc.) and weighing such value against the justification for restricting such speech is exactly how courts in the US analyzes and decides whether the 1st Amendment overrides a particular government restriction on speech. As a legal scholar, Posner is making a statement based on American jurisprudence. We don't expect people to be legal scholars but in the age of Wikipedia one can at least take a few minutes to look things up.
Free speech got Hitler elected. Therefore free speech is bad. just saying there are obvious upsides and downsides to free speech, some of which can be pretty extreme.
Seriously. All it takes is Wikipedia (and or common sense and logical reasoning) to figure out that the first amendment isn't and has never been absolute but lots of nonlawyers (and in this case a foreigner) appear to be under a different impression.
That being said time/place I do find okay, but I would have to explain in a longer post that I'm not willing to do now.
Durvasa, I think the answer to your question is "depends on the circumstances." For example, what public place is it? When do you want to make the speech or expression? For how long? For what purpose? Is there a threat to public safety? What kind of restriction is the goverment contemplating? There are a lot of factors to consider.
Even for blasphemy, you think there are situations where it should not be allowed in a public place? Could you give an example?
Total free speech is bull**** -- emotional abuse (see Westboro Church) causes long lasting pain and suffering that is worse than physical violence.
The only time free speech should be restricted is when it is being used to intimidate or cause fear in specific people of another group. Burning a cross in front of someone's house for example as a means to make them move. Should protesters be allowed to intimate people from going in to have an abortion by yelling slurs at them as they walk by? Should OWS be allowed to do the same to people going to their job in downtown Manhattan? These are the types of questions that need to be discussed. But making a video and publishing it - unless it calls for an action that would intimidate or threaten another group - should totally be within bounds. I think free speech was mainly intended to keep the press and other forms of media free as part of a vibrant democracy. But not to be used as a weapon to force people into doing something.
