Sparrow said:
Free speech should not allow for the incitement of a third party to break the law,
Free speech does not. There are laws against things like 'incitement to riot.' However, the law has to consider the reality of the 'incitement' actually happening. For example, if I stand on the courthouse steps and yell, "Kill Sparrow!" to the crowd, are the likely to immediately return home and begin plotting your demise? No, so I have not incited to action. However, if I spend an hour whipping a crowd up into a frenzy, telling them how awful you are, and suddenly you hove into view and I continue with "And there he is, kill him," a reasonable and prudent person might surmise that you might be in some real danger. That's incitement and it is illegal.
it should not allow someone to gain an advantage through the promulgation of an untruth, it should not allow for the promotion of a illegal act.
I think we'd have to put all of our advertisers and politicians in prison. Not a bad idea, perhaps, but ... impractical.
We teach our kids history in high school so they don’t have to make the same mistakes as their forbears, are you suggesting they should only be allowed to use that tool after the event?
I'm missing something here. They should be allowed to use *what* tool?
We could save a lot of their time, and our money by allowing XYZ to go in and speak freely on their agenda instead.
Freedom of speech does not mean 'equal time'. The schools do not have to (and I'm guessing do not) invite the KKK or the neo-Nazis in to speak.
If XYZ decides to march through ABC’s town the rest of us unfortunately have no choice but to take a view, and I contend that view should be informed by a notion of “right and wrong” if you cannot do that I suppose a good place to hide is behind your constitutional rights, I don’t get that option we never got round to writing one down.
Well, I disagree. I think that when a hate group like the KKK marches through town, it is a great time to discuss with kids what freedom means, and why it means that we have to put up with speech we dislike and abhor so that we might know that freedom to speak for even the most hated means freedom for us all.
And whose notion of 'right and wrong' should be used? Yours, mine, some other guy's? As I've said - we might agree - in fact we do - that the KKK and the neo-Nazis are terrible, bad, awful people - evil in fact.
But you know, I am pretty much against beer. And so the Russian Beer-Drinkers Political Party? I'm thinking they should not be allowed to speak if they come to the USA. And I don't much like the British Monster Raving Loony Party, either. So if I get to be Mayor, I'm not going to allow them to speak, either.
"Right and Wrong" are moral values often shared by many in a given society. But even those societies would stagger you or I at times - honor killings of women who have been raped, for example; female circumcision; stoning adulterers to death. Those are values that are "right" according to many if not most in the societies where they are practiced.
And times change values in countries. Once upon a time, we here in America thought that slavery was just fine. Yes, some were against it, but enough were for it that it prevailed in the southern states. Slavery was, if not good, at least not bad. So what then? Speakers against slavery should be prevented from speaking?
The concept that human rights are, as nearly as possible, absolute, protects everyone. When a neo-Nazi or a Klansman has the right to speak their mind openly, no matter how much I despise hearing it, then MY right to speak still exists. If I restrict their right to speak freely, then it becomes only a matter of time before someone takes away my right to speak because they disagree with my message.
Everybody wants freedom, but they tend to equate freedom with peace and prosperity and happiness. Freedom is often painful.
I hate flag-burners. I am glad I live in a society that permits it.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
