What limits are there to free speech?

One should not be allowed to encroach on others’ right to a peaceable environment via their speech…..

In general, so long as as your words don’t bring bodily harm to others. (I think).

There’s very little that one should be disallowed to say.

As long as one’s words are not directly causing harm to non-consenting others, there should be no limits, unless the person voluntarily locates themselves in a place where limits are imposed, in which case they should abide by the limits.

Shouting “FIRE!” in a packed movie theater (when there is no fire) is not free speech and should not be (and is not, in my place) allowed. This action will cause the place to evacuate, people could get hurt in the rush out, and there is no actual emergency. Direct physical harm is caused by these words, this infringes on other people’s rights.

Swearing in the post office is tougher. By entering the post office, you agree there are things that should not be done, and you agree to abide by entering and participating in society. Such as pooping in the middle of the floor, causing physical harm to others, etc. Swearing is generally not acceptable as a part of civilized society. If one keeps it to themselves (muttering to oneself), this should be fine, as it causes very little harm to others. But shouting obscenities, that is affecting other people who did not explicitly consent to hearing your shouting, and should not be allowed.

Inciting riots, again, what is the intent? If it’s to cause immediate harm and damage (ie, after a sports match at the bar, you rile up the crowd to do rioting), I would argue that this type of speech should be monitored if not controlled, as physical harm to non-consenting folk will come from it. If it’s a group of people sitting around talking about any type of non-supported concept (overthrowing the government), as long as there is no action towards doing so, I believe there is more harm in stifling such discussion than simply allowing it.

There is no right to compel others to listen, nor is there a right to compel others to publish what you say. (Let’s not turn this into another anti-moderation cluster****, ok?)

Respect for the rights of others is the definition of peace
-Benito Juarez

@cwilbur
Agreed, this is not intended to be a moderator critique.

It’s meant to explore the relationship between free speech and social responsibilty.

Each society crafts its own rules and regulations. And each member of said society has the right to follow or ignore such rules. It is a choice we all make every day.

For some, the shock value of inflammatory statements is what it’s all about. For others, cuss words are used more to make a point than to start a fight. I know people that can’t seem to get through a single conversation without swearing. I also know folks who swear so rarely that I’m shocked when I hear it.

I think that I should be allowed to say whatever I want as long as my words don’t cause pain. Granted, there are some situations when that is necessary, such as when you break up with someone or when you have to inform a person that a loved one has died, but I think we all know what I’m talking about here.

I’ll end this with a quote wrongly attributed to Voltaire but written by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in “The Friends of Voltaire”: “I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it!”

@Dr_C Unfortunately we can’t legislate respect :(

Free speech all you like about what you believe in or believe to be right
Don’t free speech your negativity directly at my person

Example: I will say I’m tickled I won’t be seeing posts any longer about, “hey y’all- let’s play tag- you’re it!”
I will not say in open forum, “I’m glad I won’t be seeing so-and-so posting stupid shit”
Those things can be shared privately :D

I agree with others here about the limit at causing harm to another. All other limits should be what we put on ourselves for our own reasons. I also Agree with AGN about the shock value, and I just laugh that shit off.

As for my own limitations, In the past I have censored what I say around my daughter, because I have chose to not put some things on her at a young age, that she can decide for herself later in life. While at work around clients and in other public places, I censor myself only out of of respect for others…if they only really knew what was lurking just below the surface of that calm, pleasing smile!

The problem I have always had with censorship, is the areas where fanatics have tried to censor and take away free speech, music, TV and movies, as well as the excuse of not wanting children to see/hear it. If these people pay attention to what their kids are seeing and doing, and talk to them about those things, they will turn out just fine like myself and my daughter has. I have personally been exposed to some of the most extreme books, movies, music and TV, and I think I am personally much better off for it!

Specific to the example- as you’ve pointed out in your posts, private organizations have the ability to limit speech. It seems to be an American misunderstanding that “free speech” is an automatic right in every setting. It isn’t. The government is prohibited from restricting free speech- private entities are not. I see this misunderstanding displayed constantly in many contexts- not just here.

@Snoopy What would be an example of “encroach(ing) on others’ right to a peaceable environment via their speech”? That sounds deliciously Orwellian.

@TheIowaCynic “an” example?

Screaming “Fire!” in a crowded theater, knowing that there is no threat….

@Snoopy OK…....screaming fire in a crowded theater would be a great example. We all agree. What else would be a good example of encroaching upon another’s peaceable existence? Is there anything that falls into that category you’re promoting, that a libertarian might object to. For instance, would a Minister on Sunday telling his Parish that homosexuality is an evil sin, constitute encroaching upon another’s peaceable existence in your opinion?

The Supreme Court usually comes out on the side of free speech in most decisions. The fact that such disputes even end up in the Supreme Court is evidence that there is little consensus at the local level.

In terms of a site such as this one, free speech goes as far as the owners say it will, and they have the power to delete, as an enforcement.

In terms of the general population, most would say your right to free speech is limited to what I want to hear. This is what leads to disputes.

I GA’d YarnLady’s answer….and I agree….except for the last paragraph.

I hear people say stuff that I don’t agree w/....but I frequently believe it is their right to say it….

@TheIowaCynic It is kinda pointless for me to come up w/ examples for you to either agree w/ or disagree w/....?

I also think the example that you gave (a preacher in church preaching against homosexuality) isn’t the best example of a fallacy w/ what I wrote…Likely his congregation agrees w/ him or they wouldn’t be in the pews….