Should the Freedom of Speech Always be allowed?

[Beanieboy]

Another poster posted the importance of Free Speech, especially in context of being able to state that homosexuality is a sin, etc.

Do you believe that peopel should always be allowed to have Freedom of Speech? Do you see any place where there should be restrictions?

Does Fred Phelps have the right to stand at the road side with a "God Hates f*gs" sign?

In this picture, I'm guessing it is someone from his church, but it says,
"God says to kill f*gs"
http://www.deepfocusproductions.com/page_html/film_LTK0.html
Should this be allowed?

Phelps seems to have gotten more and more twisted over the years.
He protested the funeral of Matthew Shepard with signs that said, "Matt burns in hell." Should this be a right for him to speak?

I thought that was bad enough, but the latest has me more upset than the murderer. Phelps decided to protest the funeral of the victim stabbed and decapitated on a Manitoba Greyhound bus. Why? For being a Canadian, a country that allows divorce and remarriage, abortion, and gay marriage.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/08/08/westboro-protest.html
Canada border guards decided not to allow Phelps into their country, and were searching cars for signs that indicated that they were members of the church.
Some members slipped through the border, but

Phelps-Roper said protesters did not display their signs and chose to picket away from the church because the Canadian government had made “lawless pronouncements” about arresting Westboro members.

http://portagedailygraphic.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1152019

Another Freedom of Speech issue:
Posting Leviticus

In March of 2000, Pastor Kristopher Okwedy’s Keyword Ministries invested $2,500 to plaster several translations of Leviticus 18:22 across two billboards. The highway advertising signs owned by PNE Media were located in the Staten Island vicinity, one in Port Richmond and the other in St. George.

After many vehement protests throughout the immediate community, the billboard’s owner had the two signs covered and then removed. Under pressure, the owner released the sponsor’s name and Pastor Okwedy immediately began receiving racial slurs and threats of personal harm.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/08/15/064150.php

Should one be able to freely post Leviticus that says
Leviticus: 18: 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination.?
or what about this:
Leviticus 20: 13 If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination: let them be put to death. Their blood be upon them.?

I unfortunately can't find the article, but there was a story about an office worker who complained to his boss when another employee had posted Leviticus 20:13, feeling like it was hate speech, and said that he didn't feel safe, because he was gay. The office worker was asked to take it down. He said no, because it was a statement of his religion. He was then given an ultamatum, and ultimately choose to leave, rather than remove the verse.

Who is right?

Dissing Dr. Laura - Canadian Broadcast Standards Council condemns antigay comments - Brief Article
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2000_June_20/ai_62741777

Canada's official broadcast watchdog on May 10 issued a damning indictment of radio talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger, ordering radio stations to stop broadcasting her antigay comments.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council condemned Schlessinger for referring to gay people as "abnormal," "aberrant," "deviant," "disordered," "dysfunctional," and the results of "a biological error."

"The sexual practices of gays and lesbians are as much a part of their being as the color of one's skin or the gender, religion, age, or ethnicity of an individual," the council stated. "To use such brutal language as she does about such an essential characteristic flies in the face of Canadian provisions relating to human rights."

Was Canada right, in your opinion? Or do you think Dr. Laura should have Freedom of Speech, like she does in the US?

What role do Christians have in these instances?
What role do Christians have in fighting Fred Phelps, who claims to be Christian, and uses the bible to do some very objectionable things?
Do people use these verses out of their "religious belief", or use the bible to support their judgement, condemnation or even hatred in their hearts?

I don't want to make this another thread about homosexuality. The point is rather looking closely at The Freedom of Speech and its limitations.
It is also looking at the social ethics of using verses (such as Leviticus billboards), as well as Christian ethics of using, or misusing, the bible in that manner. [/font=4]

I don't want to get into another "is homosexuality moral" debate, and only use it because it is the hot button du jour. Rather, I want to explore the tactics and Freedom of Speech issues that as if Phelps protests wrong but should remain legal, or should be prohibited? If so, why or why not? Does he use or misuse the bible? Does he have the right to Freedom of Speech, or does it stop when infringing on the rights of others? Are the above instances using or misusing scripture? Does a coworker have the right to put up Bible/Islamic/Wiccan/Buddhist text that would offend other workers, or make them feel like they are in a hostile environment? Where do you draw the line? Does someone who can broadcast to millions of listeners have the right to Freedom of Speech, which may contain untruths, lies, inaccuracies, instances of scapegoating, etc.?

 

[Beanieboy]

Ugh. Note to mods: Title should read:
Should the Freedom of Speech Always be Allowed.
I'm unable to edit it.
Thanks.
I have to go wipe egg off my face now.

 

[quatona]

I live in a country in which certain forms of hate-speech are prohibited. I like the improved discussion that is the result of it, and coming to American based message boards surely was a culture shock in this respect. But, well, that´s how I have been brought up, that´s how I know it - so I am certainly biased.
In addition, I personally don´t find much point in confronting others with one´s negative emotions, anyways. But that´s just me.

However, I suspect that there´s a problem with prohibiting hate speech:
Hate, if you are not allowed to express it, is likely to grow; and people who are prohibited from express their hate have a tendency to become a group that takes comfort in feeling oppressed and persecuted. This is potentially dangerous.

I am on the fence here: I don´t dare to tell which is more dangerous - the above described development, or the fact that allowing hate speech establishes hate as something normal and acceptable.

Legislation aside, I think it is a good idea to - along with the importance of freedom - establish the paradigm that freedom comes with obligations. Like: If you want the freedom to talk make sure you have educated yourself on the subject.

 

[Athene]

Ugh. Note to mods: Title should read:
Should the Freedom of Speech Always be Allowed.
I'm unable to edit it.
Thanks.
I have to go wipe egg off my face now.

Good thing I happened to be passing by and edited the title for you.

 

[Beanieboy]

My apologies for forgetting that there are countries outside the US where people post here. It's a common mistake for me. I also don't want to make this country specific, but more about the ethics of Freedom of Speech in general, and where the lines are drawn, because there are just so many grey areas.

 

[quatona]

My apologies for forgetting that there are countries outside the US where people post here. It's a common mistake for me. I also don't want to make this country specific, but more about the ethics of Freedom of Speech in general, and where the lines are drawn, because there are just so many grey areas.

I didn´t mean to complain, Beanieboy. I just felt that for having a frame of reference for my post it would be good to know that I don´t have the cultural background of "freedom of speech" trumping pretty much every other freedom.

 

[Washington]

Another poster posted the importance of Free Speech, especially in context of being able to state that homosexuality is a sin, etc.

Do you believe that peopel should always be allowed to have Freedom of Speech? Do you see any place where there should be restrictions?

Free speech that endangers, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, or where it breachs national security, is against the law.

Does Fred Phelps have the right to stand at the road side with a "God Hates f*gs" sign?

Yes.

In this picture, I'm guessing it is someone from his church, but it says,
"God says to kill f*gs"
http://www.deepfocusproductions.com/page_html/film_LTK0.html
Should this be allowed?

Yes.

Phelps seems to have gotten more and more twisted over the years.
He protested the funeral of Matthew Shepard with signs that said, "Matt burns in hell." Should this be a right for him to speak?

Of course.

Should one be able to freely post Leviticus that says
Leviticus: 18: 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: because it is an abomination.?
or what about this:
Leviticus 20: 13 If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination: let them be put to death. Their blood be upon them.?

Yes and yes.

I unfortunately can't find the article, but there was a story about an office worker who complained to his boss when another employee had posted Leviticus 20:13, feeling like it was hate speech, and said that he didn't feel safe, because he was gay. The office worker was asked to take it down. He said no, because it was a statement of his religion. He was then given an ultamatum, and ultimately choose to leave, rather than remove the verse.

Who is right?

An employer has a right to decide how his property is used.

Dissing Dr. Laura - Canadian Broadcast Standards Council condemns antigay comments - Brief Article
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2000_June_20/ai_62741777

Was Canada right, in your opinion? Or do you think Dr. Laura should have Freedom of Speech, like she does in the US?

I'm not familiar with Canadian law.

What role do Christians have in these instances?

Not sure what kind of role you're thinking of, but in main, the same role as any other citizen.

Do people use these verses out of their "religious belief", or use the bible to support their judgement, condemnation or even hatred in their hearts?

How would we know?

 

[eves_adam]

Should the Freedom of Speech Always be allowed?

Only if I agree with what you say.

 

[Beanieboy]

Good thing I happened to be passing by and edited the title for you.

Thank you! (bows down, washes feet)

You know how you are on a roll, and then, realize that the whole time you said this profound thing, there was spinach in your teeth?
Thanks for lending me some dental floss! Your job is never done!

 

[Beanieboy]

Free speech that endangers, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, or where it breachs national security, is against the law.

Is inciting violence and murder, claiming that Leviticus says that gays should be killed, not a breach of security? Does it not potentially endanger the life of others?

Doesn't the use of propaganda violate defamation law?

 

[Washington]

Is inciting violence and murder, claiming that Leviticus says that gays should be killed, not a breach of security? Does it not potentially endanger the life of others?

I'm not sure how the law reads as to inciting violence, but one would have to prove that a particular life was endangered.

Doesn't the use of propaganda violate defamation law?

Again, one would have to prove that an individual suffered actual harm.

From Wikipedia:

In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes afalse claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.

-my emphasis-​

 

[cantata]

In the UK it's illegal to incite violence against anyone. I am not sure whether Phelps' "God says to kill f*gs" would qualify as incitement to violence - but I kind of hope they would. I am grudgingly happy for him to be allowed to wave his signs wherever he chooses, but I draw the line at suggesting that one should kill homosexual people. The fact is that there's enough violence against gay people in this country and in America anyway, without some moron making it worse by waving signs encouraging it.

 

[MarcusHill]

I'm a massive advocate of free speech, and would generally support the right of people to say whatever the hell they like unless it's liable to cause harm to others - and even then, it should be specific people. Walking down the street with a placard that says "I hate group X" is perfectly OK, constantly sitting outside the home of a member of that group with such a placard is harassment. Unfortunately, this is a far from clear cut issue.

Is the harassment caused by bigots waving signs and shouting when a family is trying to grieve enough "harm" to trump free speech rights? It depends! If the only connection is (say) that the person is a native of a country whose policies the bigots dislike, then the "harm" outweighs the legitimacy of the free speech. If, on the other hand, the deceased was (to continue with the Phelps example) a prominent gay rights activist, I'd tend to lean the other way.

If you're in the workplace, the rules are a bit different. It's much harder to ignore hate speech if you're required to be in a place where it occurs to make a living. In this case, the hate speech is causing harm to the coworkers to whom it applies, and it is therefore entirely moral to require its suppression.

 

[cantata]

I think picketing a funeral could constitute harm, really.

 

[B'alaam]

I think picketing a funeral could constitute harm, really.

Yep.
I dont know about England, but here in the US, there have been rulings against those who have caused "emotional harm" and "mental harm" (Im sure those aren't the actual legal terms though...Im just too lazy to look it up right now)

 

[cantata]

Yep.
I dont know about England, but here in the US, there have been rulings against those who have caused "emotional harm" and "mental harm" (Im sure those aren't the actual legal terms though...Im just too lazy to look it up right now)

It's certainly pretty cruel behaviour. I think it borders on abusive.

 

[Guid]

Do you believe that peopel should always be allowed to have Freedom of Speech? Do you see any place where there should be restrictions?

Yes, it should always be allowed. No, there should be no restrictions what so ever in the verbal expression of your legitimate opinions.

Now obviously one shouldn't be permitted to Fire! in a theatre or hurl obscenities in public, nor is slander and libel permissible. But as far as the realm of ideas goes, no absolutely no restrictions.

While some on thse forums are gleeful that the likes of Dr. Laura are being banned in Canada, I am not. There is no end to how far leftisit and facist ideas can go .. forced abortion and forced euthansisia, organ harvesting from prisioners, one party only systems, jailing of all dissent, genocide .. and so on. All are the result of restriction of speech.

Sure, some ideas that people express are reprehensible. But people should be allowed to express them anyway. The minute one does not permit them, well, then, one does not have fredom of speech does one?

LOL That's what freedom of speech is all about: free to speak one's mind even if it goes against everyone else's grain and even if the idea is very unpopular! Duh.

Guid

 

[Guid]

I think picketing a funeral could constitute harm, really.

IMHO, since funerals are held on *private* property the owners shouldn't be able to restrict what ges on there?

For instance ACME Funeral Plots staff should be able to restrict people to performing burials and honouring the dead on the property and be allowed to turn others away e.g. those who want to engage in political protest.

If the protestors want to go up to the public road and protest, fine .. but not at the funeral.

Also, those on the road should not be allowed to harass those who are behaving peacefully on private property i.e. it is OK to outlaw disturbing the peace.

Just my opinion,
Guid

 

[seeker777]

The Laws that the Canadian Police would have used to shut down Phelps sad protest, would likely have been;

1) Causing a disturbance
2) Public mischief, failing to allow persons lawful enjoyment of property
3) Breach of the peace
4) There is a law about not being allowed to disturb a religious service, but I don't know much about it.

It seems that Phelps was aware that with all the National and political attention his group received, the Canadian Laws would have come down on his hate group like a sledge hammer on a mosquito.

I like the balance we have in Canada in relation to free speech and prohibiting hate speech.

Say what you want in public, but keep your vicious hatred within the privacy of your own home.

Contrary to what many Americans may believe, hate crime charges are exceptionally rare in Canada.

 

[Guid]

I like the balance we have in Canada in relation to free speech and prohibiting hate speech.

I *used* to like it, but I changed my mind:

Of course, Fire! in a theatre, yelling obscenities, libel, slander etc. are naturally slated for restriction - they're not the issue.

I now think that freedom of spoken and texted speech (i.e. of opinion) should be near absolute (even in the case of racism and other reprehensible opinions). The "hate speech" laws should be repealed. They are already being used by certain groups to put a chill on speech. The laws are definitely a slippery slope to some sort of leftist or fascist totalitarism - either real or defacto.

I say speech and text because now I think freedom of expression should be held up to censorship. I think it would be OK to ban certain for-profit imagery because its production and distribution for profit is degrading to those who are photographed and are a cause of disruption in the relationships of those who buy it.

Canadians tend to be complacent. We think totlaitarianism can't happen here. But even today, I heard on the radio that the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) wants to strip doctors of the right to practise should they refuse to carry out medical procedures the doctor finds morally reprehensible. E.g. a doctor can be stripped of her ability to practice if she refuses to prescribe some drug she thinks is dangerous, or to perform an abortion, or - should it ever come in - kill a patient the government has slated for execution under some eugenics law.

Check it out:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...w-moral-guidelines-forcing-doctors-hands.aspx

Guid