Should freedom of speech have limits?

[Richards 0]

I think public opinion and the inherent public backlash do a fine job of controling what people say. It does not prohibit, but does imply consequences for those who cross the line.

Richards

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[WeakMindedFool 0]

I said yes...and I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU. If your speech is going to result in immediate violence then No (Fire in a theater and all that). If what your saying is provably untrue and will cause Significant harm (lying about a person or bussiness with teh intent of doing damage). Other then that, all's fair! From burnning the flag to saying the president is a moron. To all you people that get your feelins hurt when the flag is burned or it's pointed out that W is a jackass...freedom isn't easy.

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves.
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos

[kelpdiver 2]

I'd presume the question meant yes to mean something beyound the current legal doctrine that doesn't permit speech that will clearly result in physical harm (inciting panic or having hit lists for abortion doctors for example).

Mel Gibson exercised his rights to hate speech and America seems to have chosen to ignore him for now on. Same can happen here...if anyone was really paying that much attention to him anyway.

[WeakMindedFool 0]

Quote

Mel Gibson exercised his rights to hate speech and America seems to have chosen to ignore him for now on. Same can happen here...if anyone was really paying that much attention to him anyway.

I don't think we're ignoring him, most people think he's an idiot I'd imagine. I'm glad he did exercise his right to make an ass of himself. Tom Cruise as well.

Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for lost faith in ourselves.
-Eric Hoffer -
Check out these Videos

[livendive 8]

Quote

I meant legally-imposed ones - but I also include monetary compensation deemed necessary in a court of law in that definition - not merely legislation.

Let's imagine some guy comes onto you at the bar tonight. He's ugly and uninteresting, you blow him off, and he takes offense. Unbeknownst to you, he's a writer for the Atlantic Daily (or whatever your local newspaper is called). Tomorrow morning, the front page of the paper says "KELLY *******" RAPES CHILD THEN KILLS PARENTS", with a full story about how you committed these crimes, and maybe a couple follow-ups over the next few weeks. You get fired, some of your acquaintances hate you, etc. Should you have some legal recourse?

Understand I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. I certainly believe that freedom of speech is crucial to our nation, and I don't think anyone has a right to not be offended. But I will admit to seeing some grey area when that speech is both public and harmful (in a manner other than mere hurt feelings.)

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[aprilcat 0]

Quote

Speaking of Richards, you know what surprises me? Instead of saying, "Gee, I snapped, I don't know what got into me," why didn't he just do what other standup comics do, which is to claim that he was just following the Lenny Bruce tradition of saying shocking, taboo things during his standup routine as a way of reaching his audience, and it simply flopped? Would have at least had some plausibility to it.

He didn't use that excuse because he told the truth. He was in a rage and snapped. I personally feel sorry for the guy--it was ugly and embarrassing. And why hide behind the legacy of Lenny Bruce? Besides being deceased, hasn't he been censored at almost every turn?

Richards is not a stand up comic, he's an actor. He should have stuck to that..

And in addition to slander, personal attacks using hate speech is illegal. The First Amendment doesn't say you can say ANYTHING to anybody. There are limits. If you don't believe me, think of the case in New York were a white man beat a black man and was penalized SEVERELY for using racial slurs while doing it. Hate crime. Shoulda kept his dumb mouth shut and he could beat on the guy and not do 20 years.

The Laff Factory was right in banning Richards. A business is a business and no one who spends money there wants to watch someone verbally vomit all over another paying customer.

The young men in question were upset because Richards didn't contact them personally to apologize (there were release forms at the club) but made a blanket apology on the Letterman Show, while Jerry Seinfeld was there to promote the release of 'Seinfeld' series DVD's. More business lost. There truly is no place for this type of behavior. Yes, Black Comics use racial material (almost ALL comics use racial material) but I have never seen a personal attack on an audience member. The audience is the performers bread and butter. Richards seemed drunk or drugged and it was pitiful

I am not sure about suing him; had I been there I'd definitely feel bad as well as frightened about the horrible things he said, but I DO believe he should be hauled off and made to do some 'Anger Management' work, ordered by a court and seek help for what is really bothering him.

Mel Gibson? I guess he didn't have paying customers on the road and over 400 eyes and video cameras going and Mel has a Production Co, so if he's every boycotted he can make grandscale films and watch them in his basement alone.

Again, I say there is no room in society for this kind of nastiness. ~~April

Camelot II, the Electric Boogaloo!