Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (67461)	11/22/2002 2:28:11 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

ROFL It is precisely the defining of the dreaded "irrseponsible speech" that makes it so necessary to protect all speech, with a very few exceptions, narrowly delineated by the Supremes. There is a huge gray area, which normally is composed of speech we don't "like" and which we think is harmful- based on our biased view of the world, and since everyone has a different opinion about what "irresponsible" speech is, and what is "harmful" it is best not to let everyone shut down free speech. Because if we did that, pretty soon we'd have very little speech.

To: one_less who wrote (67461)	11/22/2002 2:43:47 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

some types of expression are harmful and should be forbidden, opposed, stopped. This is true, but the those types must be severely limited, and only forbidden if there is overwhelming reason to do so. Anything else invites creeping censorship that eventually will kill all speech. And in many cases, we need to distinguish between speech that should be per se forbidden -- it is forbidden to utter it at all -- and speech which is not forbidden per se but for which a person may be held legally accountable. In the former category is the classic example of shouting Fire in crowded theater -- speech that is likely to cause immediate serious bodily harm. "Fighting words" come under this concept according to the Supreme Court, though personally I have always thought that category to be impossibly broad, and that the onus should be placed on the hearer of the words to control his or her responses to them. (The Fire example is different because there there is a false warning of an imminent external threat which one cannot control but feels one must escape. In fighting words, the only thread is from the other person and there is generally nothing preventing you from shrugging your shoulders and turning away.) Fraudulent representation which is intended to do financial harm to another person is forbidden speech, but sometimes it is hard to distinguish fraudulent representation from puffery. I have always, personally, thought that more responsibility should be placed on the listener not to be stupid. But we tend to protect stupidity today. I accept those broad limits on speech, the former without equivocation, the second with reluctance. Then there are some more specific limits. Certain limits on speech are imposed on people who make choices about their professions. For example, a priest is forbidden to speak about what is said to him in the confessional. A lawyer is forbidden from telling the prosecuting attorney that his client admitted he did the crime (unless the client authorizes that for the purpose of plea bargaining). A doctor is forbidden from speaking about information he gleans in the course of his examination of a patient except when necessary for the medical care of that patient. A company employee is forbidden from proclaiming his company's trade secrets. A student taking a class in organic chemistry is forbidden, during the class period, from giving a speech about Shakespearian tragedy. A soldier may be forbidden from speaking about what orders he has received. Limits like that which are role specific and are clearly accepted by the person as a reasonable condition of accepting the benefits of the role. Also, a person has the absolute right to control what speech is said in his or her own home. If you happen to be so disgusted by the word "coconut" that you want to ban from your house any utterance of it, you should be and are totally free to do so. There may be others, but those are the ones off the cuff that I would subscribe to. But in general, the strong presumption should be that any limits on free speech are invalid, and exceptions should be narrowly tailored and only allowed for the most essential reasons.