GhostWriter16
Deity
OK, so everyone here MOSTLY believes in freedom of speech. I don't think anyone wants people to be arrested for MOST speech. But what about all speech? Should ANY speech be prohibited?
I was thinking of the attacks that were sparked because of that guy that burned the Korans and the guy that made that anti-Muhammad video. When I heard one of my English teachers argue that he be legally punished for that speech, I almost lost my mind. I don't approve of his actions, of course, but to ban freedom of speech is a dangerous, absurd precedent.
The "Fire in a theater" comparison was one this English teacher used as a comparison. The fundamental differences between the Koran burning or anti-Muhammad video and shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater are numerous.
1. While there are some radical Islamists (Note: Not anywhere near a majority of Muslims, let's be clear) who will kill people because of anti-Islamic speech, the deaths of those people is not a direct result of the speech in question. If I say something that ticks you off and gets you to kill your brother, his death is not directly my fault unless I said "Kill your brother" and even then the accusation that it is my fault is fairly shaky. If I insult your religion and you decide to kill someone over it, sure, I acted in an immoral way, but I did not CAUSE their death. To blame me for that death is to take away responsiblity from those who can clearly control themselves.
On the other hand, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater will perfectly logically lead people to run for their lives. This is the direct intended result of what I am saying. The only possible comparison is if he had actually TOLD the terrorists to kill someone. Even then, the comparison doesn't quite feel right, since someone could rationally reject an order to kill, but "There's a fire!" is going to lead any normal person to flee for their freaking lives.
2. I believe all speech should be protected, unless it directly endangers someone like the "Fire in a theater" thing, but the kind the first amendment was specifically written to protect is political and religious speech. They didn't have "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" in their mind, and there's no important reason to protect that speech either. There are some other kinds of speech, like profanity, that MIGHT not be explicitly important to protect, but there's no victim so logically it should be legal anyway. In contrast "Fire in a crowded theater" has many victims. Burning a Koran not only is victimless, its actually an expression of religious speech, much like burning the flag is a form of political speech. As such, neither should logically be banned, and in fact, it is contrary to freedom of religion to ban insults of other religions.
Thoughts? When should speech be restricted and why?
I was thinking of the attacks that were sparked because of that guy that burned the Korans and the guy that made that anti-Muhammad video. When I heard one of my English teachers argue that he be legally punished for that speech, I almost lost my mind. I don't approve of his actions, of course, but to ban freedom of speech is a dangerous, absurd precedent.
The "Fire in a theater" comparison was one this English teacher used as a comparison. The fundamental differences between the Koran burning or anti-Muhammad video and shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater are numerous.
1. While there are some radical Islamists (Note: Not anywhere near a majority of Muslims, let's be clear) who will kill people because of anti-Islamic speech, the deaths of those people is not a direct result of the speech in question. If I say something that ticks you off and gets you to kill your brother, his death is not directly my fault unless I said "Kill your brother" and even then the accusation that it is my fault is fairly shaky. If I insult your religion and you decide to kill someone over it, sure, I acted in an immoral way, but I did not CAUSE their death. To blame me for that death is to take away responsiblity from those who can clearly control themselves.
On the other hand, shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater will perfectly logically lead people to run for their lives. This is the direct intended result of what I am saying. The only possible comparison is if he had actually TOLD the terrorists to kill someone. Even then, the comparison doesn't quite feel right, since someone could rationally reject an order to kill, but "There's a fire!" is going to lead any normal person to flee for their freaking lives.
2. I believe all speech should be protected, unless it directly endangers someone like the "Fire in a theater" thing, but the kind the first amendment was specifically written to protect is political and religious speech. They didn't have "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" in their mind, and there's no important reason to protect that speech either. There are some other kinds of speech, like profanity, that MIGHT not be explicitly important to protect, but there's no victim so logically it should be legal anyway. In contrast "Fire in a crowded theater" has many victims. Burning a Koran not only is victimless, its actually an expression of religious speech, much like burning the flag is a form of political speech. As such, neither should logically be banned, and in fact, it is contrary to freedom of religion to ban insults of other religions.
Thoughts? When should speech be restricted and why?
