The Limits of Free Speech

[Berzerker]

http://www.fox26houston.com/news/tr...s-new-stickers-about-fort-bend-county-sheriff

Interesting case...woman displays vulgar message on truck about Trump and his supporters and then adds the local sheriff to her message for tracking her down via facebook. The F-word is apparently spelled out rather than just an F with asterisks leaving nothing to the imagination.

Does free speech protect vulgarity?

I know the courts are unsympathetic and will probably vote against her should she pursue the case further, but as of now she isn't required to remove the word. She's under arrest for a warrant involving fraud from a few months ago (she aint too smart), but thats 'unrelated' to her truck and its indictment of our esteemed President.

Has the F-word become so normalized as to no longer qualify as vulgarity? I mean, people use the term all the time, including me. But I do try to refrain from its use in front of other people who might not be so happy to hear me cussing.

Course that merely begs the question: if it aint vulgar to the point of censorship, other words are probably vulgar nonetheless. I sure wouldn't appreciate following her truck with kids in the car, but I dont know that I'd be supportive of making it illegal either. Help me climb off this fence, what say you?

 

[Synobun]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don't call attention to yourself if you're wanted for a crime.

Swear words aren't related to free speech.

 

[Berzerker]

but they've become so commonplace to express disgust

how about the F-word's replacement terms, like frick and frack?

oops, are they even allowed here?

 

[Zkribbler]

...what say you?

I'm remembering a US Supreme Court case from the early days of the anti-Vietnam-War movement, The defendant was arrested for wearing a jacket which had printed on the back: F* the War [spelled out]. The Supreme Court held that was protected speech.

 

[Berzerker]

hmm...didn't know that. Maybe I'm thinking of the FCC's ruling on George Carlin's 7 dirty words that cant be said on TV

 

[Zkribbler]

hmm...didn't know that. Maybe I'm thinking of the FCC's ruling on George Carlin's 7 dirty words that cant be said on TV

Maybe not. None of them enrobed themselves in a political message.

 

[JollyRoger]

The only way to stop a bad gal using the f-bomb is with a good gal using the f-bomb.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

but they've become so commonplace to express disgust

how about the F-word's replacement terms, like frick and frack?

oops, are they even allowed here?

"Frack" has two meanings:

1. It was used as a mild curse word in the Original Battlestar Galactica TV series 39 years ago. Another curse word used in that series was "felgercarb".

2. Fast-forward to now, and "fracking" is what some some companies do to perfectly good land in order to get The Oil. It can cause earthquakes and instability in places where there never was any before, renders the land unusable for farming and ranching, and requires using water - they don't want just any old water - the ones doing this are using up potable water.

So yeah, "frack" is a real word, but it might as well be a curse word, because the process is so destructive.

Dunno about the American edition of Reader's Digest, but the Canadian edition was taking advertising from Cenovus, one of the fracking companies that operate here. When I realized what the consequences of this are to the land and water, I wrote to Reader's Digest to cancel my subscription. Of course they wanted to know why, and of course my explanation about them taking advertising money from a company hell-bent on destroying the environment just flew over their heads. They said, "But we use somewhat recycled paper!" as if that would bring back the arable land and the water.

I told them it's commendable that they recycle some paper, but this wasn't about the paper. It's about farm and ranch land in Saskatchewan that used to be productive, but now looks like a wasteland in terms of arable land and clean, fresh water. I would not knowingly support a business that takes advertising from these people, so I wanted my subscription canceled and my money back.

They very grudgingly agreed to this. Very grudgingly.

 

[Evie]

The use of vulgarity should not impact the legality of a message, honestly.

If you draw limitations tomfree speech over vulgarity but not over (say) hate speech, you entire world view is bankrupt.

 

[Ryika]

The interesting thing here isn't actually the "Eff Trump"-part to me, it's the "and Eff you too"-part. I'm pretty sure in Germany that might be seen as an insult and get you a nice fine.

Should it though? No, in my opinion vulgarity and insults should be fair game.

 

[Commodore]

Does free speech protect vulgarity?

You know, at first I was certain the answer to this question was "yes". After doing some research though, the general consensus seems to be "depends on the circumstance". From one source I looked at:

Is Obscene speech protected by the First Amendment?

It doesn't. Certain categories of speech are not entitled to First Amendment protection, including fighting words, true threats and incitement to imminent lawless action. If a person engages in profane fighting words or utters a true threat with profanity, those words may not be protected speech.

From another source:

Is profanity a form of expression protected by the First Amendment?

It can be, depending upon the circumstances and context. There is no general exception for profanity under the First Amendment unless the profanity qualifies as "fighting words." Fighting words are defined as words that by their very nature incite an immediate breach of the peace.

One case worth noting is the 1971 case of Cohen v. California, in which the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a man who had been arrested for wearing a jacket in a courthouse bearing the words "F*** the Draft."1 The court noted that the profane word on the jacket was not directed at a particular individual and aroused no violent reaction.

However, public school students have greater restrictions placed on their First Amendment rights than adults. In fact, school officials gen-erally can prohibit vulgar and offensive student language under the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser.2 In that decision, the Supreme Court wrote that "it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse."3

In sum, one federal appeals court judge clarified the distinction between free speech and profanity quite well: "the First Amendment gives a high school student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think it should be illegal. It is, obviously, stupid, but making it illegal would also be stupid, let alone not have a productive effect.

 

[Moriarte]

Course that merely begs the question: if it aint vulgar to the point of censorship, other words are probably vulgar nonetheless. I sure wouldn't appreciate following her truck with kids in the car, but I dont know that I'd be supportive of making it illegal either. Help me climb off this fence, what say you?

Weeeell, some people just develop that talent and swearing comes naturally, in the time of need. The others - not so much, regardless of the amount of car stickers employed to support the cause. Personally, I think it's a matter of long practice and good taste. So, while I don't see swearing banned altogether I'd prefer further stimulation of tasteful use, just like we have it today.

 

[Perfection]

I'm with the sticker

 

[warpus]

F this

 

[Lexicus]

I'm with the sticker

But if a Democratic Presidential candidate told Wall St to go **** itself you'd vote for the Republicans?

 

[Perfection]

But if a Democratic Presidential candidate told Wall St to go **** itself you'd vote for the Republicans?

What the hell does your petty misrepresentation of my views have to do with the thread?

 

[Lexicus]

What the hell does your petty misrepresentation of my views have to do with the thread?

If I'm being honest with myself, though, if a President with my politics were elected I would be loving every minute of him laying into 1%ers and white collar criminals on Twitter. I want to elect a President who tells the bankers to go **** themselves on live TV. I actually love vulgarity and appreciate its use in politics and elsewhere. But there's a big difference between using vulgarity to speak truth to power and using it to punch down, as Trump does.

I would be so thoroughly disgusted by such behavior that I would likely vote Republican.

I expect the president to treat all Americans with respect.

Petty misrepresentation, indeed! What it has to do with the thread is that there is an apparent inconsistency there, which I am at a loss to explain. Perhaps this doesn't directly have to do with free speech per se, but surely it is relevant to the more general issue of the social, legal, etc. acceptability of vulgarity.

 

[Perfection]

Petty misrepresentation, indeed!

You painted a picture of a person who habitually, unapologeticly rails against private-sector leadership. Actions that are both wrong and likely economically disastrous.

What it has to do with the thread is that there is an apparent inconsistency there, which I am at a loss to explain.

Are you really unable to distinguish between a private citizen swearing about a complete jerkwad of a politician on a bumper sticker, and a president going on tirades about corporate leaders? Because those things seem pretty different to me.

More likely you just didn't like what I said earlier and wanted to argue about it and are taking any opportunity to do so.

surely it is relevant to the more general issue of the social, legal, etc. acceptability of vulgarity.

Not really. My objection does not hinge on if someone does or doesn't drop the F bomb

 

[Lexicus]

You painted a picture of a person who habitually, unapologeticly rails against private-sector leadership. Actions that are both wrong and likely economically disastrous.

What I actually said was "bankers," "1%ers," and "white collar criminals." I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'private-sector leadership' (do you mean that this hypothetical candidate is for nationalizing everything so the gubmint runs it, or that (s)he's just angry at our current crop of "private-sector leaders"?).

Are you really unable to distinguish between a private citizen swearing about a complete jerkwad of a politician on a bumper sticker, and a president going on tirades about corporate leaders?

Of course I'm able to distinguish the difference. The President going on tirades about "corporate leaders" would be far more of a social good than a private citizen swearing about a complete jerkwad of a politician; the former might actually create some 'bully pulpit' political effects while the latter would accomplish nothing.

Not really. My objection does not hinge on if someone does or doesn't drop the F bomb

Right, you made it clear that you believe attacks on white collar criminals are "wrong and likely economically disastrous." It's not that you're against vulgarity, it's just that you're on the wrong side of the class war.