Is there such thing as too much freedom of speech?

[Mintonity]

Recently, in my own political sphere there's been a lot of discussion about the right to offend people and say offensive view points? Do you think that ever goes to far?

Personally, I think people should have the right to express their viewpoints, however difficult they might be to hear. But there also exists a right to challenge or ignore those viewpoints.

[Austerain]

From a legal standpoint, freedom of speech becomes "too much" when it incites violence or infringes too much on the competing rights of others.

Some examples of cases: in Brandenburg v. Ohio the Supreme Court struck down Ohio's anti-hate speech law because the law didn't come up to par with their two-pronged test that evaluates free speech: "speech can be prohibited if it is 'directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action'" or "likely to incite or produce such action" [Oyez.org]. They protected the KKK's freedom of speech because even if it's unpleasant speech, it's still protected.

At the same rate, in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Court declared that "fighting words" that are likely to incite violence and breach of peace are NOT protected as free speech.

In Texas v. Johnson, the SC upheld so-called flag desecration or flag burning as protected freedom of speech and expression in political nature. Although many might be offended by someone burning the American flag, it's protected unpleasant speech.

In famous Tinker v. Des Moines, symbolic protest with black armbands in school was declared as protected speech in the political context. While students aren't necessarily guaranteed the full extent of the 1st Amendment when it comes to disrupting education for others and classroom management according to Morse v. Frederick or what classifies as obscenity that can be censored (Roth), this case covers what might be unpleasant symbolic speech.

And finally in NYT v. Sullivan, freedom of press and speech is upheld by upholding tough libel laws that require malice and knowledge of falsehoods to be proven if a publication is accused of libellous content.

People have the right to exercise the freedom of speech and expression as long as it doesn't incite violence or impede the rights of others to an extent. Yes, even racist hate speech. But when it comes to making outlandish false statements, that doesn't mean you have the "right to [your] opinion" when your opinion isn't based on fact in the context of a debate or statement in official capacity. It doesn't mean that speaking out against one's opinion with rebuttal "undermines your right to an opinion" either since the other also has the same right to dispute your opinion.

You can't accuse someone of "disrespecting MUH RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH" while exercising your own, it's hypocritical.

Free speech does not cover "yelling fire in the theatre" either.
Free speech covers: "I don't like Obama because [insert reasons here] and he's a [n-word] c**t"

Free speech is not: "I've got a bomb for Obama and I will organize 2nd Amendment people to rebel and kill the gubment"

Many other free speech cases I haven't covered:
mollykat17.weebly.com/freedom-of-speech-landmark-cases.html
judiciallearningcenter.org/your-1st-amendment-rights/
oyez.org
www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topics/tog_freedom_of_speech.html

[Auze]

I think Randall Munroe covers it:
xkcd.com/1357/

[Courelli]

Bumping an old-ish thread in the wake of recent alt-right, Nazi, and white supremacist activity.

Can there be too much free speech? Yes. Speech that leads to the death of a protester and other generally violent conflict - and advocates for this, celebrates this - needs to be limited.

Sorry for the brevity of this comment, but I will leave it at that. Google videos of the events if you would like more of an explanation - see the results of this type of speech with your own eyes.

[Austerain]

I stand by my earlier comments regarding Chaplinsky and Brandenburg. I'll copy and paste a part of a Facebook rant I posted a few days ago,

"A part of their argument is that any pro-Nazi speech means that Nazi ideology is automatically advocating for violence against certain groups, which if defined into law is a slippery slope into further suppression of speech. The same excuse could be made to suppress any other group that has historically used violence to push their ideology (Christians, Muslims, socialists, any person from a historically imperialist country). There is no question that pro-Nazi speech is atrocious and unpleasant, but the Supreme Court has long held that even unpleasant and hateful speech is protected as long as they are not explicitly inciting violence.

Once you allow the government to have the power to determine what speech is not allowed, it is a slippery slope into allowing the government to limit other forms of speech with similar excuses that breed authoritarianism and lead to suppression of criticism. Bernie, like the rest of us, knows that Nazism is an atrocious ideology, but he would not advocate for such an authoritarian policy to suppress free speech (he was the least authoritarian out of all Democratic candidates). Love Bernie, but some of his supporters seem to have little clue about what he is about. To quote "King Charles III", I am not prone to certainty, but they have drawn that measure from my unsure heart.

[cont. from responses in comments]

One cannot simply rely on a group's history to determine if the nature of that speech incites violence. In the Brandenburg v. Ohio case, they used a two-pronged test to determine speech acts. Speech can be prohibited if it is *directed* at inciting or producing imminent and lawless action, and if it is like to produce such action. There is no question that direct violence isn't covered as free speech, but it sets a dangerous precedent of *prior restraint* that could be considerable harmful to the free speech of other groups in which their history could be used as justification for censorship.

[cont.]

Quotes from Justice Brandeis in Whitney v. California: "Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the state was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government... Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence...

"They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones. Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law -- the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed... Fear of serious injury cannot alone justify suppression of free speech and assembly. Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears. To justify suppression of free speech, there must be reasonable ground to fear that serious evil will result if free speech is practiced. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. There must be reasonable ground to believe that the evil to be prevented is a serious one"

[cont.]

The best way to combat the abhorrent speech of Neo-Nazis and white supremacists is not to censor them, but to be louder than them. Private companies, politicians, and private citizens must continue to speak out against these views and dispute them, without using the force of the law to censor them (unless the Brandenburg test applies). The Constitution was formed so that the tyranny of the majority did not oppress the minority by the law; in this case, these Neo-Nazis and white supremacists are the minority. The Constitution guarantees that even the rights of the minority faction is protected by the government and from the majority faction. This does not mean that the minority faction's prejudiced speech has to be socially acceptable, however. Social norms can continue to place this group as a fringe of society, a taboo of sorts. And Charles makes a great point. History has shown that factors such as economic inequality and poverty tend to breed economic frustration, which can be translated into scapegoating certain individuals, groups, and entities. As I've said before, when people feel that their government is no longer working for them and that the deck of the economy is stacked against them, there will be figures that take advantage of this frustration by shifting the focus to scapegoats and there will be authoritarians who offer such simple and misguided solutions to complex issues. We saw this with Hitler in the wake of the Treaty of Versailles, which harshly punished Germany through its economy to breed economic frustration to lay the foundations for Hitler to blame scapegoats for the country's woes. For every push for equality, there will always be those that are accustomed to the privilege that see the push for equality as their oppression. We have to understand their viewpoints, as misguided as they are."

~~~

All in all, speech that celebrates and promotes violence is not protected speech. The prevention and the punishments for such speech should be better enforced, and those that stand against these Nazis and white supremacists should stand as the better example, dispute their lies, and become louder voices. We should not limit unpleasant (again, nonviolent) speech by law, but speech should be regulated by societal conventions.