'Free Speech' in America

I know I've a reputation amongst some here for being an 'America-basher', but that's honestly not what this thread is about. This is a genuine question and I sincerely hope to learn something.

I often see the notion of free speech thrown about on this forum, often within the context of Americans being free to say what they want whenever they want and often also in the context of Americans being freer than anyone else in the world to say whatever they want when they want.

Can an American give me a good outline of what 'free speech' actually entails from a legal standpoint? What are the limits of this 'free speech' as I'm assuming it must have some limits as I'm aware that litigation culture is rife in America - which I say as an observation rather than a criticism.

I'll be honest enough to admit that what has got me initially wondering about this is a comment made by an American poster* in the thread regarding the British soldier given a bit of a going over by several Police officers and a Special Constable. The off-duty soldier was drunk and, it's claimed was making threatening/abusive/harassing comments of some sort towards the Police. That's admittedly a claim, but hypothetically, if this was indeed the case - a drunk man gives some Police Officers verbal grief in America- would this actually covered by 'free speech'?

However, I'm also looking at a broader picture too. What are limits of what you can and can't say? Where can you and where can't you say certain things?

I'm sure I'm not the only member from one of the 'Old Countries' that would appreciate some insight on this.


*I'm more bothered about my question than naming the poster as it's certainly not a personal 'thing'; if anything I'm actually grateful for giving me the opportunity to ask something and hopefully learn something about an issue that appears a lot on ATS, and, not being an American, I'd appreciate some working knowledge of this principle.

Freedom of Speech.

This is something that his been drilled into us Americans head from birth. It is such an ingrained part of our upbringings that no matter how far to the left or the right of the political spectrum you are, you will probably utter those words.

I took a couple of legal courses in college and here is some things that I remember, freedom of speech carries an ENORMOUS amount of territory so this is the best surmise I can give.

Let me start with what is not covered...except when it is.

Child Pornography(their are artistic exceptions and classification issues), Direct threats against prominent public figures (but not typically against individuals) Statements that may cause immediate harm (yelling fire in a theater)

Here are some general, mostly accurate rules the courts "tend" to follow.

Rule #1: Courts tend to rule in the direction that most favors freedom of speech.

Rule #2: Courts do not rule on accuracy of statements.

Rule #3: Libel/defamation/whatever must be DISPROVEN by the accused making it radically different than European law from what I understand.

The easiest way to illustrate examples of how the law functions is to use the extreme examples.

Extreme example pertaining to Rule #1: Japan has a form of child pornography called "lolicon", it is fully animated/drawn, or "victimless" in production. Numerous attempts have attempted to outlaw it in the US. The first law (1996) was knocked down on free speech grounds. The first ever conviction based on laws attempting to outlaw this was December 18, 2008. Whether or not this is illegal is probably headed for the supreme court as two courts have issued contradictory rulings.

en.wikipedia.org...

Extreme example #2 : I will use an opposite method for this example. This is an English case that would NEVER fly in America. McLibel.

The British courts ruled the statements were partially true, but inaccurate. Or the other way around, inaccurate but partly true. If their is a vague grain of truth in a statement, it is legal, that is why McLibel will never happen in the US. As long as your statements are significantly vague...no problem

en.wikipedia.org...

Example 3 : Lets use a talk radio windbag as an example. Michael Savage is a prime example, the way he talks is PERFECT for avoiding lawsuits, on multiple levels that do not work in other countries courts. (He is VERY funny though)

"You've got to explain to the children ... why God told people this was wrong. You have to explain this to them in this time of mental rape that's going on. The children's minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia, that's my position. They're raping our children's minds."

In some countries an organization representing homosexuals could take Savage to court for defamation for accusing them of "raping our children's minds.". If an organization tried to take Savage to court for this statement in the US multiple defenses could be mounted.

1. The person who stated the statement believes it is true. Courts do not rule accuracy, and their will be no thought policing in this country.

2. The statement is ludicrous(or is it?). He could argue that the statement is so crazy no one would take it literally, which is true (or is it...remember ruling that favors the most speech)

3. The suing organization has to DISPROVE the statements. Here is a biggie. From what I understand if I go to Europe and accuse a large fraternity being pedophiles and they sue me for defamation "I" have to PROVE they are pedophiles, no small order. In the US "they" have to DISPROVE they are pedophiles, if ONE member was accused at ANY point of ANY reason(i.e. messy divorce) of misconduct of the children, the statement stands as true, or the ruling that MOST favors freedom of speech.

Oh, and we aren't really litigous, our media just makes it seem that way.

Hope it helps. I'm goint to do a f/up for the police issue.

I can answer you in a simpler manner. We can say whatever we want, wherever we want as long as we don't usurp some other citizens rights in doing it.

As a group, most cities require a simple permit for public protest. It is usually very cheap and easy to get. The reason is so that somebody on record is responsible for cleaning up messes or if they damage innocent peoples property or persons. It is not to limit speech as some dishonest people intimate. It is to protect the right of other citizens from being trampled by the protesters.

The stuff you see here on ATS comes from irrational people with a grudge or score to settle. America is a wonderful and very free place to live. When viewing the occasional video of an authority or cop doing wrong, bear in mind we are a country of well over 300 million and how few of these things actually occur.

Many of the people yelling about their lack of rights are just out of puberty or people who are often actually doing bad stuff and they get pissed when they get caught and rant against the whole system.

Some of those yelling about lack of rights are actually saying they want to do things that would trample on others rights and pisses them off that they are not allowed to do the acts whatever they are. I'm talking about the bottle throwing, rock pitching anarchists crowd who believe nobody but them deserve any rights. They think it is OK to destroy others property or shut their businesses down because in their selfish little minds, only they matter.

We are not allowed to tell lies that cause others emotional or financial harm which is as it should be.

I can stand on the sidewalk in front of the Whitehouse and call the President and idiot all day long if I desire. The result would likely be me rightly being labeled an idiot or a nut. If I started interfering with others on walking down the sidewalk or menacing them, then I would be stopped.

[edit on 1/14/2009 by Blaine91555]

The off-duty soldier was drunk and, it's claimed was making threatening/abusive/harassing comments of some sort towards the Police. That's admittedly a claim, but hypothetically, if this was indeed the case - a drunk man gives some Police Officers verbal grief in America- would this actually covered by 'free speech'?

Here you can curse, call names and generally carry on a fuss and it IS covered. Of course before you get all concerned about how wrong it is for someone to yell at a police officer just rest easy the police have excellent methods for dealing with this. They just tazer/pepper spray/plant evidence on you. We have police brutality issues often in this country. When a person behaves like that their are other ordinances they are violating, noise ordinances, public intoxication etc. It is VERY rare for someone who is carrying on like that to be doing nothing they can't be arrested for, and the police can just "testilie".(Officers have actually lied enough in courts that we have a term for it.)

Threatening people is not "technically" illegal in this country (outside of the president and certain exceptions). I can yell at my neighbor that I'm going to kill him, chop him into pieces and feed him to the Alligators that live on the sides of roads down here in Florida and I have not broken the law. You can threaten to rape, mame and kill etc etc etc. We do not have any effective "hate speech" legislation in this country. What "hate speech" laws we do have is new, and tends to get knocked down very quickly in court. Of course if someone feels threatened by me they can take out a restraining order, and if I trespass or clearly attempt to carry out my threats their are more than enough guns in America to nullify the situation(Vector Arms Uzi's are back on the market for just $895.00! My last Ak-47 was just $400.00!). *Note, if you trespass they can shoot you in most states PERIOD, restraining orders are completely independent of laws regarding shooting people for trespassing. Restraining orders provide the ability of the courts to arrest someone for violating such an order by coming to your house or workplace etc.

Blaine stated

We are not allowed to tell lies that cause others emotional or financial harm which is as it should be.

Actually the laws against lying are VERY limited. Mostly restricted to being in court under oath and certain legal documents such as corporate financial statements(which frequently lie anyway). This has actually cause a great deal of problems as "greenwashing(paying think tanks etc. to promote false but financially beneficial positions)" has become somewhat commonplace. And you can tell lies that cause "emotional harm" as long as you a) believe them (then you didn't actually lie!) b) their any super fractional grain of truth to your statement. More in depth statements regarding this in my previous post.

Hope that helps some.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by SonOfChaos]

reply to post by Blaine91555


God I just love it when people use Anarchists as an example when it comes to "troublemaking". You know were not all bad people.

Get to know a real Anarchist. They are some of the nicest people in the world, that just want to be left alone.

Originally posted by SonOfChaos

Threatening people is not "technically" illegal in this country

Not correct. A threat is not free speech. It is a threat. The threat when made is "Assault" the act of carrying through on a threat is "Battery". Both are illegal. The law assumes if say I'm going to cut your throat with this knife, I mean it. I'm frankly glad it does as cutting my throat would stomp all over my rights.

reply to post by theendisnear69


You know what I mean. Most people who use that term are the ones throwing bottles and bricks. If your not one of them, good for you.

Your addressing a Vietnam War Protester and I've never understood the violent people who falsely claim to be real protesters when they are in fact there for the rioting and looting. The ones we put up with did not even know what they were protesting and they caused us no end of greif.

If you believe that humans can exist without a system of laws, I have this bridge for sale

Peace Brother

reply to post by Blaine91555


I think what you're talking about only applies if the direct threat is directed to someone like the president. And even then, you kind of have to TRY to go execute your threat to actually be convicted of anything. Personally, I use my freedom of speech around police whenever they try to give me trouble. I'm typically targeted in the town I live in because of my age group. They don't really like it when I say that I can say what I want and they can't do anything to me because I haven't touched anything or done any harmful acts. And that's clearly all on the camera in their car.

Now, if I spit in the cops face, touch them or their car in any way...well then I've done something wrong.

Not correct. A threat is not free speech. It is a threat. The threat when made is "Assault" the act of carrying through on a threat is "Battery". Both are illegal. The law assumes if say I'm going to cut your throat with this knife, I mean it. I'm frankly glad it does as cutting my throat would stomp all over my rights.

You seem like a nice fellow and I'd hate to see your throat cut as well as we always need more voice on ATS.

BUT....

I'm just going to let Wikipedia do most of the talking...(and if it contradicts me check back in 24 hours as it is user editable)

en.wikipedia.org...

Surmise.
Threatening bodily harm to someone may be illegal if their is a "state" law. This varies from state to state however. Additionally, if I make crazy threats like, I'm gonna shoot so and so in the head...while wearing board shorts next to the pool surrounded by bikini clad hotties, it would not be illegal as I have no capability to carry out the threat regardless of state, a threat must present an actual ya know, threat to be upheld as illegal and PO'd yelling don't cover it...of course with those hotties who needs violence. Oh, I need a quagmire laugh their!

If the police are in a situation with people threatening one another, they may simply arrest them claiming their is a clear danger, then have the charges dropped later if they just don't want to deal with it. Their are plenty of ways to bend the laws in this country.

Now I'm going to go and tell my neighbor how I'm going to chop him up j/k

I can stand on the sidewalk in front of the Whitehouse and call the President and idiot all day long if I desire. The result would likely be me rightly being labeled an idiot or a nut. If I started interfering with others on walking down the sidewalk or menacing them, then I would be stopped.

Um...we are talking about the same president right...I don't know to many people who would call you a nut for saying that

*note : That is a joke, if such issues are to be debated it should be in the political section and that was intended to be funny, if it wasn't sorry...freedom of speech [yes, I know, private webserver, start your own blah blah...it's funny!]