Is freedom of speech an absolute right in the USA

[Juice]

Juice, since you are a fellow academic, I am interested in your opinion about Supreme Court opinion on Freedom of Speech. Do you agree or disagree with the highest court of the land.

Lol..will brush up on it...but yeah...I consider free speech to be one of the most important rights..

Well Sir, apparently this whole national chain of stores did not get that memo:

Christmas Tree Shops - Don't You Just Love a Bargain

Is that a government owned store? Private enterprise can do what they want within limits. The head of a mosque probably wouldn't keep his job preaching zionism...free speech or no...

 

[iPhone]

You can deny the Holocaust here...should we change that too?

Yeah you can deny the holocaust as a crazy homeless person who also says he talks to god and there's no problem. Try questioningthe holocaust as a public figure and see what happens. Or say it at your workplace and see how many heads you role.

What was it during the DNC the democrates forgot to add in their speech the bit about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel and how much hoopla it created. Imagine they said, you know, about the numbers of killed in the holocaust......... And let's see where THAT would take them.

 

[gambit]

Yeah you can deny the holocaust as a crazy homeless person who also says he talks to god and there's no problem. Try questioningthe holocaust as a public figure and see what happens. Or say it at your workplace and see how many heads you role.

What was it during the DNC the democrates forgot to add in their speech the bit about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel and how much hoopla it created. Imagine they said, you know, about the numbers of killed in the holocaust......... And let's see where THAT would take them.

Holocaust Denial

Is it illegal to deny the Holocaust?

The United States Constitution ensures freedom of speech. Therefore, in the United States denying the Holocaust or engaging in antisemitic hate speech is not illegal, except when there is an imminent threat of violence. Many other countries, particularly in Europe where the Holocaust occurred, have laws criminalizing Holocaust denial and hate speech. These different legal frameworks impede a comprehensive global approach to combating Holocaust denial.

If an employer is offended by your 'denier' belief -- assuming you expressed it -- it is his right to either terminate you or refuse to hire you. Your right to deny the Holocaust is no greater than his right to hire/fire anyone. Both are of the freedom of speech, the one you seems to be quite alien about. Just because the government does not the have to power to act, it does not mean the individuals are equally shackled.

 

[REHAN NIAZI FALCON]

it shouldn't be an absolute right as it is mostly misused by most of us ,
there needs to be some limitations over it in order to avoid communal tensions and for the protection of feelings of all the communities of the world ...

 

[anon45]

There is a myth that the Freedom of Speech is an absolute right in the US because of the First amendment to the US Constitution. The fact is that Freedom of Speech comes with limits. Here is an excellent article on the subject:

Notice how many points here contradict the " Freedom of Speech " argument for the Anti-Islamic movie slandering Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).





Education for Freedom Lesson 4





Limits of Freedom of Speech

Does the First Amendment mean anyone can say anything at any time? No.
The Supreme Court has rejected an interpretation of speech without limits.

Because the First Amendment has such strong language, we begin with the presumption that speech is protected. Over the years, the courts have decided that a few other public interests — for example, national security, justice or personal safety — override freedom of speech. There are no simple rules for determining when speech should be limited, but there are some general tests that help.
Clear and Present Danger
Will this act of speech create a dangerous situation? The First Amendment does not protect statements that are uttered to provoke violence or incite illegal action.

Justice Holmes, speaking for the unanimous Supreme Court, stated, “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Can you prove the video was made to provoke violence (clear intent by the author), instead of being made to educate based on the authors own pov? Are there any direct statements in the video that directly incite illegal action? (such as saying go murder Muslim women and children).

Fighting Words
Was something said face-to-face that would incite immediate violence?

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court stated that the “English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent [are] ‘fighting words’ when said without a disarming smile. … Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight.” The court determined that the New Hampshire statute in question “did no more than prohibit the face-to-face words plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee, words whose speaking constitute a breach of the peace by the speaker — including ‘classical fighting words,’ words in current use less ‘classical’ but equally likely to cause violence, and other disorderly words, including profanity, obscenity and threats.” Jurisdictions may write statutes to punish verbal acts if the statutes are “carefully drawn so as not unduly to impair liberty of expression.”

Also see What is the Fighting Words Doctrine?

Again, prove its intent was to provoke violence or incite illegal action. The video certainly didn't call on Muslims to riot outside US embassies, and depictions or defamation of the prophet are not considered illegal under US law as has already been proven in court. It would also not be considered as obvious that Muslims would take human life and riot because their religion was defamed. Such arguments to the counter only serve the agenda of anti-muslims by depicting Muslims as a violent and savage people simply looking for an excuse to take human life.

Libel and Slander
Was the statement false, or put in a context that makes true statements misleading? You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization.

In practice a successful conviction of such does not have jail or prison as a consequence, but (usually) monetary compensation. Thus the Libel and/or Slander must have incurred a monetary loss on the part of the victim or the victim's emotional damage must be given a value.

Also in practice this is very very hard to convict in a court of law. Malicious intent must be proven to have existed.

 

[VCheng]

..............
Is that a government owned store? Private enterprise can do what they want within limits. The head of a mosque probably wouldn't keep his job preaching zionism...free speech or no...

No, not a government store, but, this comment of mine:

Well Sir, apparently this whole national chain of stores did not get that memo:

Christmas Tree Shops - Don't You Just Love a Bargain

referred to this previous post:

Enough B.S... it is not allowed, even stores in the U.S stopped selling any thing that says Merry Christmas, instead they are selling happy holidays..

 

[Leviza]

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT THE ACTUAL THING, BAD AMERICANS ARE USING IT AS EXCUSES ... ITS CALLED HATE CRIME AND US NEED TO ELIMINATE THE ROOT CAUSES...

FIRST THEY LET THE PPL DO SUCH THINGS IN THE NAME OF 'FREEDOM OF SPEECH' AND WHEN PEOPLE REACTED ON IT, THEY BECOME INNOCENTS...

 

[fallstuff]

Enough B.S... it is not allowed, even stores in the U.S stopped selling any thing that says Merry Christmas, instead they are selling happy holidays..

You are wrong.

 

[Pakistanisage]

Can you prove the video was made to provoke violence (clear intent by the author), instead of being made to educate based on the authors own pov? Are there any direct statements in the video that directly incite illegal action? (such as saying go murder Muslim women and children).

I watched the trailer of this movie on youtube. I am an Actor/Filmaker myself and to be honest it is the worst I have ever seen. If rest of the movie is like the trailer, it is shockingly crude and in poor taste. Clearly the whole purpose behind the movie is to incite violence in the Islamic World as anyone who has watched past events of Danish cartoons knows the predictable reaction.

 

[Pakchina]

The basic human rights are the rights for food, shelter/Home and the right to have a job. Thats what China has achieved and should be recognized as the country which is sucessfully respecting the basic human rights. Then there is the right for speech. In the US the right for speech is to insult others freedom, insult others religion, to be against the right of others to worship their own religion and belief, the right to bully, to disseminate hate, the right to lie, to abuse, to steal, dilapidate, to kill non-white innocent victims, to speak bullshit and to be racist. While when you are in the US this right is also condition to legal proceedings.

 

[gubbi]

By the way Juice, there are european countries where you get thrown in jail for denying Holocaust for as much as 10 years.

COUNTRIES WITH LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Israel
Lithuania
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Switzerland

Yeah, half those countries were part of the Third Reich - conquered by Hitler, with a history of various levels of antisemitism. Go figure!

 

[kawaraj]

This is such a joke the americans enjoy no free these days.

you mails either from google mailbox or blackberry, iPhones are all tapped by CIA, and that's even LEGAL these days!

 

[anon45]

I watched the trailer of this movie on youtube. I am an Actor/Filmaker myself and to be honest it is the worst I have ever seen. If rest of the movie is like the trailer, it is shockingly crude and in poor taste. Clearly the whole purpose behind the movie is to incite violence in the Islamic World as anyone who has watched past events of Danish cartoons knows the predictable reaction.

I am loathe to post the trailer here but is this the trailer you are talking about? 'Innocence of Muslims' Trailer [HD] - Egypt Protest Film - YouTube

I actually thought the movie was supposed to be some sort of 'documentary' that twisted truths and demonized muslims on top of showing insulting depictions o f Muhammad, but this looks like just another crap low budget movie (though I had the sound low and only saw the trailer, so I may have missed something). The reaction to those Danish cartoons was wrong as well, on their merits alone no civilized person would be expected to riot or murder. To justify it because a person feel's their 'identity' has been offended instead of something that is almost universally reviled (such as snuff films) would set a dangerous precident for the censoring of free speech, from arrests for the burning of American flags (because that offends me) to the arrest of 'fifth' columnists and government dissidents such as Noam Chomsky (because they offend the government) and I do not want to walk down that road.

That people would murder and riot over this movie is...disturbing to say the least.

Overall it is indeed crude, in poor taste, and clearly below the level of Borat, but it is not a movie I feel the creator could be tried on by its merits alone or as an incitement to violence by the vast vast majority of courts in the United States. That said if the actors were misrepresented I guess they could sue with the intent of removing the film from the public eye, I am not so familiar with how that woud work, so maybe they couldn't.

 

[anon45]

This is such a joke the americans enjoy no free these days.

you mails either from google mailbox or blackberry, iPhones are all tapped by CIA, and that's even LEGAL these days!

Im not going to bother to comment on the assertion that mail from google is monitored or iPhones and blackberry's are tapped by the CIA, but you are misrepresenting what freedom of speech actually means, you are instead attacking the issue of privacy.

That is unless you are insisting there is a domestic secret police that is making people disappear for what they say.

 

[fallstuff]

The movie probably had a budget less than a cheap syfy movie. The following is a cheap Syfy movie where a Mega Shark leaps out of water and catches a flying 747 at cruising altitude,

Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus - Plane Attack!? - YouTube