4 ms·

>I think part of the right to free speech is the right to be able to choose what speech you consume, i.e., everyone has the right to free speech but nobody has

>I think part of the right to free speech is the right to be able to choose what speech you consume, i.e., everyone has the right to free speech but nobody has the right to impose upon you. You can think this, but it's not borne out by legal precedent. Odious speech is protected in public spaces, so if the KKK wants to impose their speech on my by disrupting my morning commute they have that right as long as they get a permit. And if an anti-abortion activist wants to shove gory images of fetuses in the face of everyone going into a Planned Parenthood to get their prescriptions refilled, nobody stops them from doing that either.

jerf 7y ago
"You can think this, but it's not borne out by legal precedent. Odious speech is protected in public spaces, so if the KKK wants to impose their speech on my by disrupting my morning commute they have that right as long as they get a permit." I think (note that phrase) that in the 21st century, this is an exceptional historical case for the rare communication medium that attaches communication directly to physical location. Almost everything else we do nowadays has personal control involved, and we should consider that the more common case. It also is not as unregulated as you may rhetorically claim. They are allowed to say odious things, but, at a reasonable volume level (or they'll be shut down for being a public nuisance regardless of the contents of their speech), and they are not allowed to jump in your face and stay there (in which case it's assault, again, regardless of the content of your speech). Moreover, I'd observe that you're mostly hypothesizing, as indicated by your own phrasing, and I'm a lot more pragmatic on this matter, so I don't feel the need to solve problems that don't (currently) exist. I don't think anyone's been more than mildly annoyed by public speech in a long time. (Being annoyed by the content that someone disagrees with you is part of being human. Trying to "solve" that produces worse problems than the original problem.)

jerf 7y ago

"You can think this, but it's not borne out by legal precedent. Odious speech is protected in public spaces, so if the KKK wants to impose their speech on my by disrupting my morning commute they have that right as long as they get a permit." I think (note that phrase) that in the 21st century, this is an exceptional historical case for the rare communication medium that attaches communication directly to physical location. Almost everything else we do nowadays has personal control involved, and we should consider that the more common case. It also is not as unregulated as you may rhetorically claim. They are allowed to say odious things, but, at a reasonable volume level (or they'll be shut down for being a public nuisance regardless of the contents of their speech), and they are not allowed to jump in your face and stay there (in which case it's assault, again, regardless of the content of your speech). Moreover, I'd observe that you're mostly hypothesizing, as indicated by your own phrasing, and I'm a lot more pragmatic on this matter, so I don't feel the need to solve problems that don't (currently) exist. I don't think anyone's been more than mildly annoyed by public speech in a long time. (Being annoyed by the content that someone disagrees with you is part of being human. Trying to "solve" that produces worse problems than the original problem.)