4 ms·

So what, then, is the difference between my calling your phone number multiple times and leaving harassing messages ("You're going to hell! Fag!"), and what the

So what, then, is the difference between my calling your phone number multiple times and leaving harassing messages ("You're going to hell! Fag!"), and what the WBC does at semi-private gatherings, like funerals? I don't disagree with the justifications behind protecting speech, even (and especially) things that I find reprehensible. However, I think it's a bit of a lie to say that law doesn't have fine lines or distinctions.

lwat 16y ago
Funerals are public, or at least the WBC is on public ground when they protest at funerals.
kenjackson 16y ago
The lines in law, where they exist, tend to be fuzzy, rather than fine. Now with that said freedom of speech is a special law. And obviously one that cuts both ways. But a key reason why the law should largely exist untampered is that even if you say something I think is offensive, I can rely on a few things: 1) If it's absurd it will be discarded by most people. 2) If it's absurd those people it would convince, probably already believe it. 3) With freedom of speech I can argue the point prior to irreversible damage. Now there are some cases where freedom of speech don't apply and those are generally cases where the three points above don't apply. For example, the classic of yelling "Fire" in a crowded room. Someone else yelling, "there is no fire" is not likely to be heard and even if "Fire" is seemingly absurd, most people may not discard due to potential harm. Yada yada. But outside of cases that violate the above, the law should stand. Otherwise the consequences, shutting down opposing speech, will almost certainly be worse.
- alanh 16y ago
  > If it's absurd it will be discarded by most people. And yet the various flavors of creationism (all equally absurd by measures of science) have convinced half of the U.S. of their validity.
  - mostly_harmless 16y ago
    but that is their right to believe what they wish. If they want to believe whole-heartedly in Norse mythology, that is their right to do so. It only becomes an issue once they impose their beliefs on others. It can even be thought that atheism is a religious belief in itself. It explains all the things religion does in a unique way.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    I generally don't find creationism offensive. While I don't believe it, I'm not offended by it. And I think that's true for most people. It's certainly not the type of thing that ever comes up in free speech arguments. I can't think of any atheist I know (although I'm sure some exist) who want creationism banned in speech or writing.
    - barefoot 16y ago
      Agreed. I'm a fairly strong minded atheist and I find creationism offensive. At the same time I would defend to the death the right for creationists to have free speech.
      - eftpotrm 16y ago
        I could understand why one might find the teaching of creationism offensive, but what is offensive about other people holding wrong opinions? I'm sure we each think the other holds several; I'm not offended by the error I perceive you might be making.
- Zak 16y ago
  I think the main reason yelling "fire" and the like are illegal is that such speech is intended to and does cause action on the part of others. Solicitation to commit murder, inciting a riot, making a false report of a crime, uttering a forged instrument and making (credible) verbal threats are illegal for the same reason. None of these are illegal because of the lack of opportunity for analysis or debate, but because of the direct link between speech and action.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    Those are in a whole different class than I was thinking of. Those are with the express intent to further a crime. Although I guess the Fire example can fit there too, although I was thinking more of someone who thought it would be funny, but not necessarily anticipate the full breadth of consequences. The issue though isn't a link between speech and action (PE coaches don't violate this although their barks usually directly create action). It's the link between speech and furthering a specific crime.
VladRussian 16y ago
WBC does it on public property.
- praptak 16y ago
  True. But I don't think the crux of the matter is in the ownership of the piece of ground they happen to stand on. There is a strong argument against exercising the freedom of speech the way they do. The right to speak freely should not trump the right to stop listening. This is not the case here. Whoever attends the funeral has their right to stop listening seriously limited.
  - waterhouse 16y ago
    Actually, that is the crux of the matter. If you're at a party and making an obnoxious ass of yourself, the other partygoers can't kick you out. What they can do is go to the host and ask that he kick you out, which he can do if he so decides. If the host happens to be you (or someone sympathetic to you), then their only recourse (beyond attempting to persuade you to cut it out) is to leave themselves. The avenues of legal recourse are entirely determined by ownership of the piece of ground they are standing on.
waqf 16y ago
Well, the difference is that you're expressing your opinion, which is fine, and also harassing the guy, which is a crime. Just as if you announced "mikeryan is going to hell! the Fag!" while chainsawing live babies you're committing a crime. The expressing of your opinion is not a crime, but the fact that you're expressing your opinion doesn't exempt you from other criminal liabilities.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  Thank you for being the only person that responded to the point (might've been my fault, maybe I wasn't clear). I think most people would say that what the WBC does is harassment; so, other than the fine legal difference between whether the harassment occurs on public grounds or private property, how is one form of harassment protected as free speech and another form of harassment not?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >what the WBC does is harassment no. I'm not a lawyer, yet i'm pretty sure that what WBC does wouldn't fit harassment criteria. I suppose for the harassment the specific action needs to be targeted at the person being harassed. Without specific targeting, they just express their opinion, wrong opinion at the wrong time and place, yet not illegal.
  - waqf 16y ago
    Heh, I had an unfair advantage: I didn't trouble to familiarize myself with the WBC. But by my reasoning, the difference would be legal precedents stating that pickets are legal (irrespective of what you use them to promote) and repeated unsolicited telephone calls are not (irrespective of what you say).
    - jules 16y ago
      That's not entirely true. You can't write "God Hates Blacks" (per the Racial Hatred Act) but you can write "God Hates Fags". There seems to be no logical basis for this difference.
Duff 16y ago
It is more about the "how" and less about the "what". If I called you 500 times and simply said "Hello, hello, hello", that is still harassment. The WBC people apply for permits and protest on public property. What they say isn't relevant. In general, your actions and intent are more germane than the content of your speech. That's a concept critical to free speech -- controversial or offensive is far more important to protect than typical conversation.
iamdave 16y ago
The difference? The difference is a small, but visible and under appreciated line between free speech and verbal assault.

lwat 16y ago

Funerals are public, or at least the WBC is on public ground when they protest at funerals.

kenjackson 16y ago

The lines in law, where they exist, tend to be fuzzy, rather than fine. Now with that said freedom of speech is a special law. And obviously one that cuts both ways. But a key reason why the law should largely exist untampered is that even if you say something I think is offensive, I can rely on a few things: 1) If it's absurd it will be discarded by most people. 2) If it's absurd those people it would convince, probably already believe it. 3) With freedom of speech I can argue the point prior to irreversible damage. Now there are some cases where freedom of speech don't apply and those are generally cases where the three points above don't apply. For example, the classic of yelling "Fire" in a crowded room. Someone else yelling, "there is no fire" is not likely to be heard and even if "Fire" is seemingly absurd, most people may not discard due to potential harm. Yada yada. But outside of cases that violate the above, the law should stand. Otherwise the consequences, shutting down opposing speech, will almost certainly be worse.

alanh 16y ago
> If it's absurd it will be discarded by most people. And yet the various flavors of creationism (all equally absurd by measures of science) have convinced half of the U.S. of their validity.
- mostly_harmless 16y ago
  but that is their right to believe what they wish. If they want to believe whole-heartedly in Norse mythology, that is their right to do so. It only becomes an issue once they impose their beliefs on others. It can even be thought that atheism is a religious belief in itself. It explains all the things religion does in a unique way.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  I generally don't find creationism offensive. While I don't believe it, I'm not offended by it. And I think that's true for most people. It's certainly not the type of thing that ever comes up in free speech arguments. I can't think of any atheist I know (although I'm sure some exist) who want creationism banned in speech or writing.
  - barefoot 16y ago
    Agreed. I'm a fairly strong minded atheist and I find creationism offensive. At the same time I would defend to the death the right for creationists to have free speech.
    - eftpotrm 16y ago
      I could understand why one might find the teaching of creationism offensive, but what is offensive about other people holding wrong opinions? I'm sure we each think the other holds several; I'm not offended by the error I perceive you might be making.
Zak 16y ago
I think the main reason yelling "fire" and the like are illegal is that such speech is intended to and does cause action on the part of others. Solicitation to commit murder, inciting a riot, making a false report of a crime, uttering a forged instrument and making (credible) verbal threats are illegal for the same reason. None of these are illegal because of the lack of opportunity for analysis or debate, but because of the direct link between speech and action.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Those are in a whole different class than I was thinking of. Those are with the express intent to further a crime. Although I guess the Fire example can fit there too, although I was thinking more of someone who thought it would be funny, but not necessarily anticipate the full breadth of consequences. The issue though isn't a link between speech and action (PE coaches don't violate this although their barks usually directly create action). It's the link between speech and furthering a specific crime.

VladRussian 16y ago

WBC does it on public property.

praptak 16y ago
True. But I don't think the crux of the matter is in the ownership of the piece of ground they happen to stand on. There is a strong argument against exercising the freedom of speech the way they do. The right to speak freely should not trump the right to stop listening. This is not the case here. Whoever attends the funeral has their right to stop listening seriously limited.
- waterhouse 16y ago
  Actually, that is the crux of the matter. If you're at a party and making an obnoxious ass of yourself, the other partygoers can't kick you out. What they can do is go to the host and ask that he kick you out, which he can do if he so decides. If the host happens to be you (or someone sympathetic to you), then their only recourse (beyond attempting to persuade you to cut it out) is to leave themselves. The avenues of legal recourse are entirely determined by ownership of the piece of ground they are standing on.

waqf 16y ago

Well, the difference is that you're expressing your opinion, which is fine, and also harassing the guy, which is a crime. Just as if you announced "mikeryan is going to hell! the Fag!" while chainsawing live babies you're committing a crime. The expressing of your opinion is not a crime, but the fact that you're expressing your opinion doesn't exempt you from other criminal liabilities.

thaumaturgy 16y ago
Thank you for being the only person that responded to the point (might've been my fault, maybe I wasn't clear). I think most people would say that what the WBC does is harassment; so, other than the fine legal difference between whether the harassment occurs on public grounds or private property, how is one form of harassment protected as free speech and another form of harassment not?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >what the WBC does is harassment no. I'm not a lawyer, yet i'm pretty sure that what WBC does wouldn't fit harassment criteria. I suppose for the harassment the specific action needs to be targeted at the person being harassed. Without specific targeting, they just express their opinion, wrong opinion at the wrong time and place, yet not illegal.
- waqf 16y ago
  Heh, I had an unfair advantage: I didn't trouble to familiarize myself with the WBC. But by my reasoning, the difference would be legal precedents stating that pickets are legal (irrespective of what you use them to promote) and repeated unsolicited telephone calls are not (irrespective of what you say).
  - jules 16y ago
    That's not entirely true. You can't write "God Hates Blacks" (per the Racial Hatred Act) but you can write "God Hates Fags". There seems to be no logical basis for this difference.

Duff 16y ago

It is more about the "how" and less about the "what". If I called you 500 times and simply said "Hello, hello, hello", that is still harassment. The WBC people apply for permits and protest on public property. What they say isn't relevant. In general, your actions and intent are more germane than the content of your speech. That's a concept critical to free speech -- controversial or offensive is far more important to protect than typical conversation.

iamdave 16y ago

The difference? The difference is a small, but visible and under appreciated line between free speech and verbal assault.