Freedom of Speech

[LucidDreamer]

My response was to

 

 

 

"First Amendment' date='" to me, implies US Constitution. A Google search shows that the Russian Constitution's free speech section is Article 29.

 

It was not I that changed the subject in this exchange.[/quote']

 

Oh, I know. That was a posting error, sorry. That was a response to sayonara. I meant to get to your response but I got sidetracked and forgot to remove your quote. Wasn't trying to pull a fast one.

It depends on the context. Profanity is not necessarily protected' date=' especially if it's directed at another person - the so-called "fighting words" exception (Chaplinsky test).

[/quote']

I know. There are other times that it is illegal and it should be. But in those cases you can still violate the law without the use of profanity. I can still be sexually explicit without using profanity. I can still threaten someone without profanity. But I cannot say profanity in public without using profanity.

 

The Russian law will fine people for using profanity no matter what context they use it in, no matter how harmless. At least that is my understanding from the article. This is what I believe violates free speech. If this law were passed in the United States it would violate our First Amendment.

 

Pulling out a crowbar and threatening to fu** someone up should be illegal. Going to an elementary school and explicitly talking about your sexual exploits should be illegal. But talking to my friends on the bus and letting the s word slip should not. Nor should profanity be illegal in art or literature.

 

And yes I know that in some instances if you include a non-fiction article as literature that it could be slanderous and illegal and it should be.

[Sayonara]

Lol, I didn’t mean it that way. I meant that I can tell that you are well educated and have probably heard of those laws.

Damn it, I thought I'd taken that bit out.

 

OK. No reason to argue about that. We are talking about free speech now, right?

Well yes, but I don't think this is really a discussion that either of us wanted or planned to have. It's kind of in a metaphysical state somewhere between being vaguely and not a bit relevant :-/

 

What word has all those elements anyway? An a$$hole is a noun like any other noun, and it has as much content as an unlikable fellow does. My dictionary says content means “significance or profundity.” I was using that definition. This seems like the definition that is most relevant.

Yes, 'asshole' is content (however I would disagree that it has any specifically unique significance, which is key to any argument that involves restriction of free speech, and it certainly conveys no profound concepts). You will notice I did not claim that content cannot have inherent emphasis - I am simply arguing that emphasis itself is not content.

The profanity I am talking about in relation to the content/not content argument is that which adds no structural value to what is being said.

 

 

My point in bringing that up was that just because the first amendment doesn't expressly say that how you say things is protected doesn't mean that it wasn't implied or that we shouldn't interpret it that way. No magic involved.

Well quite. Other circumstances and information will determine how it is interpreted though, and I don't see the sense in ignoring that and instead focusing on what the FA fails to specify.

 

 

Point taken. So we agree that profanity is something entirely different than the other examples of things not covered under the First Amendment.

No, I am not saying they are entirely different - I am saying that what applies to one may not necessarily apply to the other, but at the same time the existence of these exemptions demonstrates that other things can also be argued exempt without compromising the intended purpose of the FA. I was under the impression this is how it all worked, but I am open to the possibility that Reese Witherspoon lied to me.

 

 

But that is what the article focused on. I find the idea of a more encompassing law even more unnecessarily subjugative. What exactly would you propose a suitable law against profanity then?

I don't see how that has anything to do with my argument, which is that the idea of free speech is intended to protect one's right to say a thing, but not the means by which it is said.

 

However, for the record, my personal opinion is that a unilateral law against profanity actually would be so unworkable as to be ineffective, so although I am less convinced than you that it would infringe on your rights, I can at least agree with you on the overall stance.

 

 

Fine, I didn't feel there was any need, but here you go.

 

Man says profanity charge violates free speech rights

By AP/mjh

Posted: 12/6/2003

(Manistee-AP) -- A man who prosecutors say broke a local ordinance while cursing and making obscene gestures at a police officer in public is arguing such actions are constitutionally protected.

 

Duane Barton is on trial after being charged in a July encounter with Manistee Police Officer Jeff Pefley during which prosecutors say Barton grabbed his groin area and yelled at the officer.

 

Barton denies he used profanity and, he says, it would have been constitutionally-protected speech if he had.

 

In April 2002, the state Court of Appeals struck down a state law against using vulgar language in front of women and children

 

Well, that one doesn't actually give an outcome, does it?

All it shows is that someone else had a similar discussion to this one.

 

 

The mother of three was rushing a load of groceries to her sister's house when she was pulled over by an officer who said she had made an incomplete stop.

When told her driver's license was suspended, Upshaw used a profanity to describe her day. She ended up in jail for her choice of words.

A judge dismissed the charges, again because Johnson's words were not sexually obscene

Every state has laws against foul language, but the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have generally agreed that the words have to be used in a violent or sexually obscene context, said John Burkoff, associate dean and law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Uttering something vulgar or profane is not, in itself, grounds for arrest, he said.

 

All that demonstrates is that some profanities are not against the law (as well as the fact that the police cannot always be relied on to interpret the law properly), which we already know. Again, I am not arguing that profanities are or should be illegal.

 

 

The second case involves Amy Johnston, 27, a Chatham University undergraduate student and part-time children’s nanny, and Gregory Lagrosa, 29, a library assistant with the Carnegie Library and part-time graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh. On November 26, 2000, the couple was exiting the Homestead Giant Eagle grocery store when a police car nearly ran them over in the crosswalk. When Amy yelled, “It’s a crosswalk, asshole,” the officer chased them down and made enraged comments about being called an “asshole.” He then arrested both of them. A judge subsequently dismissed all charges.

“Not one of these three people did anything illegal,” said Bruce Boni, a volunteer ACLU lawyer handling the Upshaw case. “The police officers were offended by profanity, so they abused their authority and misused the public trust by arresting upstanding, law-abiding citizens.”

Several witnesses to the Johnston/Lagrosa arrest protested to the arresting officer that Johnston and Lagrosa had done nothing wrong and that he was not hired to arrest people because he doesn’t like their language.

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n070202a.html

 

Well, we already agree that a profane noun is content so I would expect that to be protected by the first amendment anyway.

Again, however, you have simply provided an example of profanity being "not illegal", which is not what I thought this discussion is supposed to be about.

 

 

Perhaps we have another misunderstanding. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be illegal to be sexually explicit with a child or other specific instances. I am talking about a law like the one mentioned in the article where they can prevent you from using profanity in a harmless context.

Yeah, we should probably get back on topic. The vultures are circling.

 

 

Yes, now it is time for you to provide your reasoning for why you feel this law would benefit a free society.

My argument does not require that I demonstrate that. The only reason I brought it up was to show that you were making value judgements without actually evaluating anything, which can't take you anywhere 'good'.

 

 

Again, my dictionary says content means “significance or profundity.” I was using that definition. This seems like the definition that is most relevant.

The "significance or profundity" in this case does not come from the question mark itself, but from the circumstances under which it was sent and received, as I thought I had already said.

Sending a single question mark to your publisher under the circumstances specified only indicates that a query has been made. It doesn't actually hold content on its own - the meaning is derived from knowledge of the situation. Had the publisher's cleaning lady opened the letter, it would have gone in the bin.

 

 

Calling something a logical fallacy doesn't make it one. In fact sometimes calling something a logical fallacy can be considered a logical fallacy itself.

True, but I notice you don't attempt to link this to specific accusations. In the case of me saying you were arguing against a false proposition, you actually were.

 

As far as the ad hominem goes I retract that statement. I had originally intended to remove it after proof-reading my last post and realising your actual intent.

[brave_new_world]

This sounds a bit like 1984. Once we start eliminating words we lose out on ways to express ourselves. By eliminating profanity you eliminate rage. Therefore its alot easier for governments to control people if they have no way of expressing thier rage.

 

This new law is also a bad idea because it gives the government another reason to listen to our every word.

[Sayonara]

This sounds a bit like 1984.

No it doesn't.

 

 

Once we start eliminating words we lose out on ways to express ourselves.

No you don't.

 

 

By eliminating profanity you eliminate rage.

No we don't.

 

 

Therefore its alot easier for governments to control people if they have no way of expressing thier rage.

Assuming you could remove people's rage, surely that would make their counter-control activities more focused and organised?

 

 

This new law is also a bad idea because it gives the government another reason to listen to our every word.

Do you live in Russia then?

[YT2095]

I think it`s more geared towards single word offensives rather that freedom of speech.

 

one may still be quite "offensive" without having to resort to profanity(ies). THAT seems to be the target here

[LucidDreamer]

Well yes' date=' but I don't think this is really a discussion that either of us wanted or planned to have. It's kind of in a metaphysical state somewhere between being vaguely and not a bit relevant :-/

[/quote']

 

Yes, that’s totally true. First of all, I find it rather ironic that our discussion about content seems to be almost content free; it’s not all that insightful anyway. Most importantly, when it comes down to it, the gap between our opinions in this discussion isn’t wide enough to make an interesting discussion. The issue of free speech is certainly an interesting topic, but as it relates to profanity its pretty dull.

 

Our disagreement, after we got through all the misunderstandings and blah blah blah, is really about whether a law prohibiting profanity violates the U.S. constitution’s first amendment. All the stuff about the Russian government and content is mostly just a tangent, partly resulting from an unspecific topic of the original post. I could go on and give my replies to your post but we both know we are just going through the motions with no real desire to explore this anymore.

but I am open to the possibility that Reese Witherspoon lied to me

Never trust a lawyer with a pink scented resume.

[Sayonara]

I could go on and give my replies to your post but we both know we are just going through the motions with no real desire to explore this anymore.

Well to be honest it turns out we agree on more significant points than we disagree on.

 

 

Never trust a lawyer with a pink scented resume.

Noted for future reference.

[swansont]

Never trust a lawyer with a pink scented resume.

 

I've heard lots of euphemisms before, but I never heard it referred to as a resume´ and never knew a lawyer well enough to tell if hers was scented.

 

Oh, wait. You actually meant resume´.

 

Never mind.