Restricting constitutional feeedoms.

[MrJonno]

Fancy publishing the blue prints for a nuclear bomb, or a CIA list of spies and see how far free speech gets you, fancy shouting fire in a cinema (which is free speech regardless of what some old white man with a silly hat says). Fancy trying to publish naked pictures of someone under 18?

Unlimited free speech doesnt exist and shouldnt exist

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can't print pictures of kiddie porn and distribute them in the US.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fancy publishing the blue prints for a nuclear bomb,

$25 will get you declassified blueprints of early nuclear bombs -- http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main ... cts_id=793
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library ... index.html
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1483&page=123

or a CIA list of spies

Oh, well, in the US, it's not illegal for a private company to publish that. It is illegal for someone who is in the CIA or in themilitary, or in the government having signed an oath not to disclose such information. See "The Pentagon Papers." And, see the whole Wikileaks scandal. The guy who committed the crime was that soldier who is sitting in prison now. Assange didn't commit any crime in terms of releasing State secrets. That's why he hasn't been charged with that sort of crime.

and see how far free speech gets you, fancy shouting fire in a cinema (which is free speech regardless of what some old white man with a silly hat says).

It' not illegal to shout fire in a theater. It's illegal to falsely shout fire in a cinema intentionally to create a riot. One can should "fire" in the cinema and the worst that can happen to you is the owner or management of the cinema will escort you out for not behaving yourself, and if you don't go, the cops would be called and you might be arrested for trespassing or some such other offense.

Fancy trying to publish naked pictures of someone under 18?

Invasions of privacy are not speech. But, if you have their consent, it's been done many times, depending on age of consent and whatnot in whatever nation.

Unlimited free speech doesnt exist and shouldnt exist

The examples you cite are either things you can certainly publish, or they are things involving non-speech offenses, like invasion of privacy.

But, even if what you say is true that "unlimited free speech shouldn't exist," that doesn't mean that banning people from publishing that karate is a good way to prepare for self defense is any less ridiculous.

[Coito ergo sum]

You can't print pictures of kiddie porn and distribute them in the US.

Very true. But, because the potographic recording of the abuse of children is prohibited as "obscenity," doesn't mean that any suggested limitation on free speech is reasonable or rational. First off, "speech" per se, is narrower than "expression" and just as stripping is "expressive" it is not strictly "speech." That's why talking and publishing writings about pedophile activities and such, like NAMBLA does, is protected by the first amendment, but obscene pedophilia photos are not protected. What Mr. Jonno is talking about is someone writing something -- which is at the heart of "speech and press." The freedom of the press is the freedom to print ideas - words. While naked kiddie pictures may well also express ideas, it is not strictly speech or press -- it's broader than that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can't print pictures of kiddie porn and distribute them in the US.

Very true. But, because the potographic recording of the abuse of children is prohibited as "obscenity," doesn't mean that any suggested limitation on free speech is reasonable or rational. First off, "speech" per se, is narrower than "expression" and just as stripping is "expressive" it is not strictly "speech." That's why talking and publishing writings about pedophile activities and such, like NAMBLA does, is protected by the first amendment, but obscene pedophilia photos are not protected. What Mr. Jonno is talking about is someone writing something -- which is at the heart of "speech and press." The freedom of the press is the freedom to print ideas - words. While naked kiddie pictures may well also express ideas, it is not strictly speech or press -- it's broader than that.

Quibble.

[MrJonno]

Free speech is the saying, publishing of anything you want without legal consequences.

A mafia boss saying to one of his crew kill this person is free speech
Publishing a picture of a child being abused is free speech.
Libel is free speech
Fraud is free speech.
Shouting fire to cause a riot is free speech

Just because a judge says its not free speech it still is and can be restricted

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Try saying "I'm going to murder the President" three times.

[Coito ergo sum]

Free speech is the saying, publishing of anything you want without legal consequences.

That isn't what free speech has ever meant.

A mafia boss saying to one of his crew kill this person is free speech

It's a conspiracy to commit murder. However, even a conspiracy to commit murder is not illegal unless there is an overt act taken to carry out the murder. The speech is free and it is free to sit in a room and talk about killing someone. If a person starts taking steps to carry out that murder, then it's the crime of conspiracy to commit murder. (in the US).

Publishing a picture of a child being abused is free speech.

No, it is not.

Libel is free speech

Libelous statements are free speech, except where the specific plaintiff can prove that a false AND defamatory statement was at least negligently published, and that the specific plaintiff suffered special damages as a result (an out of pocket loss directly resulting from the libelous statement and not mere insult and offense).

Fraud is free speech.

False statements are free speech. False statement which defraud someone out of money is remediated by payment of money damages suffered by the defrauded party.

Shouting fire to cause a riot is free speech

Shouting fire is free speech. Falsely shouting fire with the intent of causing a riot AND actually causing the riot or the beginnings of one would not be free speech. But the difference should be obvious.

Just because a judge says its not free speech it still is and can be restricted

Just because you call that which is not speech speech doesn't make it so.

For example, the conspiracy to commit murder example. It is not a crime to say "I think you should go kill Coito." It is a crime to actually conspire to kill Coito, but that actual conspiracy must involve an "overt act" and cannot be merely an "inchoate" statement or discussion.

Yours is a gross oversimplification of the area of free speech law.

[Coito ergo sum]

Try saying "I'm going to murder the President" three times.

I'm going to murder the President.

I'm going to murder the President.

I'm going to murder the President.

See- no worries.

It might get you investigated, but so will a lot of legal activities, like having a greenhouse and large numbers of water pipes and bongs around your house, and publishing blogs about how much you like pot.

It's not illegal to say "I'm going to murder the President."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do you deliberate misunderstand in order to defend your position or is this just a case of you again not understanding the points other people make?

[MrJonno]

Just because you call that which is not speech speech doesn't make it so.

I have just as much right to define it as any judge you or wikipedia.

Wikipedia definition is probably closer to mine

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used. In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity,[citation needed] sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwis

What they have done in the US is say you have unlimited freedom of speech but if we want to restrict it we simply wont call it freedom of speech but something else. I start of with the more honest approach that while generally freedom of speech is a good thing there are times when it needs to be restricted for the good of all

[Coito ergo sum]

Do you deliberate misunderstand in order to defend your position or is this just a case of you again not understanding the points other people make?

I understand it completely.

However, if you mean something other than it's per se "not within free speech to say 'I'm going to murder the President'" , then you'll have to explain what it is that you mean. Obviously, the answer is "it depends on some other things" as to whether that statement will get you in hot water. In and of itself, it is not illegal. It is free speech. If, however, there is non-speech-related evidence that it's a serious threat, like if the person who says it is armed, headed to the President's location, etc., or sitting in his basement making bombs and drawing diagrams of viewpoints from book repositories, etc.

In other words -- for it to be illegal, there has to be something more than just pure speech at issue.

[Coito ergo sum]

Just because you call that which is not speech speech doesn't make it so.

I have just as much right to define it as any judge you or wikipedia.

Sure, but when discussing a legal issue, you're own peculiar definition doesn't control the law.

Wikipedia definition is probably closer to mine

Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

This is the distinction I made. Expression and speech are not actually synonymous, since "expression" includes any medium, but "speech" is specifically narrower, involving only communicating opinions and ideas. It's the difference between a publication in the New York Times and women running naked to protest fur. The former is speech, the latter is expression.

In practice, the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations, as with libel, slander, obscenity,[citation needed] sedition (including, for example inciting ethnic hatred), copyright violation, revelation of information that is classified or otherwis

Sure, and we've discussed most of these things, and the reasons for them, and the differences between them and "free speech."

What they have done in the US is say you have unlimited freedom of speech but if we want to restrict it we simply wont call it freedom of speech but something else. I start of with the more honest approach that while generally freedom of speech is a good thing there are times when it needs to be restricted for the good of all

[/quote]

No -- for example, your conspiracy to commit murder example. The speech is free. Only if the speech is combined with an over ACT is the crime of conspiracy extant. You need acts, not just speech.

Similarly libel is not just speech -- it's speech and other non-speech elements. I recounted those above.

Even with your "honest" approach, you aren't presenting an argument in favor of the restriction you started off touting. It's one thing to say "free speech is not absolute" -- it does not follow from that concept that ANY restriction you tout makes sense. The idea that people can't "encourage" self defense or promote karate as a form of self defense lacks a rational basis, even if some restrictions on free speech are rational.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do you deliberate misunderstand in order to defend your position or is this just a case of you again not understanding the points other people make?

I understand it completely.

However, if you mean something other than it's per se "not within free speech to say 'I'm going to murder the President'" , then you'll have to explain what it is that you mean. Obviously, the answer is "it depends on some other things" as to whether that statement will get you in hot water. In and of itself, it is not illegal. It is free speech. If, however, there is non-speech-related evidence that it's a serious threat, like if the person who says it is armed, headed to the President's location, etc., or sitting in his basement making bombs and drawing diagrams of viewpoints from book repositories, etc.

In other words -- for it to be illegal, there has to be something more than just pure speech at issue.

You say that to the president and you can be locked up. Three times is the magic number for the FBI to descend on you.

I really have to spell out everything in the most petty detail for you?

[MrJonno]

No -- for example, your conspiracy to commit murder example. The speech is free. Only if the speech is combined with an over ACT is the crime of conspiracy extant. You need acts, not just speech.

Saying free speech is legal but using it to commit another crime is not then you are into pure semantics.

If a person didnt say something he wouldnt have commited any other crime therefore its the act of saying something that is the crime