Freedom of speech, etc. - TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Freedom of speech, etc.

Posted by DigiNut on Apr-10-2004 20:00:

Freedom of speech, etc.

Alright, this isn't directed at any specific person (although some of you know who you are), but I wanted to expound on what seems like it should be the simplest of concepts - the constitutional right to freedom of speech/expression, and human rights in general.

Obviously there are gray areas i.e. clear and present danger, but one thing is for sure: the constitution (or charter of rights) governs relations between the individual and the state. Get it? NOT between the individual and other individuals.

Allow me to refer you specifically to where these "rights" are guaranteed:

From the US constitution:
Article I. - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievance.

From the Canadian Charter of Rights:
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

...

32. (1)This Charter applies

a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

You folks still with me here? Good.

So in the US case, we see it specifically starting with congress shall make no law... That is specifically what the constitution guarantees. It does not guarantee that you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, and not have to deal with the consequences. Theoretically, if assassination wasn't illegal, the government could even hire a killer to shut you up. The ONLY thing that the constitution says is that Congress can't make a LAW which restricts your freedom to express yourself.

In the Canadian case, the article itself isn't quite so specific, but it clearly states at the bottom of the constitution that it's only applicable to federal and provincial Parliament. That means exactly the same thing - it's between you and the government. Only the government is forbidden to tell you what to say and do.

What these articles definitely do not mean is:

You can smoke in private buildings which say "No Smoking" and they can't kick you out;
You can insult someone in their own house and they can't make you leave;
You can publish defamatory lies about someone and they can't sue you;
You can wear whatever you want to a club and say whatever you want to the bouncers and they still have to let you in;
You can tell someone you f*cked their mom and they can't punch you in the face;
You can post whatever you want on an online messageboard and the administrator can't suspend your account.

In fact, a lot of these "fundamental rights" can be explicitly signed away in a contract, and there's nothing you can do about it once you've signed it.

For example, if you're working for a corporation and you sign an NDA (Non-Disclosure Agreement) that says you're not allowed to talk about your company's new designs to a competing company, then guess what - you can't talk about them! If you do, you can be sued, and if you're sued and continue to do it, you could be brought up on criminal charges.

Or if you're working for that same corporation and you write threatening letters to your boss that something terrible is going to happen if he doesn't double your pay, and then one day you decide to follow through with it and take a dump in the middle of the office, then guess what - he can fire you! And there's not a damn thing you can do about it!

Or say, if someone has a trademark, and you decide that you're going to come up with a similar product with the exact same name so that people will get confused into buying your version, and you thus violate that trademark - they can fine you, and you WILL have to pay, and you WILL have to stop using that name. It is not your "freedom" of speech to use it however you please.

So if some of you people could please try to get this through your feeble brains - freedom of speech is NOT a universal, inalienable system that governs how OTHER people can or cannot respond to that speech. You may have the legal right to say what you want, act how you want, or take a dump wherever you want, but someone else might also have the legal right to censor you, eject you from the premises, suspend your membership, etc., and also the legal right to use whatever force is necessary (excepting criminal action) to enforce that censorship/ejection/suspension.

I feel like I'm stating the overly obvious here, but some people just don't seem to get it. I swear, next time I hear someone use the words "free speech" over here, I may have to shove my foot so far up their ass that it comes out their mouth.

Work it out. Please and thank you.

Posted by Spankster on Apr-10-2004 20:35:

Thankyou for that.......mebbe now i can graduate from high skool.

Posted by Shakka on Apr-10-2004 21:55:

quote:
Originally posted by Spankster
Thankyou for that.......mebbe now i can graduate from high skool.

gotta learn to spell school first.

Posted by smokeape on Apr-11-2004 01:21:

That reminds me of the two most powerful words in the English language that will encite riots, stampedes, and general mayhem:

Free Beer!

[[[smoke]]]

Posted by imokruok on Apr-11-2004 05:12:

The ONLY thing that the constitution says is that Congress can't make a LAW which restricts your freedom to express yourself.

You're somewhat misconstruing this clause. While the words are "Congress" and "make no law", in actuality, the First Amendment is read as if the words were "Government" and "can't do anything."

All of the constraints placed on the federal government are also placed on the individual states, per the Constitution, so state governments can't do anything either. This means everyone right down to your local police force and principal of your public school, because they are part of the state. So, no, the government could not hire someone to shut you up, because that would be a "state action" abridging your freedom of speech.

Now, with regards to private rights, people rights may be curtailed depending on their actions and interactions with other private persons. If you want to enter someone's house and insult them, the owner may remove you, for you would be illegally trespassing on his property, and he can enforce his private property right. For you have a right to speak, but you do not have a right to have someone listen to you.

Posted by DigiNut on Apr-11-2004 05:23:

^^ You're right, but the argument still stands - the whole thing only applies to government vs. individual. So when people say "I can't get banned for saying [whatever], it's a free country", it really makes no sense.

Just because the government can't punish you for it, doesn't mean that other people can't. If your daddy spanked you for "taking that tone of voice", you're not going to have any legal recourse, despite that constitutional right.

Just something that pisses me off, that's all.