I think Freedom of Speech includes my right to say anything, provided those who don't want to hear it are free to avoid it. Regarding this one proviso: If not, then it is no longer speech, but action. I'll give you a real-world example. Years ago, while driving to work from Spring Green, WI to Madison, WI. Enroute, there were a cadre of anti-abortion activists who held up approximately 4' x 6' placards of aborted fetuses, using bullhorns to chant their cause. They lined the main drag through town, and, in order to avoid the images, one either had to close one's eyes while driving (not an alternative), or had to take an alternative route through town. With my little boy in the car, it was all I could do not to beat the shit out of these people as they, in my mind, assaulted families with their violent images. (Forget the irony of fighting violence with violence - just a momentary reaction of rage that their mission and self-righteousness had brought this before my little boy's, an innocent's, eyes). At the time, I worked for a law firm and raised the very real issue that what they were doing moved beyond their right to free speech and assembly. In my opinion, (a) they were speaking a polical point of view, both with the placards and with bullhorns; and, in order to not listen, I was forced into a course of action that I would not have normally have had to make. In other words, they checked my abilty to avoid their speechmaking. As it was, I was late for work by a considerable amount of time as I had to take a rural, alternative route. This constitutes, in my view, political action and not speech.
Ok, but what do you think about marketing and spam then. What about all people that makes live promotion on the street?
Latehorn, I'm not exactly following. If you mean, does spam constitute free speech, I'd say, no; which is likely why it is illegal or becoming increasingly so. Not sure what you mean by live promotion on the street, but I'll try. It is hazy now, but I believe that there have been Supreme Court decisions handed down where civil protests fall within the realm of free speech, provided they did not use amplification. Amplification, according to the legal theorists, constituted action as it effectively prevented the individual who did not want to hear the speech from avoiding it.
If somebody was passing out porn in front of a kindergarten, or child porn anywhere, there'd be no constitutional issue, but a criminal one, as I'd take the shithead to within an inch of their life. That being said, I'm no constitutional lawyer and this is an area long under debate. But the Supreme Court has narrowly defined restrictions to "free speech" along several lines. For example, material that has, effectively, zero political worth, and is merely obscene. Additionally, when different rights vie with each other, the Court has given relative weight to one or the other. The right to free speech dies when it clearly brings harm or promotes harm to a citizen or his or her rights; for instance, child porn obviously harms children and so is illegal. New York v. Ferber, 1982.
of course not. its just how i view freedom of speech-we need to be responsible on what we are saying. Tell what you want as long as you can stand for what you said. i did not said that we should not speak or say words that might offend or hurt others. - but we should be responsible in what we are saying so that we will not violate the right of other people- their basic right as human. Not just offending their feeling.
Freedom of association and Freedom of Speech go hand and hand. If your in an area not your own, then your speech may be limited by rights of association; but if your in your own area, then you should have a nearly absolute right to say whatever you wish to.