What's new

When does freedom of speech cross the line to harassment

Emoni

先輩
20 Sep 2003
1,768
67
63
... or can it really?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...re-internet-war-on-openly-gay-college-student

I just watched this video interview online, and I got to wondering at what point can "freedom of speech" be abused to where it can be silenced in the name of preventing harassment. The video above is a rather extreme and disgusting example of behavior that would approach this line, but other instances of bullying and online harassment also come under this concern.

This reminds me of marches by racist groups like the KKK, but I don't really want to get into the argument of "hate speech" as much as the act of harassment as I personally feel "hate speech" is actually protected under freedom of speech, even if it awful and disagreeable. The only way to really see how awful something can be, and understand the hate behind speech is often to simply hear it directly.

Yet, harassment could be stretched to be used for censorship at times. In the above case though, it seems to be downright stalking, but does approach the line of harassment.
 
The blog owner definetly crossed the line to harassment,i don't understand why someone would do such harmful acts and waste his time to harass people ?
freedom of speech should be limited.
- No harassment.
- No personal attack.
- No acts that risk people security and lead to chaos.
- freedom of speech should be conducted in a polite way.

Freedom of speech is an art,but nowdays it turned into mess (mostly) especially from adults,many people missed the point of it.
 
I think the guy is crossing the line to harassment too, but what DEFINES that line? No personal attacks? Does that can't call someone an idiot? How is that harassment how is that a problem?

I think you misunderstand freedom of speech a little, but ignoring that, what do you define as "harassment?" I'm honestly having a hard time defining it in this case myself, which is what I'm struggling with.

Limiting freedom of speech makes free speech go "bye bye". You have to come up with a reason if you are to limit someone, for examples if someone is making dangerous threats, etc.
 
Emoni said:
but what DEFINES that line?
Emoni said:
what do you define as "harassment?" I'm honestly having a hard time defining it in this case myself,
It depends,But me too i find it hard to define "harassment" because i don't know alot about the laws.

I think we have to define "Freedom of speech" first to be able to define "harassment" !!
 
In the Netherlands there is far too much of a freedom of speech.
I often find it offending. Just saying what one thinks at a certain moment is not intelligent.
People just think that it is better to give everyone a piece of their minds or their opinions.
As for the Dutch law: One is free to say what one wants to say about almost everything.
I am afraid that "good manners" are slowly disappearing overhere. Pity!
 
Freedom of speech is an art,but nowdays it turned into mess (mostly) especially from adults,many people missed the point of it.

I couldn't agree more with this statement. I don't think freedom of speech should be used as an excuse to say whatever comes into your head, regardless of the harm it does. I think freedom of speech should go hand-in-hand with critical thinking, and that's where "art" comes into it.

Just saying what one thinks at a certain moment is not intelligent.
People just think that it is better to give everyone a piece of their minds or their opinions.
As for the Dutch law: One is free to say what one wants to say about almost everything.
I am afraid that "good manners" are slowly disappearing overhere. Pity!

I agree. Although I don't think we should avoid hurting other people's feelings at all costs, I certainly think we should consider them before we speak, and make an informed decision about whether what we have to say is important enough that it's worth upsetting someone else's feelings.
 
I do not think there should be any limitations on freedom of speech though, because then you can easily get into oppression from the other way around. Basically as long as I have the option not to listen I do not have a problem with free speech.
 
Freedom of speech has no limits. This isn't a question of what freedom of speech is, because that is well understood, this is a question of privacy and an expectation of privacy. As Emoni stated, the smallest limitation will defeat freedom of speech completely, but such is life. The question to be asked is whether, having regard to his circumstances, the student in question is entitled to a level of privacy that would preclude the attacks mentioned. This is, really, what the attorney is relying on. The more publicity someone attracts, the weaker the expectation of privacy becomes. This is a commonly used test and I would say it is a good one because it takes into consideration the fact that speech cannot be directly harmful, but it is evidently capable of causing indirect harm through human actors.
 
It depends,But me too i find it hard to define "harassment" because i don't know alot about the laws.

I think we have to define "Freedom of speech" first to be able to define "harassment" !!

Damn Hezam, you got me here! :D I have to say, this response impressed me. Short, accurate, and too the point.

Yes, I do agree with you on this part, and Tsuyoko too about the critical thinking aspect.


As for Derfel, I agree that you can't limit freedom of speech, but then at the same time you must be responsible for what you say. "Freedom isn't free," as the saying goes. It's the same situation when you scream "Bomb!" in an airport. You are free to say it, but you are responsible for causing panic and possible harm and wasted funds and money due to your actions. Of course, the problem with this, is that this pretense can be EASILY abused to limit free speech!

So maybe this is where harassment is connected to freedom of speech. For the case of the man above, he is responsible for possible the police having to be called repeatedly, aggressive behavior, or slander and untrue things that he is responsible for making claims that can't be supported and inflicting harm. I'm still vague on this point though.
 
As for Derfel, I agree that you can't limit freedom of speech, but then at the same time you must be responsible for what you say. "Freedom isn't free," as the saying goes. It's the same situation when you scream "Bomb!" in an airport. You are free to say it, but you are responsible for causing panic and possible harm and wasted funds and money due to your actions. Of course, the problem with this, is that this pretense can be EASILY abused to limit free speech!

So maybe this is where harassment is connected to freedom of speech. For the case of the man above, he is responsible for possible the police having to be called repeatedly, aggressive behavior, or slander and untrue things that he is responsible for making claims that can't be supported and inflicting harm. I'm still vague on this point though.

Human rights and civil liberties will often conflict. You have very curious cases where the interests of the parties are irreconcilable, say Evans v UK where a woman without ovaries wanted to implant fertilised embryos contrary to the wishes of her former partner who provided the sperm, or take the constant battle between journalists and famous folks, which is much the same as this case where there is a conflict between free speech and privacy. Someone will have to lose, be it the student or the attorney, someone will be stripped of his right in the current case and that is just how it is. It is not an issue of working out whether this is a matter of free speech and privacy, that bit is clear and well understood. It is an issue of determining how to decide as regards the principal matter, which is whether the attorney should be allowed to voice his views or whether the privacy and reputation of the student should be protected. There's many ways this can be decided, say, equity or efficacy. I would decide in favour of the student because the attorney, in my view, is a stupid delusional cretin. That is another way to decide it, albeit not widely endorsed, unfortunately. But as I said, one of the rights will be defeated whatever the outcome. They're irreconcilable, so there can be no win-win conclusion.
 
It's been said -- many times, lately, in some conversations here Stateside -- that "you don't have a 'right not to be offended'..."

I believe that.

Someone said something offensive? Tough. That's free speech. May not be polite, may not be socially acceptable, may even be downright obnoxious -- but it's freedom. There are people who do and say things that I personally would not do or say, for example, just because I have manners and was raised well -- but it's within their rights to do so.

Take, for example, the new US sitcom, the official title of which is "**** My Father Says." It's usually referred to in press and on TV and in the news as either "Stuff My Father Says" (more acceptable) or "'Bleep' My Father Says" -- which hints at the expletive of the title. Personally, I would not put on a prime-time TV show with an implied obscenity in the title (even if it actually isn't used), because we all know, for example, what "F**K" is when we see it, and it doesn't really change the fact that it's there. But... hey. Freedom of speech and all that.

They have a right to be offensive, boorish jerks if they want. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom