Freedom of Speech and YouTube comments

[Judge]

The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech unless it is inciting, such as 'go and rough up some [fill in the blank]' because King George III of England would not tolerate criticism and dissent from the colonists. Ppl are protected by that even when they are being hateful.

Actually such legal sentiments weren't really defined so clearly until the 20th century with a series of landmark Supreme Court decisions, from Schenck v. US to Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. A series of evolving decisions that formally defined and limited the rights of free speech, press and assembly and then gradually broadened them over time.

Example: Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 - where the court determined that an Ohio statute cannot punish inflammatory speech by the Ku Klux Klan unless it leads directly to incitement of an imminent, lawless action.

It effectively gave political extremism a legal voice. Later precedents would extend such rights to assembly as well. Not sure how the Founding Fathers would have felt about the KKK or Nazis...or pornographers who would ultimately expand such rights. Though it might have been amusing to hear their thoughts over the obstruction of conscription (Schenck v. United States) which would establish the court's Doctrine of a Clear and Present Danger (1919).

Brandenburg v. Ohio

 

[dragonwolf]

In the US the notion of unlimited "free speech" has somehow remained a popular misconception since World War One. A time when the Supreme Court began to adjudicate various cases which have defined the actual limits of free speech. From legal benchmarks known as "the bad tendency test", to the "Doctrine of Clear and Present Danger". Yes- conditions do indeed apply!

Though since then such benchmarks have been legally eroded to accept socially volatile forms of free speech, as long as they didn't breach yet another benchmark- speech which precipitates an imminent, lawless action. That if (whatever it might be) doesn't happen, it's essentially protected free speech.

Being insulted in itself does not rise to a legal threshold of an imminent, lawless action. And an insult in itself is unlikely to be recognized as a form of slander or libel without some ability to substantiate a perceived loss. And if you are perceived to be in the public domain, well...you may be "naked to the wind" relative to the ugliest in political satire and insults.

Nor does hate speech alone count as well. That the catalyst to make such acts a crime lies in a legal determination of being able to directly connect such spoken or written words to an intentional act of violence.

Perhaps the one concern that may- or may not skew such legal concepts is in the interpretation of potential acts of terrorism. Where FAA regulations give commercial flight crews quite a lot of leeway in restraining passengers for just about any reason. Which IMO remains quite a controversial issue in itself.

Essentially the freedom of speech our Founding Fathers once envisioned, ended long ago with the notion established by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that shouting "fire!" in a crowded auditorium was not a form of protected free speech.

Actually such legal sentiments weren't really defined so clearly until the 20th century with a series of landmark Supreme Court decisions, from Schenck v. US to Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. A series of evolving decisions that formally defined and limited the rights of free speech, press and assembly and then gradually broadened them over time.

Example: Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969 - where the court determined that an Ohio statute cannot punish inflammatory speech by the Ku Klux Klan unless it leads directly to incitement of an imminent, lawless action.

It effectively gave political extremism a legal voice. Later precedents would extend such rights to assembly as well. Not sure how the Founding Fathers would have felt about the KKK or Nazis...or pornographers who would ultimately expand such rights. Though it might have been amusing to hear their thoughts over the obstruction of conscription (Schenck v. United States) which would establish the court's Doctrine of a Clear and Present Danger (1919).

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Thank you, Judge and Servelan, for talking about the actual legal policy and reasoning, finally. It saddens me that no one else had done so (of the Americans, anyway).

OP and the others -- the US First Amendment protects citizens from being arrested by the government for speaking one's mind. As Servelan pointed out, it's because of King George III and his draconian and oppressive laws.

There are what most would consider reasonable limitations (basically, your rights stop where mine begin). You can't spread libel or slander against someone that causes actual (usually financial) damage, and you can't incite anarchy (aka - you can't yell "fire!" in a public location without there being an actual fire).

As far as online forums (or any privately-owned venue), "free speech" type laws are a fair bit different. The First Amendment rights are not violated if the venue owner chooses to turn you away for saying crap, and likewise, they can impose extra rules should they choose, as long as they at least abide by the laws in their area.

This does mean that people can say some pretty nasty things before it gets to the realm of legal or even private ramifications. This is in part actually part of a phenomenon known as the "online disinhibition effect" (or as Penny Arcade puts it so well, the Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory), where people are emboldened by the sense of anonymity granted by the internet and are more likely to say and do things they otherwise wouldn't.

As others have stated, it's usually best to not read the comments or engage in them.

 

[Judge]

This does mean that people can say some pretty nasty things before it gets to the realm of legal or even private ramifications. This is in part actually part of a phenomenon known as the "online disinhibition effect" (or as Penny Arcade puts it so well, the Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory), where people are emboldened by the sense of anonymity granted by the internet and are more likely to say and do things they otherwise wouldn't.

As others have stated, it's usually best to not read the comments or engage in them.

Absolutely. I'm inclined to think that the perception of anonymity drives a great deal of negative behaviors online, without any serious considerations of any legal ramifications or the real proprietary nature of online domains in general.

Being highly selective about where you're wiling to interact with others online is about your only real course of action short of having a very thick skin.

 

[SevenOfNine]

I was called C word at work last year and the guy wot said it weren't arrested.

On the contrary I lost my job for telling him to F off in front of customers.

Well - acording to our pathetic law in the UK, you were verbally assaulted and yes - you could have the guy charged under some section.

Saying all that - I was bashed over the head with a wooden pole a few months ago and then I had to fend for my self against police and the guy who tired to kill me. It was at my own house over a noise dispute.

Its one law for NTs and aspies can just take a running jump.

Honestly - You simply acnt have feree speech especially if youre an aspie.

STuff like - free speech or human rights etc etc are juat an NT 'construct'.

 

[SevenOfNine]

Seriously? I use that word in public and have yet to be arrested. I literally cannot eye roll hard enough at your comment.

Try it and see - go and say the C word in public - freely. Then - get ready for a stint in a cell.

Its even got a section in our law.

There is No argument - it si black and white. Cause a member of the public offence or make them feel uncomfortable with Your 'Free speech' and and is a section 5 offence. Plain and simple.

Im telling you - not debating it.

 

[SevenOfNine]

This is so funny... the 'c word' isn't even considered a serious swear word in the uk, people say it all the time, I know people who regularly use it as a pet name for close friends.

Well - you guys obviously have zero experience in life - shame.

If you think otherwise - youre heading for a fall.

Anyway - why would I know.

Im just some idiot who can be bothered to offer a life long experience of aspieness but, hey ho.

Good buy Losers!

 

[xudo]

Try it and see - go and say the C word in public - freely. Then - get ready for a stint in a cell.

Its even got a section in our law.

There is No argument - it si black and white. Cause a member of the public offence or make them feel uncomfortable with Your 'Free speech' and and is a section 5 offence. Plain and simple.

Im telling you - not debating it.

Yes, swearing in public could be deemed a public order offence under section 5, but that in no way means that simply using a swear word in public will get you arrested. Even if a member of the public heard me swear while I was out and about (and they have because I swear a lot) and they did feel so utterly offended that they called the police and the police even attended the most I would get is a chat about how someone was offended by my swearing. So long as the police didn't turn up and I'm swearing up a storm at the top of my lungs in the centre of town, I'm not going anywhere near a cell.

The whole point of public order offences (especially in terms of swearing) is for example, someone who is tanked up on booze in the centre of town shouting their head off - either while swearing or otherwise - just generally causing a public disturbance likely to cause fear or offence to others.

Section 5 of the public order act was and has never been intended to lock up someone for using any swear word in conversation, but for people causing a real disturbance.

 

[Judge]

The whole point of public order offences (especially in terms of swearing) is for example, someone who is tanked up on booze in the centre of town shouting their head off - either while swearing or otherwise - just generally causing a public disturbance likely to cause fear or offence to others.

Section 5 of the public order act was and has never been intended to lock up someone for using any swear word in conversation, but for people causing a real disturbance.

Makes complete sense to me in terms of the actual offense being focused on public drunkenness.

 

[xudo]

Makes complete sense to me in terms of the actual offense being focused on public drunkenness.

In theory, you could be just shouting your head off for the sake of it without being drunk and be treated the same, or be experiencing some sort of mental health crisis - but simply using the odd swear word, especially when not in the company of the police will not lead to you being locked up. Even the police would give you at least one warning to stop swearing if they were talking to you.

 

[Judge]

In theory, you could be just shouting your head off for the sake of it without being drunk and be treated the same, or be experiencing some sort of mental health crisis - but simply using the odd swear word, especially when not in the company of the police will not lead to you being locked up. Even the police would give you at least one warning to stop swearing if they were talking to you.

This helps me to better understand the context of another similar event. Thanks so much.

Drunk man who shouted 'Tiocfaidh ar la' in Belfast handed suspended jail term - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

 

[xudo]

This helps me to better understand the context of similar another event. Thanks so much.

Drunk man who shouted 'Tiocfaidh ar la' in Belfast handed suspended jail term - BelfastTelegraph.co.uk

I'm not surprised that he was arrested, seeing as the phrase he shouted is associated with republicans in Ireland. A rather cursory Google into 'the troubles' would show why the police probably took a dim view of his actions.

 

[Judge]

I'm not surprised that he was arrested, seeing as the phrase he shouted is associated with republicans in Ireland. A rather cursory Google into 'the troubles' would show why the police probably took a dim view of his actions.

But the real proximate cause was his drunkenness. Not his politics. The arrest and "probable cause" might have been thin, but if prosecutors were willing to pursue the matter only on drunkenness, that I could understand.

At least the police didn't summarily execute him. Something known to happen here on occasion.

Though merely expressing Irish Nationalism alone is not synonymous with terrorism.

Yet imagine someone suddenly and soberly shouting "God is great!" in Arabic on a US commercial airliner. That could get messy, legally speaking. But then we do have precedents where both law and national security can potentially trump freedom of speech and religion as well as so many Mormons could elaborate on.

 

[Mr Allen]

But the real proximate cause was his drunkenness. Not his politics. The arrest and "probable cause" might have been thin, but if prosecutors were willing to pursue the matter only on drunkenness, that I could understand.

At least the police didn't summarily execute him. Something known to happen here on occasion.

Though merely expressing Irish Nationalism alone is not synonymous with terrorism.

Yet imagine someone suddenly and soberly shouting "God is great!" in Arabic on a US commercial airliner. That could get messy, legally speaking. But then we do have precedents where both law and national security can potentially trump freedom of speech and religion as well as so many Mormons could elaborate on.

Imagine if somebody, let's say a Muslim, got on a Plane bound for almost anywhere, and stood up and shouted "Praise Allah!", they'd turn the Plane round and go home, and said Muslim would be nicked on the grounds of being a Terror suspect.

 

[Judge]

Imagine if somebody, let's say a Muslim, got on a Plane bound for almost anywhere, and stood up and shouted "Praise Allah!", they'd turn the Plane round and go home, and said Muslim would be nicked on the grounds of being a Terror suspect.

Pretty much. Though they'd also turn around and file a civil rights suit against the airlines and government over freedom of religion in this country. Would they win? I'm guessing not.

Similar reason I mentioned the Mormon church. Polygamy was a big deal in their sect of Christianity. Not so much with Uncle Sam who ruled accordingly long ago. So much for freedom of religion.

Ironically though when heavy-handed flight crews act against passengers for other reasons their being on the right side of the law doesn't always pan out quite the same.

 

[tree]

I am missing how the past dozen posts of this pertain to Youtube.

 

[Judge]

I am missing how the past dozen posts of this pertain to Youtube.

Perhaps because the discussion is more about free speech and less about YouTube. Given the two have been merged together in the original post, it's not surprising which one quickly becomes paramount to the overall discussion.

Further complicated given an inquiry of a British citizen about an American hosted web service that serves people globally over a subject that has very different ramifications relative to different legal jurisdictions with varying concepts and limitations of what may or may not be construed as "free speech".

Freedom of speech itself is ultimately a very broad concept, especially when discussed with a global audience. Which may- or may not transcend proprietary boundaries depending on the circumstances and jurisdictions involved potentially including both civil and/or criminal legal concerns. Far beyond merely one- or two proprietary web domains.

To put it simply, most everyone's concept of "free speech" isn't likely to be based on the policy of YouTube.

 

[Mr Allen]

I am missing how the past dozen posts of this pertain to Youtube.

I did originally start off the discussion regarding YouTube comments, but it's gone into discussing freedom of speech in general now, not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Judge]

The bottom line is that proprietary web domains ultimately reserve the right to allow or restrain whatever it chooses, or based on what it may or may not be aware of relative to certain legal concerns.

And as far as the law is concerned, if it isn't watching it ultimately doesn't matter. And when it is, it will almost certainly involve criminal law concerns rather than civil ones. With considerations of crimes against children likely being prioritized with various law enforcement agencies compared to other offenses such as cyberstalking.

Don't ever simply assume any sovereign legal concerns fundamentally have your back in a civil sense. Odds are, they don't.