Comment by lotharbot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lotharbot | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I dislike the term "free speech" because it leads to misunderstandings as to what US (and other) law actually allows. The French, during their revolution, phrased it as "free communication of ideas and opinions"; the universal declaration of human rights says "freedom of opinion and expression". I believe these more accurately convey the idea, and make more clear why certain restrictions on speech are considered acceptable.

It's common to restrict threats and incitements to violence (ideas should be expressed peacefully; their expression should not make a person fear for their immediate safety) and statements that put people in imminent danger (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater). It's also common to restrict defamation and false advertizing (expressing ideas which are not true in order to harm another, either in reputation or in an economic transaction). Restrictions on the "time, place, and manner" of speech are also common -- while you're entitled to express your ideas, you are not entitled to shout them on a bullhorn at 3 AM on a residential street.

My quip is usually "you're allowed to say whatever you like, but you're not allowed to have everything you say heard."

That's a cute quip, but it seems devoid of content.

In the US, at least, you're not allowed to say whatever you like-- there are certain types of speech that are prohibited-- so the first part of your quip is plainly false.

As for the second, I can't for the life of me figure out what it would mean. I can say something, but some unseen force can prevent others from hearing it?

> As for the second, I can't for the life of me figure out what it would mean

If I understand right, it's better phrased as "you do not have the right to have everything you say heard."

E.g.

Making a website about the God Thor: OK, saying whatever you like.

Preaching about Thor on a street-corner: questionable.

Waking up the neighbours early on Thursday to tell them about Thor: over the line. They don't want to hear it then.

I use the verb "allow" rather than "have a right to" for personal reasons, though you're right that in this case they're more or less the same. And since the government doesn't yet have thought-crime technology, the first part of the quip is of the type "you can think any thought you want. You can speak anything in the privacy of your own company, write anything on your home computer." The second part is a recognition that once you bring other minds into the picture, you better watch what you communicate to them. There are plenty of seen forces which will resist your attempts at communication as well, government being just one.

As far as criminal actions, your three examples demonstrate a great set distinguishing the levels for which criminal prosecution should be considered. The first case, people read it if they want to, hard to make a criminal case except for culturally-hated things like child porn. Second case, depends on what the government allows for public demonstrations. Generally, people may be offended as they pass by but there's no real harm done. (Ignoring the possibility of converting everyone who hears to Thor worshipers who overthrow the government in a bloody revolution.) Third case, people are obviously affected in a negative way with their sleeping disturbed. There's another case which the other post mentioned: false advertising, aka willful lying. To me that deserves the most punishment as a class since people can be seriously harmed by believing a lie. (With the obvious exceptions like personal white-lies and consequentialist lies in the common Nazi-hiding example.)

> Generally, people may be offended as they pass by but there's no real harm done

Which reminds me of another quip: "you do not have the right to never be offended."

e.g if the street-corner preachers don't offend you, the atheist billboards will. Suck it up and move on.

> "you're not allowed to have everything you say heard"

Yes. One type of time-place-manner speech restriction is called "captive audience". This limits your rights to deliver messages in circumstances where your audience has no reasonable way to avoid the message.

These include restrictions on selling legal services at accident scenes or in hospital rooms (the person you're selling to can't avoid your sales pitch), broadcasting political or religious messages on public transportation (many have no viable alternative and therefore can't avoid you), or giving a union election speech to a mass assembly of employees on company time (employees would be risking job loss by skipping out.)

You have the right to say almost anything, but you don't have the right to force anyone to hear what you have to say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com