The downside to freedom of speech.

[cali]

Yes, there's a downside. Freedom of speech can be deeply painful. It can be offensive. It can lead to actual physical harm.

But the positive outweighs the negative. The power of freedom of speech is vital. We can counter speech that hurts or offends. And yes, sometimes we have to live with speech that harms.

The idea that banning speech protects us, is a dangerous one. The latitude has to be wide. That's what the 1st Amendment and its interpretation down through the years has established.

It's not easy to grapple with this. For instance, I'd argue that unlimited money in political campaigns is not an exercise of speech at all, but making a horrendously offensive, piece of shit move, is.

[Downwinder]

1. Where is the dividing line between free speech

and verbal bullying?

[cali]

2. verbal bullying is free speech under the Constitution.

Why on earth would you think it isn't?

[Downwinder]

3. I have been reading all these threads that say bullying is bad.

Now you tell me that bullying is proper or at least Constitutional.

[Zalatix]

5. Cali saying that bullying is proper? Where in the FUCK did you read that?

Proper != Constitutional, FYI.

[cali]

7. thanks and exactly.

[cali]

8. Of course bullying is bad. And you can be fired for bullying

speech doesn't mean no repercussions outside of the government. All I'm saying is that bullying speech (how would you define that, btw?) is protected speech under the Constitution.

[Downwinder]

9. I am not a legal professional to make a definition.

However I do believe a bunch of adults screaming and brow beating a young girl on her way to a medical appointment is bullying.

[cali]

11. yes, and it's protected speech

though as we've seen, cities can legally "corral" speech.

and you don't need to be a legal professional to grasp constitutional fundamentals.

[Zax2me]

4. Listening to romney?

[cali]

6. do you know how to read?

If so, sweetheart, try reading beyond the OP title. You can do that, can't you?

[Honeycombe8]

10. I agree. Every situation is different and has to be looked at with fresh eyes.

One person's free speech cannot be allowed to interfere with another person's rights. But the breadth and scope of legal free speech is wide. Each instance can be difficult to be grappled with, and reasonable people can arrive at different conclusions for each instance.

[cali]

12. that isn't what I said at all.

[tifanyhunter]

13. Bullying Laws

In response to recent events, the original poster seems focused on the importance of protecting speech among adults such as making offensive movies or insulting the religion of others. Other posts seem to expand this discussion to protection of verbal bullying. If one's right to insult another's religion is protected, there is a reasonable argument that youth have a constitutional right to use a myriad of offensive language including sexual orientation and racial slurs in verbal bullying.

However, in making the analogy from the adult world to the youth world, we have to be careful to complete the analogy. Constitutionally protected speech simply means that the government cannot restrict you from such speech nor proscribe criminal penalties. That said, your employer (including the federal and state governments) does have the right to fire you for such speech particularly if it occurs at work or is directed at your fellow employees thereby causing a hostile work environment. Further, a private company such as a Walmart has the right to kick you out of their store for such speech. Basically if you are offensive, people have the right to disassociate from you and not do business with you.

Extending that analogy to youth and schools, I believe anti-bullying laws that give schools the right/obligation to discipline youth (up to and including expulsion), will survive constitutional challenges, but laws that proscribe criminal penalties for verbal bullying will not.

[dkf]

14. I didn't make the connection til just now that the riots are largely in the Arab Spring countries.

Now they have free speech and they are expressing it.

[Nye Bevan]

15. Yes. I'm sure the relentless "Magic Underwear" type jokes on DU are hurtful to Mormons.

But I don't think DUers who make these jokes should be subject to prosecution.