Poll: Free Speech values

[ronburgundy]

The purpose of this poll is to see where people stand on free speech and how it relates to age and political affiliation. Some recent polls (and many posts on this board) have suggested that left leaning millennials place much lower value on protecting speech than liberals of past generations.

There are only two options of free speech, with each having 4 sub-options that divide people by age and by general politics. No political division is ideal, but I chose one that is mutually exclusive and exhaustive of all possibilities. Also, we have few committed republicans here, so having ever voted for any GOP candidate seems more likely to get some takers. The poll is not public, so be honest.

Note that slander and libel are not criminal, but merely grounds for civil suit. This poll is about speech that is grounds for criminal conviction. Also, lets assume that falsehoods spoken under legal oath are by definition criminal and thus not part of the these options.

For this poll, there are two options on free speech:

Option A (essentially status quo in the US) Criminal speech should be limited to the following 4 situations:

1.Direct AND explicit promises of material reward or punishment to another if they commit a crime against a third party (thus suicide not included).​

2. Definitely false assertions, that the speaker knows are false and are intended to cause tangible harm to others via public panick and riot​

3. Assertions that the speaker knows are false and are uttered to encourage a reasonable listener to act in a way that harms themselves, their property, or a third party. (e.g. Includes false advertising and things like "Jump out the window, the building is going to explode!!"​

4. Directly advocating a criminal action, but only where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. (note the emphasis that makes this extremely limited and does not apply to 99% of what is called "hate speech")​

Option B Includes all of option A but expands criminal speech to include anything else, including but not limited to:

1. "Hate Speech" that feels like it implies negative characteristics of particular sub-populations (what almost all of what "hate speech" laws try to prohibit).​

2. Speech that generally advocates an illegal act like violence, theft, or vandalism, even if it cannot be shown that it was intended to would be likely to cause such actions "imminently" and at that particular moment.
(which is what current application of the law requires under the Brandenburg Test that basically makes almost everything the KKK says legal.​

3. Speech that some people feel is so offensive that they might react with criminal violence, such as terrorism.​

Note that recent polls and posts on this board have shown support by some people on the left for all 3 of these expansions of speech criminalization.

 

[bilby]

I presume that you either don't realise just how small the USA is, or just don't care about the other 95% of the world, where nobody has ever been offered the opportunity to vote for a GOP candidate.

Or perhaps you are unaware that the Internet is a worldwide phenomenon? (A 'world wide web', if you will).

We do have right wing lunatics in our 95%, you know. Even though they don't (and can't) vote for the GOP.

 

[untermensche]

I do not see where speech that is simply harassment or is threatening is listed.

How far do we allow one person to harass or threaten others?

 

[funinspace]

I'm one of those 35+ (just by a few years...lol) option A anonymous picks , but I think my last Repug vote was about 20 years ago now; last Repug presidential vote was in 1988.

 

[Tigers!]

I'm an aussie > 35 and could choose any of the first four. Where do I get my prize?

 

[southernhybrid]

Since we have open primaries in Georgia, I once voted for a Republican candidate just so I could vote against Ralph Reed, who was running in the Republican primaries for Lt. Gov. It made me feel dirty for having to ask for a Republican ballot.

Do primary elections count?

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm an aussie > 35 and could choose any of the first four. Where do I get my prize?

There's a drop bear outside your back door waiting to give it to you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've got a problem with your poll. The GOP used to be reasonable. Thus your dividing line for ever having voted GOP isn't a good yardstick for measuring how people feel. Beyond that:

1) Even once the GOP was going bad there was the time the Democrat candidate was a notorious local ambulance chaser. I didn't consider the GOP candidate to be as bad as he was.

2) I live in a closed primary state. I fear the Republicans more than the Democrats so I'm registered Republican so I can vote for the moderates in the primaries. (These days, however, I skip most primaries because there are no moderates to vote for. I can't find a lesser evil to pick.)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The GOP used to be reasonable.

No one here is old enough to have voted for Abraham Lincoln.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't understand what the OP poll has to do with free speech. ???

 

[Tigers!]

I'm an aussie > 35 and could choose any of the first four. Where do I get my prize?

There's a drop bear outside your back door waiting to give it to you.

A drop bear is hardly a worthy prize https://australianmuseum.net.au/drop-bear

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't understand what the OP poll has to do with free speech. ???

You don't understand how the principle of free speech is related to whether we make it a crime to say something that offends a particular group?

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't understand what the OP poll has to do with free speech. ???

You don't understand how the principle of free speech is related to whether we make it a crime to say something that offends a particular group?

I don't understand how the poll is related to that subject. Your welcome to explain it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Issues raised about the "have voted for a GOP candidate" criteria:

Primaries don't count, because then you are not choosing a conservative/right of center party over alternatives. The intended distinction refers only to voting for a GOP candidate over non-GOP candidates.

The GOP may have changed, but its been the party of ideological conservatives and white Christian traditionalist for over 50 years.
So, unless your over 70, having ever voted GOP over alternatives means you have not been a committed liberal or leftist your whole life. I intentionally created the groups so that the "never" category would consist mostly of the more lifelong strong liberals and/or leftists (baring the non-US posters).

IF you don't live in the US, then you can either answer according to whether you have ever preferred or think you would have voted for a GOP candidate over non-GOP opponents, or whether you have ever voted for your countries' largest party that is generally considered conservative or right of center.

Every added political option would add 4 additional poll options, so I kept it to just 2 political affiliation options. There will be flaws in any binary political categorization, but this way uses an objective action not a subjective self-classification as "liberal" or "conservative", and its one where there is likely to be a decent % in each category (unlike if I asked if you voted for Trump).

 

[ronburgundy]

I do not see where speech that is simply harassment or is threatening is listed.

IF it is the kind of explicit and direct threat against specific person's life, body, property that is clearly covered by and regularly prosecuted under long standing law in the US, then treat is as part of Option A. Like the other criminal speech in option A, such serious threats are tied to probable criminal actions that go beyond speech.

How far do we allow one person to harass or threaten others?

If its a serious threat of physical harm toward a specific person, then it is covered by existing law without need for expanding prosecution. If it is merely "harassment", then it could be illegal, but then it isn't about the speech itself. IF I say a bunch of unpleasant (but not false) things about you in a newspaper or book, it isn't criminal harassment. However, if I stand in front of your home or workplace and do it, then it might be, but then the speech part is not neccessary. It could be just to simply stand there menacingly, without saying anything. IOW, the content of the speech isn't being regulated, but rather the physical actions and physical movements designed to make the person feel under constant physical threat.

 

[ronburgundy]

You don't understand how the principle of free speech is related to whether we make it a crime to say something that offends a particular group?

I don't understand how the poll is related to that subject. Your welcome to explain it.

The OP explains it in detail. Each option (A or B) is described in terms of what types of speech you think should be treated as criminal offences. Option A is basically that long standing status quo in the USA, where the speech needs to be directly and intentionally linked to some imminent physical action that would be a criminal act or cause physical harm. Option B expands criminal speech to include anything beyond this such as "hate speech" that some people might find insulting or offensive but cannot be shown to be intended to make a reasonable listener believe that a criminal act of violence or property harm is or should be imminent.

 

[TSwizzle]

Option B expands criminal speech to include anything beyond this such as "hate speech" that some people might find insulting or offensive but cannot be shown to be intended to make a reasonable listener believe that a criminal act of violence or property harm is or should be imminent.

Not so much speech but I was thinking about the Westboro Baptist Church folks that take advantage of free speech to harass mourners at funerals. I don't find what they say (god hates fags or mary is a whore or whatever) but this sort of thing at a funeral should be stopped. It's irrational behavior. For the most part they are a bunch of harmless kooks. I think they get moved on from actual funeral venues, I'm not sure.

 

[untermensche]

I do not see where speech that is simply harassment or is threatening is listed.

IF it is the kind of explicit and direct threat against specific person's life, body, property that is clearly covered by and regularly prosecuted under long standing law in the US, then treat is as part of Option A. Like the other criminal speech in option A, such serious threats are tied to probable criminal actions that go beyond speech.

It's speech, not any action. Not incitement for some other person to commit a crime.

It is just speech.

"I'm gonna kill ya!!!!"

How do we justify forbidding it?

 

[J842P]

You don't understand how the principle of free speech is related to whether we make it a crime to say something that offends a particular group?

I don't understand how the poll is related to that subject. Your welcome to explain it.

The poll is asking you to choose between two different scenarios regarding the criminal speech, and some demographic info. How could this be any more obvious? I cannot tell if you are being purposefully obtuse.

 

[ZiprHead]

I don't understand how the poll is related to that subject. Your welcome to explain it.

The poll is asking you to choose between two different scenarios regarding the criminal speech, and some demographic info. How could this be any more obvious? I cannot tell if you are being purposefully obtuse.

The poll isn't asking anything about speech. It's about whom people voted for. I think you are making the assumption from there that people from certain political parties support or do not support free speech.

From my rep comments, others didn't get the connection too.