On the limits and limiting of speech

[drwex]

I'm starting to noodle at material that attempts to make sense of what limits we want to impose on speech, given the First Amendment and our generally understood American social values.

A lot of distinction turns on the difference between "speech to" versus "speech about." Right now, I find myself aligned with people who think it makes sense to limit the former but not the latter.

Comments

[selenite.livejournal.com]

The only valid reason to restrict speech IMO is direct harm: incitement to violence, classified information, and such.

[elusiveat.livejournal.com]

What about incitement of peaceful protests that block the roads and prevent thousands of people from going to work normally, thereby decreasing productivity in the community?

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Arrest the people blocking the roads. The guy on the sidewalk urging them to do it isn't the cops' business (the arrestees will be looking him up to get some help with their fines, which will provide negative feedback).

[elusiveat.livejournal.com]

How is inciting protest different from inciting violence from the perspective of damage done?

[selenite.livejournal.com]

If I were to copy several thousand words on the definition of violence from dictionaries, legal journals, and law codes and paste them into this comment I would be wasting your time and decreasing your productivity, which is perfectly legal. If I punched you in the nose for being a sophist I'd be committing an act of violence, which is a felony and would get me arrested.

Feel free to consult the above-mentioned dictionaries and laws if you're still having trouble with the distinction.

[elusiveat.livejournal.com]

Whoah dude. You're misinterpretting my intention.

A simple "I don't want to discuss this" would have sufficed.

[elusiveat.livejournal.com]

It isn't obvious to me what would fall into each of the two categories. Could you give a few examples of each?

[drwex]

Sure, and I'll use some deliberately provocative examples; no insult to you or anyone intended.

If I say to you, "You are a $racialslur" that's speech to (a person). If I say "All $group are $racialslur" that's speech about.

If I say to a group of people, "People who provide abortions are murderers and must be stopped by violence if necessary" that's speech about. If i say to a group of people, "People who provide abortions are murderers and you must go stop them," that's speech to.

If I say, "Isn't it stupid how girls at school are always overdressing in whatever's trending on Pinterest this week? We should mock them for that." it's speech about. If I say, "Jenny is such a wimp; she's always changing her style to whatever she thinks is fashionable. Let's make fun of her and tease her about it." that's speech to.

In essence, speech to has a particularity that speech about does not.

[elusiveat.livejournal.com]

Ahhh. The "to" refers to the fact that you're speaking *to* somebody, not that you are speaking in order *to* do something.

Fairly certain I don't agree with the usefulness of this distinction, but thanks for clarifying : )

[drwex]

Right now I can't think of another way to distinguish generally hateful speech (which I may dislike but want to see protected) from verbal attacks, fighting words, bullying/harassment. An anti-abortion protester should have the right to hold up a sign with an aborted fetus and express the opinion "abortion is murder". But that same person should not be allowed to pick out a woman and scream "you are murdering your baby!" at that woman's face.

[drwex]

Right now I can't think of another way to distinguish generally hateful speech (which I may dislike but want to see protected) from verbal attacks, fighting words, bullying/harassment. An anti-abortion protester should have the right to hold up a sign with an aborted fetus and express the opinion "abortion is murder". But that same person should not be allowed to pick out a woman and scream "you are murdering your baby!" at that woman's face.