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.