Some of you may be aware of the new Quebec's scandal about Gilles Proulx, scandal that is quite similar to the same one about CHOI's Jeff Fillion that led the CRTC to order the closing of the station on the base of hateful propaganda, slander, and call to hatred against races or groups.

I would like to know what is the limit of the freedom of speech in the United States. From what I understand, there have been limitation to the freedom of speech of some people for abuses that were way milder than those of Jeff Fillion or Gilles Proulx. Jeff Fillion was often explaining how much better it would be if he was in the United States, because he would be much more "free". But it seems to me that the US laws wouldn't even have allowed him to say the quarter of the things he said, since hateful propaganda and calls to hatred against groups are forbidden by law.

What he used to say when he was recieving too many critics from various people or various groups was simply that if they didn't like what he say, they just have to change the channel. He used to say that freedom of speech is absolute, and if what he said caused serious damage to people or groups, then that's too bad because he have freedom of speech and you can't do anything against that (except to sue him directly, what a lot of people did).


I post that in light of the new scandal caused by what Gilles Proulx said in his show "L'avocat et le diable" (the devil and the advocate). The topic of the show was more or less "Are girls theese days oversexualised". The show eventually moved to the story of a 14 years old girl that have been raped and beaten for about a week at near zero temperatures in a forest, and eventually left for dead in St-Laurence river (despite being critically injured, she managed to get out of the freezing waters and seek aid.). Gilles Proulx then commented that "she was a b**ch (translated from French (chienne/cochonne)[sic] (female of a dog/pig used as an insult against women), and that she just deserved what she got because the way she was dressed made it so.". He then followed afterward that girls that are victim or rape deserve what they get because they are so oversexualised. The other that was with him (Stéphane Gendron) was in shock and tried to explain like he could to the people that he had nothing to do with what Gilles Proulx was saying.
While what Gilles Proulx said doesn't even get near of what Jeff Fillion used to say, it is still debatable to me and not allowed by what I consider "freedom of speech" in the context of a broadcast program.

For example, would what Gilles Proulx said (broadcast on air during hours where anyone can watch it, including kids) have been "censored" on the basis that freedom of speech doesn't allow this?

With the exception of the word for a female canine, the U.S. government would have not censored those comments.

However, the broadcast network more than likly would have. Unless the network could make dang well sure that they were not associated with the views, for fear that their advertisors would have reacted negativly.

But that would almost certainly be viewed as 'political speech' (i.e. protected) by the government, as odious as it might be.

__________________
Carl Matherly

Offical Battlestar Galactica Apologist

Named Time Magazine's 2006 "Person of the Year"

There are a few legal limits to freedom of speech in the US. You cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. You cannot threaten the life of the president and possibly other federal officials. There are laws against libel and slander. Oh, and if you are contacted in any way as part of a PATRIOT Act investigation (for example, a librarian receiving a request for patron records) you cannot tell anyone about it.

Now social limits are another matter. If anyone had made a remark along the lines you described on a television or radio show the station and possibly even the sponsors would feel the heat and the offending commentator would be taken off the air. There was an incident about 20 years ago during some local newscast where after a story about sexual assault the weatherman cracked a joke that I will not repeat. He was fired.

I have never heard of Proulx or Fillion, I'll have to Google for more info. (Google is your friend!) Who sponsors their programs? The sponsors may be reaching their comfort limit any time now.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

While I'm almost certain that the Canada's government won't censor anything of it (including the word for a female canine), I wonder if the US Government would allow things like what Jeff Fillion said (that eventually led to the CRTC to close CHOI (more exactly not renew their contract , the radio that aired him)).

Jeff Fillion got "censored" (actually they just refused to renew the contract) because of those comments:
-«Pourquoi un moment donné on tire pas sa plogue. Non mais il ne mérite pas de vivre. C'est un esti de paquet de troubles pour la société ce bonhomme là.» -- Jeff Fillion, parlant dans le cadre de commentaires traitant d'une nouvelle concernant les mauvais traitements subis par un patient d'un hôpital psychiatrique.
("Why won't we just pull his plug? He really doesn't deserve to live. He really is just damn troubles for the society, that guy." -- Jeff Fillion, talking about the recent news of a psychiatric hospital patient that got bad treatments.)
Jeff Fillion was known for repeatly saying that anyone with mental disorders don't deserve to live. And that anyone with a trouble that involved costly long term treatments (like leucemia) doesn't deserve to live either.

-«Moi je pense que dans le zoo on devrait remplir les chambres pis que un moment donné, y a une switch pis que une fois par quatre mois, tu pèses sur le piton pis qui sort rien qu'un petit gaz pis que tu vas là pis tu ramasses ça dans des sacs.» -- L'animateur Jeff Fillion sur le même sujet, après qu'un intervenant travaillant dans le centre d'hébergement en question a téléphoné à l'animateur et indiqué que l'aile dans laquelle on garde les cas lourds, comme celui faisant l'objet de la discussion, est appelée le «zoo» par les employés du centre.
("I think that in that zoo (the psychiatic hospital) we should fill the rooms with those (the patients), and there is a switch that every four months, you pull and then a small gaz is realeased and the you go put all of it (the patients) in bags." -- Jeff Fillion, on the same topic, after an employee of the afore mentionned hospital telephoned him saying that the wing where the heavy cases are kept, like the one in the above case, is called the "zoo" by the employees of the center.)
Jeff Fillion was also known not only to say that people that cost society not only don't deserve to live, but he did ask them or suggest them to be eliminated a couple of times.

He was known to constantly attack Martin Deschamps (a French Canadian signer that have a congenital handicap) because he didn't accept that somebody with an handicap could perform (Fillion's view is that people with handicap shouldn't be allowed to live). He often said that he shouldn't be shown on television because some people may be eating, and that children didn't need to see the "thing".

He was also known to have a profound hatred to anybody with a physical or mental disorder (even bening), blacks, arabs, muslims (arab = muslim in his view, and muslim = extreme islamism), homosexuals, and often promoted hate speech in his programs and often said how life would be better if so or so group would be eliminated.

CHOI may bring his case in front of the suppreme court to show that hate speech/call to hatred or murder are part of the normal freedom of speech and shouldn't be forbidden, even if they know that they are almost certain to lose.

I'm not sure if the US Government would let that go without intervening. The Canadian did let that go without intervention, but used their right not to renew the contract as a form of protest.

I don't know where you got this idea -- US has no such law. Take a look at http://www.aryan-nations.org/ if you don't believe me.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that statements which are not immediate calls to action are protected speech in the US. So, "The world would be so much better if all the X were beaten, raped, and then murdered" would probably be protected. But definite calls to action (e.g., "Let's go kill X right now because he is a Y") can get you in trouble. Where one draws the line between these two, is, of course, a matter of judgment...

there is certainly a grey area with free speech.

threatening the president is illegal. inciting a riot is illegal. calls to specific illegal action are usually illegal (along the lines of inciting a riot). hate speech is NOT illegal, as long as you do not call for specific illegal action.

in spite of plenty of objection from rights advocacy groups, publich airways and other forums do fall under certain restrictions to free speech. SCOTUS has long held that local communities (and the nation) are allowed to set moral standards which often preclude otherwise protected speech, e.g. walking around in public shouting obscenities at the top of your lungs is often frowned upon as is pornography in many communities. the grey area here is often a matter of your rights treading on someone else's rights.

IMO, the patriot act gag order is unconstitutional, but that's must my opinion.

taks

__________________
goodbye richard pryor :(...

As I understand it, this is where the line is drawn, more or less, in Canada as well. You can't incite violence against or otherwise intimidate members of a minority group. Short of that, you can bad-mouth minority groups pretty much all you like.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

True.
Not (exactly) true. If you start a riot or stampede by telling people there's a fire in the theater, you're going to be in trouble. However, if you stand up, loudly announce that you're going to yell some meaningless words just for the heck of it, and then shout "Fire," you probably won't get arrested - though management might throw you out anyway.

The Patriot Act allows for gag orders on investigations, but it's not automatic. If the investigating officer doesn't tell you you can't tell anyone about it, you can.

(BTW, I believe it was already quite legal for the government to institute gag orders during certain investigations. The Patriot Act just extended that power to terrorism-related investigations. Same with searches of library records.)

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

The laws are only slightly tigher in Canada. If you say "All people of persuasion A should be raped and murdered", and suddenly there's an upswelling of rapes and murders against persuasion A, you're likely to get charged. Doubly so if you knew that your words, though worded carefully to avoid telling people to go out and comit those actions, will insite the acts.

Public airways are not monitored for obscenities. Watch or listen to CBC. They're more than happy to show things that have harsh swearing, adult situations, nudity, or implied sex acts. They might even go further. Showcase regularly shows nudity, and some Quebec based TV channels show pornography.

Violence against women or other minority groups sometimes gets edited out. I'm not sure if that's just social conscience at work, or if there's some sort of law limiting that over the airways, or possibly just at times when minors may be watching.

The CRTC, however, can pull a broadcaster's license if a suitable number of people complain about their broadcast content, or if they feel the broadcaster has been a bad corporate citizen. I'm not sure what that entails, but it's not arbetrary.

__________________
"The plan does not involve mayonaise."
"... I knew there was a catch."

You can't take the sky from me.

it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said, "my right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." however, as it pertains to First Amendment protections, some people apparently have bigger noses than others, or at least think they do.

legally, you can be sued for defamation of character if you say things that are considered damaging to the person you said them about. however, the plaintiff must provide evidence that damage was done.

a lot more censorship is done with money. I subscribed for a while to a website called StopDrLaura.com. this was because of Dr. Laura's equating gays with child molestors, despite huge amounts of evidence to the contrary. the goal of the campaign was to hit the potential advertisers with boycotts. now, I thought the campaign was justified, but I'm perfectly aware that everyone who starts such a campaign thinks they're justified.

bear in mind, I'm not a lawyer, either, and most of my research on the subject of censorship had to do with books, not political commentary. (most of those books were censored for non-political commentary, such as obscenity.) however, I do know enough to, for example, remember that idiot with the late-night syndicated show during the 80s who said similar things--and legally could.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Gillian touches on something there. Freedom of speech does not prevent you from slandering another. You have a protected right to say untrue things about someone. B ut freedom of speech says nothing about the consequences of such an act. The other party has the right to sue you for it.

And there was earlier a reference to censorship with respect to a broadcaster not renewing a contract. I note a lot of people here confuse censorship with license. The government cannot prevent you from calling the president ugly names. But the broadcaster you work for can indeed find such behavior inconsistent with his goals and release you for it. Further, you have the right to free speech, that is what the constitution guarantees, but you do not have the right to an audience. That is you are free to deride the president, but you are not free to do it when and wherever you want - in a crowded restaurant or my front yard for example. You are free to write and publish whatever you want, but you do not have the right to stick it on my car.

If you want the skinny on the freedom of speech in the US, the best place to go is straight to the top...the Supreme Court.

Here's the link for the Annotated First Amendment. I like this site because the summaries are hyperlinked to the actual opinions of the Court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment01/

There is probably more there than one cares to read.

__________________
"It was a crime of passion! Not premeditated dentistry!"

It's hard for me to focus on the freedom of speech issue. I'm still reeling at the idea that there's some man in North America who really thinks it's O.K. for a 14 year old, a child for god's sake, to be kidnapped, raped and beaten because someone doesn't like the way she dresses. I guess we're not really any more advanced than those Islamic fundamentalists here in the West.

You can form whatever hateful group you want and engage in almost any hateful speech you want as long as it falls short of planning actual violence. So you could say "they ought to kill all gay people" for example, but not "let's go kill some gay people."

You can even protest at the funeral of American soldiers killed in Iraq and say it was a good thing that they died, call them obscenities right in front of their families/comrades:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9102443/

Trust me, while there are a few idiots in any society, you are mostly wrong on this.

Of course you are right. I was just indulging in a little unthinking rage.

Ok, so Gilles Proulx started to get the same type of things Jeff Fillion got. Gilles Proulx just got two of his shows cancelled: "Gilles Proulx, globe trotter" and another serie of shows about him. He is also strongly considering leaving TQS (the broadcast television that aired his comments about the girl). TQS said that they don't approve what Gilles Proulx said in any way, but don't consider firing him.
TQS is known for broadcasting strong opinions, but none of those opinions were as debatable as what Gilles Proulx said on his show.

In both the case of Gilles Proulx or Jeff Fillion, they didn't get "censored" per se. In the case of Jeff Fillion it's really just the CRTC that decided to use its right not to renew the broadcasting contract. Now Gilles Proulx is starting to see some of his contracts getting cancelled.

He ripped it off from Robespierre...

All,
I fear that you are being extraordinarily blinkered about this free speech issue. America censors itself. On this very site, or its predecessor the Bad Astronomy site, I was censored and my post deleted for using a word that is commonplace for nonsense or pretentious rubbish, that also means male bovine faeces. How's that for 'freedom of speech'?

Trivial, I know, but here in the UK, the Government proposes to make "glorification of terrorism" illegal. If that were definable, it would make Nelson Mandela, Charles de Gaulles, and George Washington criminals. Surely democracies can defend themselves better than by adopting the weapons of fascism and demagogic communism? Free speech is the best defence against unreasonable speech, but it must be truly free.

John

I'm afraid I don't follow. Let's say that, hypothetically, the BABB had a rule against using the word "cornstarch" and posts were deleted for using that word. What does that have to do with Constitutional guarantees? This would be a rule on a private board after all. There are plenty of other boards with different rules.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Van Rijn,

To quote Boon from Animal House, "Forget it, he's rolling."

__________________
Carl Matherly

Offical Battlestar Galactica Apologist

Named Time Magazine's 2006 "Person of the Year"

VR,
If you censor the trivial, how can you be trusted to permit the important?
J.

J

Private conversations, like this board, are not protected by the 1st amendment.

M

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Oh please! Do you use salty language in front of children? You should realize that children perused the former BABB (and this board as well). Such language might seem "trivial" in an adult-to-adult interaction but that's not necessary the case with the readership here.

The first amendment applies to the government, not private citizens.

The owners of the board can operate it any way they wish.

Exactly. If there is an intrinsic right to speech, it extends only as far as your own property.

Were you to submit an article to your local paper, the editor (acting on behalf of the owner) is under no obligation whatsoever to print it. If it is printed at all, it is entirely at the press owner's sufferance. The same principle applies to message boards such as this one.

The US government cannot restrict what Phil and Fraser choose to print (or allow to be printed). Phil and Fraser can, however, restrict how we use this message board, where we are permitted to at all.

__________________
And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling [faces] lyin' to ye' everywhere ye' go
Turn to, and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

But freedom of speech is not guaranteed on privately owned property. Even though this site is open to the public, it is owned by a private entity. The owners of this site, or any other site for that matter, can set whatever rules they please, irregardless of Constitutional Rights.

Of course, if you want uncensored, head over to GLP.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

What's "GLP?"

Godlike Productions, a haven to some of the most insane conspiracy theories on the planet.

And not a haven of free speech. Posts get 'disappeared' there on a regular basis.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

it's a conspiracy!

Given that I'm not american ... are kids allowed to swear in class under the banner of free speech?

__________________
1·618033988749894848204586834365638117720309179805 76286213544862270526046281890244970720720418939113 74