🚀 go-pugleaf

John M Atkinson (jatkinso@ANTISPAMgmu.edu) wrote:
: On 20 Apr 1997 16:20:05 GMT, mshinn@osf1.gmu.edu (Michael T Shinn) wrote:

: Given:That Free Speech [tm] is an absolute good and that there is no perspective
: that should be supressed or hindered from expressing itself in any way, shape,
: or form.

Well, let me start by saying that it my position that there are generally
no absolutes on this topic.  The other members of the GMS may have their
own opinions, but mine is that taking an absolute stance on the topic of
free speech, make that speech in general, is myopic at best.

So, the I would be the first to disagree with the premise that one has an
*absolute* right to speak whatever one wants.  

For instance, some forms of speech which I think a reasonable person would
agree should be prohibited, or at least fined for (yeech!) would be Libel,
Slander, the telling of national secrets that are *clearly* going to get
people killed, and child pornography.

Some other more gray area types of speech that can and should get you into
trouble would be, yelling Fire in a Crowded Movie House, so called
"fighting words" and obvious fraud.  These areas can be extremely vague
and hard to define.  So I defer to the SLAPS test when I'm not sure

If a work has:

Serious Literary, Artistic, Political or Scientific value, it doesn't
violation (God what a yarn this one is) local community standards for
decency as spelled out in specific language in the local applicable law.  

So, once we have all that in mind, I think a reasonable argument should
be to err on the side of caution when it comes to speech - to be very 
wary of arguments that stipulate that speech=action, or that we should be
extremely careful of what people "should" be allowed to say.

Anyway - thats my two cents.  And no I'm not speaking for everyone in the
GMS (If it needs to be said...) - these are my opinions.  

M. Shinn
President, George Mason Society