View Single Post
Old August 2nd, 2010 (2:05 AM). Edited August 2nd, 2010 by PkMnTrainer Yellow.
PkMnTrainer Yellow's Avatar
PkMnTrainer Yellow PkMnTrainer Yellow is offline
Pokemon Professor
  • Crystal Tier
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: East Coast, USA
Gender: Female
Nature: Sassy
Posts: 4,536
Originally Posted by Luck View Post
Personally, I think it's even more wrong that a person can go to jail for denying the Holocaust in many parts of Europe.
I've never heard of that. If I'm not mistaken we just sort of treated it just like any other silly conspiracy theory here in America. Sounds like it could violate the limitations of freedom of speech if that belief was pushed on others though, mostly because of how sensitive a subject it is.

Off to google to search for articles...

On a slightly more on topic note, I'd like to provide this link to a website that should answer a few questions about the limitations to "freedom of speech" in America, and possibly the kinds of limitations other parts of the worlds may apply.

Q. Does freedom of speech mean I can say anything I want?
A. No. There are various restrictions that have been placed upon this freedom in the United States. The following types of speech are examples of "unprotected speech" that can be restricted, either by a court or legislature:

Clear and Present Danger
Speech is not protected if it presents a clear and present danger. The most common example is that the First Amendment would not protect someone who falsely shouted “Fire!” into a crowded theater.

“Tendency” Speech
This is speech that has a “tendency” to lead to illegal action and thus is not protected.

Incitement Speech
Speech that is intended to incite or actually produce immediate lawlessness is also not protected.

Defamatory Speech
A statement that damages another person’s reputation is considered defamatory and unprotected. The Supreme Court has made certain allowances for statements that could be considered defamatory but are either made in reference to a public person or can be shown to be true.

Fighting Words
Similar to speech that is considered to have a "tendency" to incite illegal action, fighting words are unprotected. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942, fighting words were defined as those having "a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom, individually, the remark is addressed."

Seditious Speech
Seditious speech is that which advocates violently overthrowing the government or resisting lawful authority. This type of speech is unprotected and can be restricted because it endangers national security.

It's been a long time since we crossed paths over spcae-time~
Reply With Quote