Where to draw line on permitting free speech?

MQ: Where to draw line on permitting person to speak freely?

      - or -

should it not be constrained at all?

_____________[ excerpts of optional resources ] ______________

Which countries still outlaw apostasy and blasphemy?
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/05/28/which-countries-still-outlaw-apostasy-and-blasphemy/ - By Angelina Theodorou - May 28, 2014

A new Pew Research analysis finds that as of 2012, nearly a quarter of the world’s countries and territories (22%) had anti-blasphemy laws or policies, and one-in-ten (11%) had laws or policies penalizing apostasy. The legal punishments for such transgressions vary from fines to death.

In the Americas, 11 out of 35 countries (31%) had blasphemy laws, including the Bahamas, where the publication or sale of blasphemous material can be punished with up to two years imprisonment. The U.S. does not have any federal blasphemy laws, but as of 2012, several U.S. states – including Massachusetts and Michigan – still had anti-blasphemy laws on the books.
Some Blasphemous Countries
Massachusetts: General Laws: Chapter 272, Section 36

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.
Sandy victim told by Governor Chris Christie to ‘sit down and shut up’ for his anniversary of Hurricane Sandy photo-op
LVL 24
Who is Participating?
Assuming governmental restrictions, I don't think any should exist.

Of course, there does need to be governmental impositions of consequences/penalties for any harm or damage caused by any item of speech. I.e., it shouldn't be illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater; however, any physical or significant mental harm or property damage that results would be the responsibility of the shouter. IMO, that could easily extend even to 'intent' to cause harm/damage. That's the point of such restrictions in the first place. It would clarify things to a large degree and almost eliminate existing confusions.

At least, it could in some societies.

As for the Gov. Christie item, I'd have to look deeper at the circumstances; but on the surface, I side with Christie. (I'm not a Christie supporter.) The occasion was apparently intended for speech from Christie and others. Hecklers have no right to interfere with the Governor's right to speak. Hecklers can wait their turn or organize their own speaking venues.

I wouldn't be too disturbed if the hecklers suffered some kind of penalty for attempting to interfere with the right of the speakers. Federal civil rights violations have been prosecuted before.

SunBowAuthor Commented:
I tend to agree with rhe latter, needing to know more while being very superstitious/suspicious all around.

It would appear that public official is claiming to have rolled up own sleeves to help rebuild like a Jimmy Carter when all that was done was rhetoric (campaining).

It would appear that he prefers non-disclosure of disbursements of funds raised to help the needy who lost their former domicile due to acts of god and a large portion of the funds were redirected (billions).

It would appear that public official clams public does not have right to know anything about how they are being served, and are being denied meaningful dialog even when he is present in their midst while invoking own personality of bullying them to quel any curiousity any mght have.


The questioner seems tto dress self as some sort of whistle-blower/investigating reporter who is trying to both pass on information to local population and attempt to attain further infomation concerning major issue of concern to them and local economy.

Yet it would also seem that the one referred to as heckler is also polically motivated and currently out of office.

All things consiidered, I'd problably side against the bully governor who chose podium for monolog to be among public for a photo-op. Had this been indoors at official duty station then sway would be they other way.

While there can be a time for being some Sargeant Shultz ("I see nothing") therre can be a time for accountability and responsibility rather than a show-cased monkey ("see no evil, hear no evil") who avoids pleading the 5th.

SunBowAuthor Commented:
> 'intent' to cause harm/damage

a) appears both intending to harm
b) result becomes one of covering up other issues
c) again leaves public to only be able to choose 'lesser of two evils'

Awarding points now lest found less able to return as intended for supplemental remarks

In interim appending suggestions from site

Suggested Solutions

Display a picture in a list in Sharepoint 2010

Osama Bin Laden dead - what does it really mean?

The Ontological Argument

Any prophets since Jesus besides Muhammad?

Sony/North Korea

What's the difference between psychopath and sociopath

What is age of consent for being international soldier of fortune?

Immortality and Civilization.

Suggested Solutions

What is the correct translation from Psalm 82


Does God Have a Sense of Humor?

Is there a branch of mathematics that allows division by zero?
SunBowAuthor Commented:
SunBowAuthor Commented:
§ draw line on permitting person to speak

tliotta - 2015-02-09

> Assuming governmental restrictions, I don't think any should exist

¤ ...since posing this own neurons have readjusted again
Having a major problem with those who invade space of others for publicity stunt with intent to harm as collateral damage as well as neighbors and passers-by. There can be no such 'freedom' to act up like that - the bully-istic tactics/attacks of self-serving self- righteous display of superiority by demeaning/demonizing any outside inner circle.

While beginning to think up social structure using "do not hurt" as main rule, followed by binary subset of no trespassing and no speaking out of turn try to apply to issue in question. Here goes.

A) Where one disagrees with some law, let them go to place where laws are enacted to perform their right to speak out without redress from government - not to 3rd party

B) Where one cares to speak out against    one thought to be in violation of law of gNood or man,  let them go to place of law e"nforcement to perform their speaking rights rather than stalking private citizens

C) Where some protesters can produce and hold signs, and hoods have signs such as "No Soliciting" or "Members Only",  or "No Weapons", or "No Trespassing" let them have signs like "No Protesting" (even "No Speaking out of turn"?), "No Shouting", "No Bullying",  "No Stalking" etc. ...sign text already includes times of day, time of year, "when children present".

Wouldn't any of that have potential?

Have not heard of any protesters going to residence of suspect criminal in their illegal acts that led to vast harm to economy. No one is too big to fail.
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.