"It's speech we deplore that needs defending -- not speech everyone likes."

HA! Love it.

I am tired of morons who only believe freedom of expression applies solely to popular messages. If it did, then why would we need an amendment protecting it?

There are a LOT of people who should just avoid reproducing.

So the Constitution's protections apply to everyone everywhere?

We are so fucked.

Irrelevant. The European countries do not have the same view of the importance of free speech as Americans do. As an American, it can be shocking, but that's how it is in other countries. Here in Switzerland they teach religion in schools.

The European countries do not have the same view of the importance of free speech as Americans do.

Related to that: Dutch blasphemy law to fall, Irish one may follow

PARIS, Nov 30, 2012 (Reuters) - Laws criminalising blasphemy are set to be struck down soon in the Netherlands and may disappear in Ireland, but rising tensions in economically battered Greece seem to be reviving pressure to prosecute offences against God.

...

Greece is a major exception. The producer, director and actors in a play depicting Jesus and his Apostles as gay were charged this month with blasphemy after protests by priests and right-wingers, including deputies from the ultra-nationalist Golden Dawn party

...

According to a Pew Forum study released last week, eight out of 45 European countries have blasphemy laws on their books while 35 of them have laws against the defamation of religion in general or hate speech against members of a faith.

The eight countries with blasphemy laws are Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands and Poland. A blasphemy law in England and Wales was scrapped in 2008.

...

Muslim countries seeking a United Nations ban on blasphemy subsequently cited [the new blasphemy law that Ireland passed in 2009] as an example of western support for the concept. Western states have consistently rejected the Muslim proposal as a violation of free speech.

Our pilot impersonators are better than their pilot impersonators!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/22/travel/pennsylvania-pilot-impersonation/index.html

So Amy's saying that anyone who stands on our soil has the full protection of the Constitution in this regard, right?

I dunno about that.

"Irrelevant. The European countries do not have the same view of the importance of free speech as Americans do"

Unless one believes in moral relativism, then I'd say it seems like a good concept to try teach them then.

"So the Constitution's protections apply to everyone everywhere?"

Natural rights do apply to everyone everywhere. The Bill of Rights enumerates some of our natural rights. Freedom of speech is one of them. So in some sense, certain natural rights "enshrined" in the Bill of Rights do actually apply to everyone everywhere, and what is actually happening when some activity that is protected by the Bill of Rights in the US is illegal in some other country, is that those natural rights exist but are being actively violated. The violation of those natural rights mean that others do have a natural right to come to the defense of the victims of those violations.

That said, I'm not sure all types of anti-Semitic speech should be protected - e.g. I might stop short at making specific threats or calling for violence to be used against Jews. Also, I do think it's OK to shame anti-Semites, within the confines of a framework of natural rights - i.e. they are free to voice their opinions, but we should be equally free to shame them - being for freedom of speech does not mean we don't criticize speech we don't like - it means we don't initiate force simply because someone used speech we didn't like.

It would be very difficult to genuinely claim 40 million Euro damages over some tweets, but I don't know the nature of the tweets. There may be very particular cases where there are actual damages.

One doesn't have to believe in moral relativism to not think it is a good concept to try to teach them.

Do we REALLY want to set up an expectation that countries scold each other for doing naughty things?

Really?

I think if we start tut-tuting people it will NOT be good for us. There's plenty to tut-tut back about.

I may think the free speech issue is wrong, but it is up to me as a Swiss person to say so, NOT up to other countries to start lecturing as though they had no sins of their own.

If you don't like illegals using their free speech rights to get work...

I built the streets and infrastructure that make jobs possible. But I built it for once and future citizens, not for invaders to expand their ethnostate. I don't think basic human rights includes helping foreigners drive down wages.

I'm all for basic rights in general, but these things often entail using some sort of infrastructure. If you are anxious to exercise your free speech rights, you might have to buy a microphone and rent a hall. I don't think it means I have to use my tax money to support the local Marxist professor or let the local illegal immigrant troll for business in public venues.

Illegal immigration is a political battle I have lost at the national level. I talk to my Washington politicians, but they like illegals because it brings them more votes and satisfies 51% of the electorate. I battle now at the local level.

Well, then, how much am I expected to pay to fund a common carrier for every thought rattling around someone's head? There is seldom free stuff lying around.

So, free speech should be restricted to people who can afford auditorium rental? Nice! -- Amy Alkon at March 23, 2013 7:14 PM

So OWS movement was not able to get out their non-message by not affording auditorium rental?

The Tea Party wasn't able to be formed over internet e-mails and by doing rallies in public spaces?

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this portion. I'm able to afford a website and host my own blog. There is no restrictions on my speech.

Well, then, how much am I expected to pay to fund a common carrier for every thought rattling around someone's head? There is seldom free stuff lying around. --doombuggy at March 23, 2013 8:27 PM

I agree that we shouldn't pay for other's free speech. But if the want to pay for it, who am I to say no?

"Well, then, how much am I expected to pay to fund a common carrier for every thought rattling around someone's head? There is seldom free stuff lying around."

What are you talking about? The Internet is primarily an internetwork of private networks, and Twitter isn't government-funded, you aren't 'paying for it' when someone makes anti-Semitic tweets, the anti-Semites are paying their ISP who in turn pay their upstream providers using that income, and Twitter's advertisers and service subscribers are paying Twitter.

I don't necessarily disagree with the positive-rights aspect of free speech, but we hit limits somewhere: you can say what you want on your dime, until you start to slander and get too unreasonable; e.g. reading anti-semitic child pornography.

"Do we REALLY want to set up an expectation that countries scold each other for doing naughty things?"

I am reminded of the (probably apocryphal) story about the British governor in colonial India, confronted with the case of the family who wanted to burn a woman alive because she had become widowed. The leader of the group explained, "It is traditional in our country that we burn widows. You must respect our tradition."

The governor replied, "We have a tradition in our country too. Our tradition is that when people murder others, we hang them."

How do illegals have free speech rights? The Constitution provides rights to citizens, yes?

How do illegals have free speech rights? The Constitution provides rights to citizens, yes?-- Mr. Teflon at March 25, 2013 8:05 PM

That is one of the beautiful points of the U.S. Constitution of the United States. You can state your view regardless of citizenship.

The the legislature has to accept it s a different rule.