Voices
in
Japan

poll

Does freedom of speech include the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, yell "Shark" at a beach or joke about having a bomb on a plane, for example?

89 Comments
© Japan Today

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

89 Comments
Login to comment

Freedom of speech isn't a free pass for idiots to cause mass panic.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I voted yes but with freedom of speech comes consequences. In the examples cited in the question, the speaker has to be prepared to face the consequences, whether that results in getting arrested, beaten up, trampled in a stampede or killed by some angry nut. The same applies to anyone who incites others to violence, which is increasing everywhere thanks to the Internet and cell phones.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I say NO.

The whole "Freedom of Speech" these days is misinterpreted, IMHO.

It was designed to allow people to speak out about the goverment, ruling classes, etc without having to worry about prosecution(Speakers Corner, etc). The purpose was NOT to allow anyone to say anything they liked and than claim the right after people were upset, etc.

There were many fights at Speaker Corner after someone said things the wrong way, also may speakers never got any audience.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As long as they're prepared to deal with the repercussions, ie getting arrested, beaten up or sued for damages, then go for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you get to be judge Zenny?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

MeanRingo.

No I just gave my Opinion, and I claim Freedom of Speech.

But reading a bit of History about "Freedom of Speech" and its origin in Britain makes the intent clear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes... and so the rest of the people have the freedom to kick these idiots butts and cops to jail them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences associated with being an idiot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To the people saying 'Yes, but they must accept the repercussions or consequences' are actually saying 'No'. Freedom of speach means freedom to speak without repercussions or consequences. As such, I vote no because freedom of speech should not include direct endangerment to others such as the examples in the question illustrate. Zenny's accessment is correct in my opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here is an excerpt from Wiki.

According to the Freedom Forum Organization, legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[32] Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or hate speech.[33] Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[34]

Just to clarify my point, more in the Wiki.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Too many things in the poll question. Joking about a bomb at the airport (or even having a conversation about bombs and airport saferty) with your friend is not the same thing as playing a pratical joke on other passangers and airport staff by trying to convince them there is a bomb. The latter is a serious crime.

All freedoms have limits as the rights guaranteed to one individual often come into conflict to those guaranteed to another.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smartacus, maria, iceshoecream: I'm curious as to why you say get arrested/jailed...for what? If, as you voted, Freedom of Speech includes yelling fire in a crowded room, they're committing no crime.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just for arguments sake: Lets say 100% absolute YES. you can say WHATEVER you want. BUT if you say "fire" in a crowded theater you will get arrested, NOT for what you said, but for causing a panic. you could pull the fire alarm when there is no fire and it is the exact same. you can whisper fire to the person next you and it probably would not cause a panic. so... its really nit picky. but there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If there is a fire in the theatre, IMHO you have an OBLIGATION to shout a bout it. Ditto the shark or bomb.

Free speech is the basis for all other freedoms, and as such needs as much protection and exercise as possible. There are already limits on speech such as; libel and slander, contract law, trade secrets, uttering threats, and so on.

Speech that is merely hateful or offensive needs to be protected. These things can be dealt with socially, without need of laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Not under US law, no. It is clear-cut and unambiguous that the right to free speech and the first amendment do NOT provide any protection to those who do the things specified in this question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

(I am assuming of course that the question is about falsely yelling "fire," "shark," etc. Of course if there is really a fire then there should be no problem.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smartacus has it right. That's why I voted yes as well. You have the right to say it but you also have to deal with the consequence of saying it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You guys are misusing the term "right". By definition, a "right" is something you can exercise with no "consequences" - i.e., without any possibility of getting arrested. And causing panic in a crowded theater is precisely the consequence that laws against this type of speech are put into place to begin with. It seems like you are confusing "legal right" with an "ability." You are able to shout "Fire!" but you do not have a "right" to do so. Again, the question asked here was decided waaaay back in 1919 by the US Supreme Court. See Schenck v. United States Frankly I am surprised these questions are even asked on this site as there is really no controversy to discuss. (Perhaps the question is better phrased, "should" the freedom of speech include the right to scream "fire" in a theater, etc.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes of course it includes these things in "Freedom of Speech"! WTF are you thinking?!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smartacus has it right. That's why I voted yes as well. You have the right to say it but you also have to deal with the consequence of saying it.

Total bollocks. Willfully causing a panic possibly resulting in grave bodily harm or death can never be covered under freedom of speech.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes.

Because if you're in a theater with proper fire exits and a proper crowd control limit in place (unlike the 2 or 3 times people have died from such an act), people are going to look around, realize there's no fire, and go back to watching the movie or whatever, until they smell smoke or hear a fire alarm.

Similarly, if you yell "shark" at the beach, people will get out of the water. And then go back in.

Joking about a bomb on a plane depends on the joke, I guess. If it's "Is that a pipe bomb in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" I guess that might be worth a soft drink in the lap, but certainly not a criminal charge.

The fact is that these examples - most notably the "Fire in a crowded theater" chestnut - have only ever been trotted out to constrain other more important freedoms of expression. That one was first used to stop people from handing out flyers to oppose the draft during WW1. They've been used again and again since then as covers for censorship on the grounds that people don't have the ability to make decisions on their own.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

some people have a sick sense of humor or a twisted sense of freedom.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

not sure what yelling Fire in a crowded theatre has anything to do with free speech? TV programs love to do this kind of prank on people. They might warn the building owners in advance, but they will go far enough to pump smoke in the room, get the Yakuza to open fire on the crowd and blow up a few things to make it all the more ridiculous.

So, if you are willing to accept the consequences then it's your right to be a idiot. You'll still get arrested, but not because of freedom of speech, but because you caused a panic, may have injured people and probably caused loss of profit or damage to the facility.

Now, if you were arrested for speaking out about how crap the facility is and demand money back, etc then unless you were disturbing the peace by using a 150dB mega horn then that would be injustice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If someone has the right to state that they have a bomb on a plane - their head also has the right to meet my steel-capped boots on that plane.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is this a serious question? C'mon, it can't be a serious question...can it?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ combinibento

Interesting post, thanks. I think I'll have to change my stance and agree with you. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't understand the people who say 'you have the right to say what you want, but have to be willing to deal with the repercussions'. Do they think that people in North Korea have a right to slam Kim Jong Il but if they're executed for it it's just tough beans? Declaring that people have to be willing to 'deal with the consequences' negates the whole idea of 'right' or 'freedom'.

Anyway, I don't think people should have the right to shout out the aforementioned (though who in this day and age would yell 'fire' in a theater... given that it was made a crime at the time they used tallow candles and lime to light the stage... is beyond me).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

combinibento at 04:04 PM JST - 28th February (I am assuming of course that the question is about falsely yelling "fire," "shark," etc. Of course if there is really a fire then there should be no problem.)

And there you've hit the nail on the head for me. The question doesn't spell out whether it's true or false, merely whether you have the right to say it.

Bear with me here for a moment. With the current restrictions we're rapidly moving towards a position where, even if something is legitimately wrong we won't be able to say a word. A good example is at the airport, where when you legitimately object to someone breaching your right to privacy in the most offensive way by making unwanted physical contact you are treated MORE stringently than the average person.

If the person searching you exceeds the bounds of propriety and, for example, fondles your "junk", and you shout then you can be arrested! For what precisely? For protesting that the person searching you is a pervert?

This isn't where this is going, we're already there and all the sheeple are baa'ing away contentedly while the rare few are going, "Hey, hang on a second, what happened to free speech?".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Frunky, allow me to quote the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

Thus, you are right insofar as the question is vague, and that what is said must be viewed under the specific circumstances of how the words were used. With the "clear and present danger" test quoted above, it should be relatively easy to tell whether something is permissible or not. (BTW this judge was the one who came up with the phrase "clear and present danger.")

Regarding your airport security example, oddly enough the law is clear that we do not have the same hightened expectation of privacy on borders and checkpoints as you would elsewhere. So if you threw a hissy-fit for someone touching you, you may not get the sympathy you would otherwise get if the same thing happened at a purely domestic bus terminal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@combinibento Thanks for pointing us to the quote. Invaluable.

"The question in every case," Justice Holmes wrote in the Orig. clear-and-danger ruling "is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."

Note the inclusion of proximity (of the accused to the 'offense') and degree of the 'offense'. The ff. case to test this standard was of course Abrams where the famous justice dissented. (Abrams v. United States)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thus, you are right insofar as the question is vague

Agree, this question is quite stupid =/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have a right to free speech, but we don't have a right to groundlessly slander, to cause a public danger or to do other similar things that impinge on the freedoms of others. A right is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, but a responsibility, and if the responsibility is undermined, then we need to consider the removal of that right. In the case where "shark" is called on a beach where few people are swimming, they are being an idiot, but little more. If the beach was so full of swimmers that any panic may see some pushed under the water in the sudden surge of people to the shore, then they are deliberately using their words as a weapon to harm people and their words should be treated as such. We do not have the right to deliberately harm innocent people, and "freedom of speech" does not supersede this restriction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the beach was so full of swimmers that any panic may see some pushed under the water in the sudden surge of people to the shore, then they are deliberately using their words as a weapon to harm people

Agree, and in your case yelling 'shark' could well be the weapon of harm (Schenck v. United States). Obviously, and in that case, why should the perpetrator be defended under 'freedom of speech' when the foreseeable consequence could well be imminent lawless action.

we don't have a right to groundlessly slander, to cause a public danger or to do other similar things that impinge on the freedoms of others.

But to make things interesting, let's replace 'shark' with 'inflation' (as example). Should a person be prosecuted for merely suggesting that the economy may well be 'overheating'? In my opinion no-- FYI you still have govts who'd jail a person for simply intimating that the economy is overheating -- unless this person 'have the intent to produce a consequence [and] that consequence is the aim of the deed.' (Abrams)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, the freedom of speech also includes those cases. But, in those situations, the freedom of life and personal security supersedes the freedom of speech. Everyone with half a brain (at least, outside US) knows that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, the freedom of speech also includes those cases. But, in those situations, the freedom of life and personal security supersedes the freedom of speech.

It's clear that in the eyes of the law there are cases where merely yelling 'shark' wasn't meant to harm anyone. But the law is stringent when it comes to 'freedom of speech', and it sure does have a business whether what one says have direct consequences to anyone or the state. For an 'American' even an 'Australian' or a 'Philippino' it seems draconian for the state to imprison anyone who would yell 'inflation'-- for example. 'Inflation' therefore could never be a weapon to harm people (or the state) but part of that person's freedom of speech.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

* the law is stringent when it comes to 'freedom of speech', and it sure does have a business whether what one says have direct consequence/s to anyone or the state. (Research both cases above-- Schenck v United States and Abrams*)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Freedom of speech has a lots of laws, restrictions ,regulations..etc to control it for the BENEFIT of people at large. You can not use radio to just insult people, to teach people how to make bomb to blow up trains...etc. You can shout "shark" with intention to warn people a "real danger"but if not, you are in deep trouble.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

FYI This is a classic legal question challenging a limitation of freedom of speech.

For legal scholars, go to a case: "Charles T. Schenck v. United States".

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

iruaustralia, thank you for your solid understannding on this case. You are a JOY to read.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You can not use radio to just insult people.....

And I would like to add a case for legal scholors.

New York Times v. Sullivan,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's me thinking I was in Japan. What do legal cases in the U.S. have to do with Japan?

Freedom of speech here in Japan ... sure, I should be able to say what I want when I want... but if I knowingly break any laws, then I have to be prepared to take the consequences. It is also the right of society to have legal protection...with caveats of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

forinagai.

100% agree, there is NO global/universal implementation of 'Freedom of Speech'(one thing many americans forget, their rights are not global, etc).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's me thinking I was in Japan. What do legal cases in the U.S. have to do with Japan?

Laws from overseas are sometime cited as precedents. Memorable quotes, speeches from America and Europe are of course cited by Asians (and I'm guessing the Japanese is part of that Asian community).

Who could forget the time when, confronted by students demanding change, JIANG Zemin recited the famous Gettysburg Address in front of the revolting youths of Shanghai. For the truth is Asians (and again I'm assuming that the Japanese is part of Asia) are quite admiring, if not indebted, to our close links with America.

Defending the people's right to speech is a great American tradition. Pluralism due to this right of speech is something East Asia should emulate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire inside a packed theater and causing a panic. This is true, and freedom of speech--even in the most liberal of nations-- is not a get-out-of-jail card.

But should opinions in the region, in East Asia be the victim of political correctness and zealousness then that's Asia's loss. There are many, many names and many, many works throughout the region's history that could have championed change for the betterment of the people, but sadly these names and works had been victims of zealousness and political correctness....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny, there is NO global/universal implementation of 'Freedom of Speech'(one thing many americans forget, their rights are not global, etc....??????

Wow, your resonse listed above is very alarming.

Are you sending this post from space? Zenny, don't you see what's going on in the Middle East, and China today?

Why did we see all social unrests in world history including former USSR?

They are all fighting for their freedom.

Freedom of Speech is a fundation of true democracy and freedom. It is a universal law, Zenny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I meant, an universal law. (typo error) and America is a nation of law. I have introduced a few US cases how these critical thinkings were derived in decision making for legal scholars in Japan.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher - Freedom of Speech is a fundation of true democracy and freedom. It is a universal law, Zenny.

Where is this "universal" law written? What "universe" has jurisdiction over this issue? U.S. law doesn't apply to Japan or Australia and Australian and Japanese law doesn't apply to the U.S. except by way of treaty (mutual consent).

The U.S. Bill of Rights First Amendment quarantees the freedom of Americans to discuss/complain about their government and politicians. It does NOT apply to slander, with or without malice, lies, or situations that could lead to injury or death.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

An interpretation of "universal" is a "present or occurring everywhere". And is a de facto.

It does NOT apply to slander, with or without malice, lies, or situations that could lead to injury or death.

arrestpaul,please go to a case New York Times v. Sullivan to satisfy your question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul, my answer to your question is incomplete. Please go to a case "Charles T. Schenck v. United States".

I hope you will be able to see how these judges decided.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I put down yes, because you can SAY ANYTHING you want, but the question is can you handle the consequences and reactions to what you say. If you call someone a racial or derogatory name can you handle their reaction if they have the right to sue you for harrassment or offense if the law dictates they can?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In relation to my previous post, refer to the John Galliano issue. He said what he wanted and what happened was the reaction and consequences of that. He didn't get arrested, but it did cost him in other ways.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher.

Pls, go to N.Korea, ME, etc and practice your 'de facto" Freedom of Speech.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher - An interpretation of "universal" is a "present or occurring everywhere". And is a de facto.

please go to a case New York Times v. Sullivan to satisfy your question.

Please go to a case "Charles T. Schenck v. United States".

I hope you will be able to see how these judges decided.

What legal bearing does "Charles T. Schenck v. United States" or "New York Times v. Sullivan" have on the courts in Spain, Brazil, China or the Middle East? All of these nations create their own laws.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Zenny11, I hear you. Too bad people are living in FEAR of dictatorship. That's my point.

arrestpaul, you are correct, these counries have their own including Egypt. People of Egypt have been demanding a constitution reform including freedom of speech and election process.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul - What legal bearing does "Charles T. Schenck v. United States" or "New York Times v. Sullivan" have on the courts in Spain, Brazil, China or the Middle East? All of these nations create their own laws.

We have to remember, those people citing American cases think that the world/universe (?) should follow the American example. Each country should have a Bill of Rights/Constitution. We all aspire to be like America?!?!

It depends what is meant by 'freedom of speech'

Yes - physically we do have freedom of speech. We can say whatever we want, whenever we want to whomever we want.

No - we shouldn't be able to say whatever we want etc. with impunity. Each country has its own sets of laws that its citizens adhere to ... and NO, those laws are NOT from the U.S. (which has no legal baring on any country). Whether or not those laws go against 'basic human rights' is a whole different issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The U.S. Bill of Rights First Amendment quarantees the freedom of Americans to discuss/complain about their government and politicians.

Australians don't have a 'bill of rights' and I much prefer it that way. Australia, however, have a tradition of fostering freedom of speech, and this I support.

(I'm not going to extend my arguments as it might not be relevant to the thread)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We have to remember, those people citing American cases think that the world/universe (?) should follow the American example. Each country should have a Bill of Rights/Constitution. We all aspire to be like America?!?!

Read above post.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@forinagai and arrestpaul,

My previous post was incomplete.

What I am advocating here is to emphasize that Japanese can change it entirely the way you want it to be. It is all in your hands. If you want to ban the freedom of speech, it is all up to you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher,

So, is your answer to the poll: yes? or no?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

combinibento at 03:39 PM JST - 1st March Thus, you are right insofar as the question is vague, and that what is said must be viewed under the specific circumstances of how the words were used. With the "clear and present danger" test quoted above, it should be relatively easy to tell whether something is permissible or not. (BTW this judge was the one who came up with the phrase "clear and present danger.")

So far almost everyone has focused on the first two examples, while omitting the third, because it is the weakest, the question of making a joke about a bomb on a plane.

Recent examples in the media have seen people being arrested for making harmless comments that would in no way meet the "clear and present danger" test, for example someone being arrested for saying, "That's my spare laptop battery, what did you think it was, a bomb?". Their is neither criminal intent, nor are the comments in and of themselves likely to cause panic. How therefore can there be a crime?

Instead the problem is the prevaling hysteria and fear surrounding the possibility of a bomb, a completely unrealistic fear and hysteria given that there are over 30 million flights a year and there has been only one recorded incident in the last year of a bomb on a plane, placing the odds at 30 million : 1. By contrast the odds of being in an airplane crash on one of the top 25 best airlines in the world are 9.2 million : 1.

Why is this relevant? Every time I fly I hear some nervous newbie passenger around me saying something like, "Is the wing supposed to bend that way?", or "What is that rattling? Is everything okay?". These people are not arrested on the spot for promoting public panic, despite the fact that their concern is 300% more valid than the person making an off-hand comment about a bomb.

All in all this question consists of a set of three examples that are entirely mismatched and contains no reference to the veracity of the statements, and so this debate is completely pointless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Recent examples in the media have seen people being arrested for making harmless comments that would in no way meet the "clear and present danger" test

Agree the question is simplistic. As I argued above, is someone yelling 'inflation' makes the person a criminal-- some govts would be adamant to say yes to that =/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yes, but why would you say something like that to begin with?

It's not funny and is just going to generate fear in other people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I would be fearful if nobody talk about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Frungy - true, the joke about a bomb is the tough one. But (much to the chagrin of all those above with no interest in US legal citations), for a good discussion on that specific issue, go ahead and google "UNITED STATES v. COTHRAN" where the court discusses several cases in which pranksters were convicted for joking about blowing up an airline, and those convictions were upheld. While your statistics show that indeed it may be irrational to place any weight on a threat to blow up a plane, the fact remains that the airline industry is extremely sensitive to such "jokes" and those jokes serve absolutely no legitimate purpose, not even humor. (I mean, would anyone laugh?) Like jraustralia said, it is certainly a silly question asked in a vacuum of facts or jurisdictions...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I voted yes; taking note that responsibility lies with the speaker, doesnt mean that saying it is wrong. Does freedom of speech mean that not saying anything is okay. Like in any of these examples if they occurred, if nobody said anything isnt that wrong too? Like "where?", "youre joking?" "Be quiet".Im with globalwatcher-saying nothing is just as loud and havoc causing as yelling any of the examples providied. It's if it is a lie that people dont like freedom of speech, but the truth aint gonna pop out in front of you in silence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"UNITED STATES v. COTHRAN" where the court discusses several cases in which pranksters were convicted for joking about blowing up an airline, and those convictions were upheld.

Justice Holmes was quite clear in his Abrams remarks that unless the person can be proven to have the 'intent to produce a consequence [and] that consequence is the aim of the deed' then that person maybe liable (or not).

COTHRAN was an elaborate case and the appellant didn't merely yelled 'Bomb!' inside a packed plane. The court found that the appellant 'seriously deliberated before acting' or phoning authorities to report of the bomb threat. But as previously said, the law is stringent when it comes to 'freedom of speech' and it sure does have a business whether what one says have direct consequences to anyone or the state.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Like in any of these examples if they occurred, if nobody said anything isnt that wrong too?

That's a pretty daft question, and I do hope you won't find yourself in a similar situation to the three above =/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

combinibento at 10:48 AM JST - 3rd March Frungy - true, the joke about a bomb is the tough one. But (much to the chagrin of all those above with no interest in US legal citations), for a good discussion on that specific issue, go ahead and google "UNITED STATES v. COTHRAN" where the court discusses several cases in which pranksters were convicted for joking about blowing up an airline, and those convictions were upheld.

As jruaustralia pointed out at 07:55 PM JST - 3rd March the Cothran case was not merely an idle comment or a single joke, it was far more than that.

While your statistics show that indeed it may be irrational to place any weight on a threat to blow up a plane, the fact remains that the airline industry is extremely sensitive to such "jokes" and those jokes serve absolutely no legitimate purpose, not even humor. (I mean, would anyone laugh?) Like jraustralia said, it is certainly a silly question asked in a vacuum of facts or jurisdictions...

So the airline industry now has the right to ban free speech on topics that they find might distress their paying customers? I'm sorry, but that line of logic is ridiculous.

As for it not being humorous, well, there are many jokes that people make that are racist (pick your ethnic group, there'll be jokes), discrimnatory (e.g. blonde jokes), or just plain tasteless (holocaust jokes, dead baby jokes, etc) that I don't find at all funny, however free speech guarantees people the right to make these jokes however insensitive or tasteless they might be.

Sorry, but you haven't made a single point that justifies the airline industry curtailing a nearly global human right. Note that the topic clearly says its a joke. If someone phones 911 or alerts security officials then there are public nuisance and other laws they can be arrested under, however if its just a joke with their friend or an off-hand comment satirising their ill-treatment by airline staff then they this is the very model of protected speech (especially if its satire).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the airline industry now has the right to ban free speech on topics that they find might distress their paying customers?

Under National Security guide line (Fed gov), yes, all airlines in/out of US soil and the TSA are given authority to arrest you if you are considered to be a threat. If you are found guilty, you are committing a federal crime of US. Hope you do not have to fly like I do. Flying is not a fun any more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well the talk all of a sudden has become hard to see who is saying what. But iruasutralia, that freedom of speech gives you the right to give me counsel in that you have more marbles in your head, and then to threaten the situations given, at me. Really the examples, and the way I read the english, only states the third example as a prank.And that's the one eveyone seems to really be thinking about. The first two examples, dont even really make sense. If the person next to you at the theatre yelled fire, surely you would see it too. Or some smoke. And if itwas yelled loud enough from the other end of the theatre that you could hear, and there was no fire, there would be intent. Same for the beach-or maybe there is confusion with a dolphin, Ive done that as a kid, nobody heard me though. The plane situation stands out alone. If I heard someone joking about it-I think I would ask them are they serious and let them see my fear. If they conitnued in prank the intent would be obviously self-condemming then-yes flying doesnt seem fun these days-and I as a paying customer ought to speak up to attendants then. Saying nothing also puts onus on witnesses, particularly in public situations. Everybodies vigilance is better than controlled speech. And it is always then possible to ask why somebody isnt vigilant-hopefully with a concerned heart.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the US bill of rights???? First amendment??? hahahaha! it aint worth any more than the toilet paper i wipe my bum with

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sharpie, please pull the history of Japanese Constitution. That's why it is very interesting for us to talk about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If I heard someone joking about it-I think I would ask them are they serious and let them see my fear. If they conitnued in prank the intent would be obviously self-condemming

So in a foreseeable narration, it goes something like this...

PERSON: BOMB!

Illsayit: Excuse me sire, do you find the situation funny... (Person points at the airport chaos about. A kid dolefully cries looking for his mother. Some group of Chinese tourists panicking, nervously speaking in their tongues)

PERSON: Who the F* are you? (Shouts 'Bomb!' again)

Illsayit: (Illsayit's face reddens as the chaos around becomes more volatile) I'm making an intelligent assessment here and I know for you it's just a prank, but can you at least see.... the fear in my face?

The other person laughed. The expression in his face clearly shows he was enjoying the moment. Sirens of the approaching police cars can be heard in the background.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Zenny and the argument. No to the question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I can't believe 17% of the respondents here answered yes. Nearly one out of five. They walk among us!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The more rights you claim, the less freedom you have.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They walk among us!

Scary, very scary indeed!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They walk among us!

Terrified. One blogger actually asked me how I voted. Terrified.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After reading this data 1 to 5, I have just gave up my hope for Japan to be a progressive country for a true Democracy. Japan is still a psudo democracy. Hopeless, hopless and hopeless.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Freedom of speech is usually countered with laws to prevent Inciting riots. Although those fringe church donkey oshiri groups protesting at US military funerals should drink some cool-aid (reference to mass suicide by cult churches).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Although those fringe church donkey oshiri groups protesting at US military funerals should drink some cool-aid

Hence, the reason why I would never support a Bill of Rights. One of many things that could stay in America.

Pastor Phelps of Westboro's call for a renewal of Christian faith is more akin to a pop-star wearing a vulgar dress. It's cute (or horrid) but it'll fade.

Unfortunately for the families picketed by these 'donkeys' the hurt may well be insurmountable.

Check out, 'High cost of free speech', Washington Times

I cpy+pasted Justice ALITO's remarks (Snyder v. Phelps)

“I fail to see why actionable speech should be immunized simply because it is interspersed with speech that is protected. The First Amendment allows recovery for defamatory statements that are interspersed with nondefamatory statements on matters of public concern, and there is no good reason why respondents’ attack on Matthew Snyder and his family should be treated differently.”

Kudos for mentioning 'Westboro'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

freedom is the best source of smiling and happiness, there are freedom to say anything but it depends on how it reacts to others when you say something watch out the tongue that harms other its the tongue given by freedom to make friendship and enemies

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes we do walk among you. One of the beauties of having a free vote on this forum. I don't need to be dictated to or be influenced by others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes we do walk among you.

Indeed, and more emphatically in courts. Hoorah!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

(In the case of the American 1st Amendment) there is a difference between "The government shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" and indemnification from the effects of such speech. If yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater leads to a frenzied panic where people are injured or killed, that person could be found criminally liable for starting the panic if no fire was present at the time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Freedom of speech" DOES include shouting "Fire !" in a crowded venue. What the "freedom" means is that you won't be prosecuted by the State for what you actually uttered. "Fire !" and "Free Tibet !" and "Vote ABC Party !" are all to be the same to the State.

However ... words can have consequences, potentially damaging or even fatal consequences. If "Fire !" provokes a panic, you CAN be prosecuted for that and any damages to persons or property that result, financial losses etc..

In PRACTICE, it is common for State authorities to silence people attempting to provoke a mob - calling for violence, lynchings and other gross injustices or breeches of order even if the mob never does anything.

Such cases usually get thrown out of court later, quietly, the main idea being to give authorities the power to interrupt incitement at the moment it's being done, averting a riot or whatever. Strictly speaking it's a technical run-around the principle of free speech - they arrest you THEN, but drop the charge later.

In 1st-world nations, the main threat to free speech is no longer the State. Instead it is corporations and political groups. They exploit the "consequences" aspect of speech and SUE the bringers of bad tidings into oblivion. Large associations like businesses and political groups can afford the best lawyers, and lots OF them.

Persons who have uttered speech said groups may claim 'offensive' or libelous usually cannot afford that much legal firepower. One has to wonder whether the State sometimes encourages certain groups to sue 'offensive' individuals ... achieving State speech restrictions by proxy, invisibly.

Speech that may have provoked consequences - but indirectly or with a long time delay - usually escapes censorship entirely. If you shout "Vote ABC Party !" and the ABC Party later does something evil, you're not going to be prosecuted.

'Intangibles' like religion, philosophy and ideology likewise tend to slide under the censorship radar in 1st-world nations. This has frustrated a certain faction of Americans who desperately want to silence Islamists there.

In a similar recent case, a religious group which disrupts and protests the funerals of soldiers - claiming they deserved to die because the military tolerates homosexuals - elicited attempts to silence them. The highest court refused, saying the right to free speech (and freedom of religion) empowered that group even though it was horribly offensive to almost everybody. "Rights", of course, aren't needed for crowd-friendly speech ... they are needed to protect speech the crowd may NOT want to hear.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Freedom of speech" DOES include shouting "Fire !" in a crowded venue.

Please read UNITED STATES v. COTHRAN. Thanks =/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Freedom of speech does give you the right to say what you want but it does not give you the right to cause mass panic and in running away if someone gets trampled to death you could be arrested and tried for murder. SO I VOTE NO GOSH DANG WAY!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

i understand it could but you still dont get to be an idiot about it ppl.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites