So this is the 1A / First Amendment group, and I thought I'd talk briefly about why I formed this group and what 1A means to me.
I want to start by explaining that though Freedom of Speech is the focus of this group, that does not mean that I believe that anyone should be able to say anything they want wherever they like. Community moderation is a good and valuable tool and I fully support its use and application.
That said, I also believe that any legal speech which does not slander or defame another and does not cause harm through recklessness should, as a rule, be assumed to be legal and treated as such.
What does this mean? It means that we can't expect not to be offended, and we can't expect to be immune from words that are hateful, vile and obscene.
It also means that we can and should expect that people will not lie about us in ways that do us harm, and that people will not make false statements which cause us to act in ways that are dangerous.
After the fold, I'll explain a few specific concepts that I consider to be integral to these ideas and how we draw these boundaries.
First, we hear from time to time that there is hate speech which causes violence which is classified as "incitement." This may sometimes be true, but not always. Let's take the recent example of a hateful bigot burning a religious text.
People claim that what Terry Jones did was "incitement." This, however, is not accurate. Incitement is, specifically, encouraging violence by whipping up a crowd. This is a very accurate description of what the Mullahs did after the fact., but if Jones' act can be considered anything connected to the violence, it's what's known as "provocation."
The difference is important:
Incitement is an actionable offense that involves encouraging violence through speech or deed. It is not legal, nor should it be legal.
Provocation is, in fact, legal. Provocation is not an actionable offense. It is, in fact, a sometimes used defense.
If I, for example, were to taunt you repeatedly, calling you names, being mean, spreading lies about you, etc., and you finally got so angry that you just decided to flatten me (don't be so impressed with yourself-- I'd probably just play dead until you went away), you might end up being charged with battery. Your possible defense, however, would be that you were provoked by my repeated claims that your mother smells of elderberries.
Other exceptions to freedom of speech include the "fire in a crowded theater" example. The reason that yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater is actionable isn't because you're lying. We're allowed to lie. It's because you're lying in a fashion which causes a panic and causes people to behave in a fashion which is dangerous. If you shouted "goldfish!" in a crowded theater, that may be annoying, confusing and odd, but unless there had been a recent outbreak of carnivorous land-dwelling goldfish, you'd probably be safe from anything but getting kicked out of the theater. (The jury is out on shouting "skunk!")
Speaking in ways that are dangerous, that may cause harm-- that's not freedom of speech.
Lies? Lies are allowed, if they don't do damage. Breaking up someone's marriage by claiming you had an affair with someone in that marriage? If it's a lie, you can be sued for slander. If you falsify a document implicating someone in a crime or an act which gets them fired? That's a good way to get sued for libel. That's not freedom of speech, because it's doing damage through falsehood.
And just to be clear: just because you have the right to say something doesn't mean you have the right to keep your job while saying it. If I were to make catty comments about the students I work with in a public forum, there would be reasonable justification for disciplining me or even firing me, especially if I do so in a fashion which makes it much more difficult to do my job.
But almost everything else, save libel and slander, are pretty much fair game, at least as far as the law goes. You don't have the right to get your stuff published. You don't have the right to be heard. If you have the right to shout at people, other people have the right to drown you out, and if you have the right to be a hateful bigot, other people have the right to say that to you as well. And you don't have the right to post what
But honestly, the primary difference is between word and deed. Just because (I hate to use this example, but it is perfect to illustrate my point) NAMBLA (no links-- google it if you don't know it) is disturbing, reprehensible and vile doesn't mean they don't have the right to advocate for their views. They do, even if we find them to be utterly horrendous and monstrous. They just don't have the right to act they way they think they should be allowed to but they have the right to say they should be allowed to do so.
And, honestly, this is the test. It's easy for us to claim that freedom of speech is valuable when it's someone speaking up for things we agree with. But do we switch sides as soon as it's a pro-life group wanting to peacefully and legally protest outside a clinic that performs abortions? Do we support free speech until Fred Phelps shows up? Do we agree with freedom of speech until someone uses the n-word to refer to President Obama?
I can be considered a first amendment extremist in this regard. I am okay with that. I'd rather allow more speech than less and I'd rather fight speech I dislike with more speech than with less of it.
I want to be clear: I believe in peoples' right to be offense not because I like or enjoy it, and not because I think people have the right to be vile and vicious wherever they go. I believe in it because it (a) helps us figure out more easily who the most vile among us are, and (b) prevents us from being hauled into court whenever we describe or discuss things that mainstream America doesn't want to hear.
I don't think flag-burning is useful or effective as a means of protest, but I think it is absolutely crucial that people be legally allowed to do so, even if it makes some of us incensed when it happens. I don't think that anything Fred Phelps does is helpful to anyone except, possibly Fred Phelps (and I'm not convinced of that) but I can't see any way to make what Phelps does illegal without making flag-burning illegal.
So that's it-- the purpose of this group, to me, is about the right to say what you think and believe without fear of reprisal under the law for doing so (no matter how bad it makes you look). It's about discussing issues relevant to freedom of speech and, in some cases, educating our members about what it means and where things stand.