[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Neither you nor anyone else is qualified, competent or entitled to decide what constitutes "proper responsibility". Inevitably, this just ends up with censorship of views that the person doing the censoring finds objectionable, offensive, hard to listen to or otherwise doesn't like. We've got a criminal law that basically prevents people from whipping up lynch mobs. That's about the end of the discussion on what constitutes a reasonable limit on public discourse in the political sphere.

You seriously can't determine if someone is abusing their freedom of speech? We do have hate speech laws. We do have discrimination laws. We have libel laws. Do you have a brain in your head? Do you have comprehension skills? Do you have a moral compass? If have all three of those you can judge if someone is using their freedom of speech and displaying a proper level of responsibility. Good lord man, if someone is standing there in front of you and is making a comment that is covered under either of the legal frameworks suggested, and is doing so with the intent of eliciting a response, that is not displaying any responsibility in exercising that right. The issue is intent, and if someone is using inflammatory rhetoric with the intent to elicit a negative response or cause mayhem, that clearly falls under an irresponsible use of your 1st amendment rights.

Originally Posted by sworkhard

Ignoring for a moment the other issues with this, by what standard do you propose to objectively measure if free speech is being used responsibly? What does it even mean to use the word responsibly in the context of free speech?

As I just mentioned, intent, and intent to harm others. If your intent is to generate a negative response, inflame a situation, or piss off people in general, you should be forfeiting your right to your 1st amendment protections in that particular instance. Not a permanent suspension, just for that particular instance. That or you live with the consequences that come your way.

Is BLM chanting about killing the cops using it responsibly? How about Donald Trump using it to save money by saying outrageous things? How about Deepak Chopra spreading post-modern word salad?

Excellent examples. Go ahead an apply the standard I just discussed. There are also other outcomes that can take place. The media could do their job and report the outrageous things these groups say and promote the ideal that this is not socially acceptable. See, there is where the biggest problem is. People think it is socially acceptable to be a horse's ass and say repugnant things. Our society needs to turn on that stuff and make it socially unacceptable. Punish that person or group by making them an outcast. A little shaming can go along way to correcting negative behaviors. Also, the authorities should be curtailing this stuff by dropping a hate crimes charge every now and then. The biggest problem in the United States is this asinine belief that the 1st amendment allows for any speech, regardless of its intent. If the authorities would just enforce the laws on the books the 1st amendment abuses would likely sort themselves out. But this is the United States and the Bill or Rights is sacrosanct.