Mills@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA (12/06/85)
Hi there,
I recently became curious about two aspects of freedom of
speech and expression that I am uncertain about. Does anyone out there
know anything about real cases involving issues like these? I am
primarily interested in constitutional interpretations. The next two
paragraphs talk about abstract principles and the last two about
specific applications of them. Try to keep the principles in mind as
you read the last paragraphs.
First, does freedom of speech and expression include freedom
of silence? I know this is not the case in court when you are asked to
testify for or against someone other than yourself or spouse. Are there
other times when you are legally required to make any statment?
Second, does freedom of speech and expression ever take a back
seat relative to someone else finding what you say or express repulsive?
I know you can't yell fire in a theater, but that is endangering other
people, not their disliking what you say.
The reason I am asking about these points is I am active in
the Naturist (free beach, i.e. clothing optional beach) movement. When
I am at a beach that forces me to wear a bathing suit against my will I
feel I am being forced to make the statment, "some parts of my body are
discusting and unfit to be seen." I am being denied freedom of
expression. I believe my body is just fine the way it is, why am I
forced to make this statement? Is this constitutional? Can I not be
silent on statments about my body by not hiding it?
Some people who have heard this argument and have agreed with
its logic have come back with the argument, "you may think your body is
just fine, but there are some people out there who believe nudity is
repulsive and who do not wish to be subjected to it." I believe that
people who are particularly sensitive to being exposed to some things
should try to avoid encountering them, i.e. if you don't like
pornography you probably should not partronize "adult" book stores. Why
should my expression of "my body is just fine" by way of not wearing
anything at the beach be repressed because someone else might find
nudity discusting? Are there other examples where one philosophical
opinion is legally supported over another? When thinking of cases
please don't fixate on cases explicitly involving nudity, but rather on
freedom of silence and whether people like what you say.
John Mills
Disclaimer: These views are stickly my own and anyone else's who
might care to share them with me.info-law@ucbvax.UUCP (12/18/85)
I am not a lawyer but...isn't freedom of 'expression' meant as an interpretation of freedom of 'speech' designed to protect speech as it appears in other media like books, radio, and television? In this case, freedom of speech does not necessarily cover absolutely every way you might choose to express yourself. In regard to running naked on a beach, your right to freedom of expression may be in conflict with other people's right to privacy, if they feel your expression is so offensive as to be assaultive. Like it or not, any expression remotely connected with sexuality (lets not meta-argue over that) is considered deeply offensive to many people (perhaps a majority) due to very deep cultural taboos. While virtually any type of speech must be tolerated, it seems, there are behaviors which seem to be more seriously viewed by society. Looks like this is one. No freedom is unlimited, even by the constitution.
Mills@CISL-SERVICE-MULTICS.ARPA (12/20/85)
Thankyou Col. G. L. Sicherman and Kurt at John Fluke for responding to my posting of freedom of silence. My main point in the original posting was to get information on how this kind of argument holds up in court. I realize this was pushing things pretty far, but as I am not a lawyer I don't know how far you can go. Col.Sicherman's comments are the first definate info about this. Would you happen to have any specific references of cases of this nature? Although I don't realy want to push this issue here I feel compelled to offer alternative ways of viewing some of the things Col Sichrman and Kurt said. > ...isn't freedom of 'expression' meant as an interpretation of > freedom of 'speech' designed to protect speech as it appears in > other media like books, radio, and television? In this case, > freedom of speech does not necessarily cover absolutely every way you > might choose to express yourself. I am under the impression that the was you dress, or don't, and how long you wear your hair are established as "expression". A key recent example of not dressing as "expresion" was at a speach Pr. Reagan gave in Wisconsin. There were protesters there in various level of undress carrying sign such as "face the naked truth about...". They were not arrested because they were clearly making a political statement about something. After the speach when the protesters continued nudity without any particular political statement they were arrested, but to the best of my knowledge there behaviour during there protest was not an issue in their arrest. More detailed info on this case would be nice if anyone has it. > In regard to running naked on a beach, your right to freedom of > expression may be in conflict with other people's right to > privacy,... I entirely realize this conflict, what I don't know about is how our system balances these types of conflict. On the extreme It is clear that you can not physical harm someone or threaten to do so, except in self defence. You can not even say things that indirectly harm others, like the trivial yelling "Fire" in a theater. Most restrictions invlove physical harm to someone else. In the case of not wearing anything on a beach I fail to see how anyone is being physically harmed. Philosophically harmed I understand, but I know of no other instances where one philosophy is legally protected from others. A fun example would revolve around the issue of smoking. There are many people who believe that life is fairly sacred etc... and that any deliberate action that detroys life for no good purpose is wrong. People of this type might find the sight of someone smoking extremely repulsive, after all they are deliberatly harming their health. I would be amazed if any law were ever passed restricting smoking on these grounds, that it presents a hazard to others I could see. > Would you like to see smoking and spitting in public places > protected as expressing beliefs about their goodness? Should > those who believe that loud music is therapeutic be allowed to > play it in hospitals? In the case of smoking and spitting in public, If it were not for the public health hazard they represent I would think this a perfectly reasonable argument In their favor. The problems with smoke are clear, I am less certain that spitting is realy a health hazard. Both create a problem by creating filth and litter which cost everyones tax dollars to clean up. In the case of loud music in a hospital you are phsically denying people much needed rest and therefore harming them. In most cases it seems that restrictions only are places where real phyical or financial harm exists. Enough on this for now, John Mills