Facebook girl jailed

[thirdworld19 0]

In Egypt earlier this month, a young woman was upset with the increase in food prices and suggested (on her Facebook site) that workers should strike. There was a large strike, followed by riots, where several people were killed. The woman did not participate in these events. The Egyptian government found this woman and arrested her (for organizing a strike). When it comes to first amendment issues, Egypt follows a different path than the US.

My question is: (move this whole thing to the US) should this woman be able to say what she likes, regardless of the consequences? This is somewhat akin to yelling "Fire!" in a theatre. Does the 1st amendment protect that right?

[rehmwa 2]

Lots of stuff gets said on a website.

But actions define who's responsible.

Striking workers are responsible for striking only.

Those that rioted are responsible for rioting.

The murderers are responsible for murder.

She's responsible for writing some words. That's it.
It's not akin to shouting "Fire" at all. "Fire" requires people to make a decision - RIGHT NOW - that may impact their own safety. She shouted "Strike" - people can make a choice there. She incited nothing.

Arresting her in a US scenario would be a terrible injustice.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 4]

Quote

My question is: (move this whole thing to the US) should this woman be able to say what she likes, regardless of the consequences? This is somewhat akin to yelling "Fire!" in a theatre. Does the 1st amendment protect that right?

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America would SPECIFICALLY protect her in this case.

The freedom of politically based speech is one of the most important freedoms in the US. If the citizens of a country are not free to even speak about their grievances with the government, then they are not free at all. People in the US are free to say anything they'd like against our government. People in the US are free to peaceably protest the government and its actions.

I am free to call the President of the US and idiot and urge people to protest his actions.

All of the above said, I am NOT free to call for the violent overthrow of the government.

That's where the line is essentially drawn.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,611]

Quote

All of the above said, I am NOT free to call for the violent overthrow of the government.

Really?

If you didn't plan anything specific, just put out a general statement that violent overthrow of the government would be a good idea, you're not free to do that?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

My question is: (move this whole thing to the US) should this woman be able to say what she likes, regardless of the consequences? This is somewhat akin to yelling "Fire!" in a theatre. Does the 1st amendment protect that right?

I think that a person should be able to say whatever he or she wants to say and then face the consequences. ANY prior restraint on the content of speech is, to me, more dangerous than what it could seek to avoid.

So, let's say that an employer has a harcore racist working there. This hardcore racist persistently uses epithets and pejoratives against other employees. The employer lets it happen. Should a court ban the use of certain words at the place of business? For example, should a court make an order banning the use of words in the order?

I say, "Hell no!" Instead, what shoudl happen is that the other employees should file suit for damages and hit the employer that way.

Say what you want. And face the consequences.

Now, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions I am okay with.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

what shoudl happen is that the other employees should file suit for damages and hit the employer that way

THis post doesn't make sense to me in light of your "face the consequences" point.... (seriously, I'm not doing the normal play around on Friday posting here)

Why isn't the first reasonable action to file suit against the racist employee directly?

Why is the employer involved at all? He could fire the racist employee for making it difficult to conduct business, but likely there's other laws in place tying his hands from doing that as well.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

All of the above said, I am NOT free to call for the violent overthrow of the government.

Really?

If you didn't plan anything specific, just put out a general statement that violent overthrow of the government would be a good idea, you're not free to do that?

Nope. To suggest the -violent- overthrow of the government you open yourself up to being considered a terrorist under the provisions of the "Patriot Act'.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Why isn't the first reasonable action to file suit against the racist employee directly?

Oh, him, too. But it's an employer/employee situation that I specifically used as an example.

Quote

Why is the employer involved at all? He could fire the racist employee for making it difficult to conduct business, but likely there's other laws in place tying his hands from doing that as well.

As I wrote in my post - "The employer lets it happen." The employer should not, and the employer's hands won't be tied in a situation like this. By letting it happen, the employer ratifies it.

The employee will face the consequences, and the employer will righteously face them, as well.

My wife is hotter than your wife.