Just a real quick question. Why do so many people believe that every American has the right to "freedom of expression"? Even if they call it freedom of speech they throw actions under the umbrella of that protection. Actions are not speech. We are NOT guaranteed the freedom of expression, but we ARE guaranteed freedom of speech. If we were guaranteed freedom of expression, anyone could do anything and claim constitutional rights.
1931: Stromberg v California 1969: Tinger v Des Moines School 1989: Texas v Johnson 1990: US v Eichman If an action is meant to convey a message and doesn't infringe on anybody elses rights, then I don't see the problem with classifying it as speech.
I would totally agree Aaronman. Actions such as sit-ins(on public property), vigils, etc. should be allowed but I see too many people claim "freedom of expression" in too many situations.
so what if i made a piece of art that challenges the audience to define it without ever having any intent of conveying a message? banned?
Such as blocking access to private property, destroying private property, making physical threats of harm, etc.
None of those are expressions, they are violations of private property and the law. Obstruction, vandalism and assault.
Because it's not guaranteed in the Constitution as so many claim. It's a fine line between acceptable and unacceptable and that line gets VERY blurry depending on how someone looks at it. If I'm a satanist, do I have the right to sacrifice my baby? What if it's only 6 months along when born? A person could have an abortion that late in pregnancy in most states. What if I claim freedom of expression and stand outside a church on a Sunday morning, smoking weed, and tell everyone that walked up "F*** you!"? Think the cops won't show up?
Or better yet, why not prevent thoughts from happening!!? We could fluoridate the water supply, inject mercury to children! OH, put LITHIUM into the water supply as well! We could also use binaural frequencies to control thoughts! OH, and there is one in the making, we can create a Truman show, that everyone has some type of connection to, and have everyone regulate their own thoughts, self-censorship!
So you're saying I can't stand outside McDonald's an scream at everyone "You're a fat pig and you're getting fatter!"? I'm sure the police would show up, but I'm pretty sure they would have a lawsuit on their hands provided I was on a public sidewalk.
But you allow an action that conveys a message, and then say that all actions are going to convey a message to someone. So you concede first that while it is not specifically protected, you agree with protecting it if it conveys a message, and then you concede that any action can convey a message. Therefore, you seem supportive of "freedom of expression" if you suppose that phrase means "actions that convey a message."
As well as the fact that they ARE expressions for the people that think that. It's just that some expressions violate others rights. That's where the line gets pretty blurry.
I do believe that an expression conveys a message, but by defintion an expression is an action. My problem is when that "expression" violates anothers rights. Can I stand on a street corner outside a church and yell my opposition to religion through a bullhorn? What about their right to peaceful assembly? I would be arrested for disturbing the peace where I live and I'm in liberal Calif.
There are a lot of things you can't do in liberal Cali. I wouldn't be surprised if you can't do that, but the church can go to a funeral and tell the grieving their lost loved one is in hell. Although it sounds more like what you'd find in Kansas, Cali is just that fucked. Let me ask you this: Say that the law does nothing if I scream at the grieving how their loved one is in hell. Now say that rather than doing that, I hold a sign that says the same thing. Should the sign be illegal?