Freedom of Speech versus Religious Freedom

[Winstonm]

I was driving home from the market and passed the neighborhood church that has one of those message-board signs out front, where the message is hand-changed weekly, and an odd thought occured to me: what if I were offended by a message? Would I have legal recourse?

 

I know in the U.S. there is freedom of speech, but this freedom does not apply to yelling "fire!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. What if the church sign had read, "Repent or spend eternity in hell!" Is that the psychological equivalent of yelling "fire" when there is no fire?

 

Seems to me I should be able to claim the sign a form of psychological abuse and demand it either be brought down or changed. Where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and religious expression?

 

What do you think?

[hotShot]

For argumentations sake lets assume that this is equivalent to yelling fire.

How do you prove there is no "fire"?

It's absolutely possible that those who don't repent, will spend eternity in hell.

 

Of cause this is no equivalent to yelling "fire!".

[Winstonm]

For argumentations sake lets assume that this is equivalent to yelling fire.

How do you prove there is no "fire"?

It's absolutely possible that those who don't repent, will spend eternity in hell.

 

Of cause this is no equivalent to yelling "fire!".

How do you prove the person who yelled "fire" did not actually believe there was a fire and he was acting in the public interest?

[hrothgar]

I am not a lawyer. With this said and done, I think that you are framing things incorrectly.

 

The key issue in the "Fire in a crowded theater" example has to do with physical harm. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theater there is a foresable chance that you will cause a panic which might result in damage / loss of life.

 

I don't think that the example that you raise is directly equivalent. A more apt example would focus on the use of epithets that are directly against a specific race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, what have you. The "N word" is probably the most obvious example.

 

As I understand matters, the use of epithets is not punishable by law here in the US. However, I believe that the system in Canada is quite different.

 

This is an example where I think that the US has it right and the Canadians have it wrong. (I would prefer to see these types of issues dealt with informally via social sanction than through the courts)

[Winstonm]

Perhaps so, Richard.

 

Is it implied that a message on a church sign is an expression of opinion? I know when I used to work for Boyd Gaming in management they emphasized that (at least in Nevada) the corporation was legally responsible for its signs (this had to do with promotions and the wording).

 

It made me wonder if a church could also be held liable for its signs, and that by expressing something as fact "Sinners will burn in hell" they could or should be held accountable for any psychological damages claimed to have been caused by exposure to their sign or if they would be considered to be immune to a damage claim due to either freedom of religion or freedom of speech.

 

A further contribution to my question was that years ago a psychologist told me that religious abuse could be as significant as sexual abuse or physical abuse, and that made me think about the ramifications of these types signs - what if a first or second grade student read the signs and was traumatized by the threat of an eternity of fire?

[TimG]

what if a first or second grade student read the signs and was traumatized by the threat of an eternity of fire?

Haven't millions of catholic school students been faced with this over the years?

[orlam]

What does the title of the thread have to do with the content?

Isn't it "Winstonm against freedom of speech and religious freedom"?

[hrothgar]

Perhaps so, Richard.

 

Is it implied that a message on a church sign is an expression of opinion? I know when I used to work for Boyd Gaming in management they emphasized that (at least in Nevada) the corporation was legally responsible for its signs (this had to do with promotions and the wording).

 

It made me wonder if a church could also be held liable for its signs, and that by expressing something as fact "Sinners will burn in hell" they could or should be held accountable for any psychological damages claimed to have been caused by exposure to their sign or if they would be considered to be immune to a damage claim due to either freedom of religion or freedom of speech.

 

A further contribution to my question was that years ago a psychologist told me that religious abuse could be as significant as sexual abuse or physical abuse, and that made me think about the ramifications of these types signs - what if a first or second grade student read the signs and was traumatized by the threat of an eternity of fire?

The core issue would seem to be whether or not written statements on a public sign can be construed as actionable.

 

I can certainly come up with hypothetical scenarios where this might be true. A written statement that "Sinners will burn in hell" does not seem to rise to this level...

 

For what its worth, I do believe that there could be such a thing as religious abuse. However, I think that you are deeming the very concept by claiming that words on a sign can be construed as "abuse".

 

As a specific example, I consider the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church incredibly objectionable. However, I don't believe that folks should be able to sue the WBC for the statements that they make.

 

I strongly recommend that you take a look at some of the ***** the the WBC is responsible for. I folks haven't been able to bring successful suits against this group, its hard to imagine any example where one could bring a successful suit to court.

[luke warm]

I was driving home from the market and passed the neighborhood church that has one of those message-board signs out front, where the message is hand-changed weekly, and an odd thought occured to me: what if I were offended by a message? Would I have legal recourse?

would a parent have legal recourse if a billboard advertised absolut vodka, fearing her child(ren) might be led to drink? or if it showed a big mac, fearing child obesity?

[Winstonm]

What does the title of the thread have to do with the content?

Isn't it "Winstonm against freedom of speech and religious freedom"?

No, it's not. I can argue this issue from either side. It's simply a hypothetical question - mindplay, if you will.

[jdonn]

I think I deserve recourse for having to read this thread.

 

Anyone who sues for psychological damage based on the stated premise is someone who causes much more psychological damage in his/her life than he/she received from the sign.

 

What does the title of the thread have to do with the content?

Isn't it "Winstonm against freedom of speech and religious freedom"?

Finally something in the water cooler that is indisputable.

[orlam]

What does the title of the thread have to do with the content?

Isn't it "Winstonm against freedom of speech and religious freedom"?

No, it's not. I can argue this issue from either side. It's simply a hypothetical question - mindplay, if you will.

But unless you want to argue complete non-sense, religious freedom and free speech will be on the same side of the issue. Ok, maybe you want to, actually.

[Winstonm]

I was driving home from the market and passed the neighborhood church that has one of those message-board signs out front, where the message is hand-changed weekly, and an odd thought occured to me: what if I were offended by a message?  Would I have legal recourse?

would a parent have legal recourse if a billboard advertised absolut vodka, fearing her child(ren) might be led to drink? or if it showed a big mac, fearing child obesity?

Jimmy,

 

Yes, I see your point and in a sense that would be similar - if viewing the signs as equivalent. If all are advertisements then all should be treated the same - and I can see that as a valid argument.

 

I can also see it another way, though, where whisky or food advertising may well influence a child but the ad is not a statement or claim - it doesn't say drink vodka or you will burn in hell or eat a Big Mac or you will burn in hell - so in that sense it seems different to me.

 

In this second sense, the statement of "Sin and you will burn in hell' could be argued as psychological coercion, don't you think?

 

(On a completely different and unrelated tangent, would you say that when you use the term "objective morality" that you actually might mean to be saying "absolute morality"?)

[Winstonm]

What does the title of the thread have to do with the content?

Isn't it "Winstonm against freedom of speech and religious freedom"?

No, it's not. I can argue this issue from either side. It's simply a hypothetical question - mindplay, if you will.

But unless you want to argue complete non-sense, religious freedom and free speech will be on the same side of the issue. Ok, maybe you want to, actually.

Before I accept such a claim as valid, do you accept as valid the U.S. Supreme Court's striking down of prayer in school and use of the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance?

 

I ask because at some point in time prior to the challenges I would think that many would have considered those two issues also to have been on the same side as freedom of speech and religious freedom and thus non-sensical to debate.

 

The Freedom of religion protection in the constitution is to prevent a government sanctioned religion and to provide for a secular government free from the influences of any particular religious body - although liberally applied, the rights have not been construed to allow unlimited religious rights, such as children not receiving medical attention due to their parents' faith healing beliefs.

 

The freedom of speech likewise has been shown not to be a total right to say anything anywhere at any time.

 

So it seems to me the question is not unreasonable to think about.

[Winstonm]

Anyone who sues for psychological damage based on the stated premise is someone who causes much more psychological damage in his/her life than he/she received from the sign.

 

The question is not about civil damages but about simply legalities.

 

Most likely the prevalent thinking in 1962 was that school prayer was a non-issue, but when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state-sponsored prayers in school suddenly it became an issue.

[jdonn]

Anyone who sues for psychological damage based on the stated premise is someone who causes much more psychological damage in his/her life than he/she received from the sign.

The question is not about civil damages but about simply legalities.

 

Most likely the prevalent thinking in 1962 was that school prayer was a non-issue, but when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state-sponsored prayers in school suddenly it became an issue.

Where exactly does government enter into your hypothetical example? Is it a federally run church?

 

Most likely the prevalent thinking in 1590 was that the earth being the center of the universe was a non-issue, but when Galileo defended heliocentrism it suddenly became an issue.

 

That doesn't mean that if I ask whether Mars is the center of the universe my question is not stupid.

[kenberg]

Surely the question has nothing to do with religion. It certainly has nothing to do with fires and theaters. People might advise us to drink a little wine with dinner, others might advise us to drink no wine ever, others might advise us to repent, others might advise us to practice transcendental meditation. We can take the advice or not. Yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire could lead to someone getting injured in the resulting confusion. If the person who yelled can reasonably claim he thought there was a fire he will probably not be liable but if he was just having a joke he will be in trouble. However, if you repent, it will not injure me. If the sign said "Shoot doctors who perform abortions" then I imagine it would be actionable in the same way as a sign saying "Shoot immigrants" would be. It's a matter of advocating or causing violence. If it just offends you or upsets you, tough *****.

[Winstonm]

Where exactly does government enter into your hypothetical example?

 

The government (local, state, federal) has a monopoly on the court system. The court system is where legal decisions are made.

 

s it a federally run church?

 

Would it matter if the church lost a legal challenge about its sign that was later upheld by higher courts?

 

hat doesn't mean that if I ask whether Mars is the center of the universe my question is not stupid.

 

It depends on knowledge. There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity.

If a 2-year-old crawled into your lap and asked if Mars was the center of the universe I doubt seriously if you would consider that child or that question stupid.

[helene_t]

I suppose it is ok to display a "X go to hell" sign in a way that it can be read by drivers on a public road. "Shoot X" may not be allowed. Maybe the line goes somewhere else. I don't have a strong opinion about this.

 

What I do have a strong opinion about is

- it shouldn't matter if the sign is mounted on a church building, a building belonging to the communist party, or a fastfood restaurant. Government buildings may be different, though.

 

- it shouldn't matter if X is "pagans", "christians", or "abortion doctors". Maybe it is slightly worse to attack someone based on gender or skin color, though.

[mike777]

"Seems to me I should be able to claim the sign a form of psychological abuse and demand it either be brought down or changed. Where is the line drawn between freedom of speech and religious expression?"

 

 

 

Winston if you want to limit freedom of speech or freedom of religion...ok....pls tell us.......

 

Just tell us how you want to limit my freedom.

 

I understand in other threads you advocate more consignment of what I work and earn.

[Fluffy]

another religion sucks thread, isn't it?

[Al_U_Card]

Winston if you want to limit freedom of speech or freedom of religion...ok....pls tell us.......

 

Just tell us how you want to limit my freedom.

Vote Republican?

[Al_U_Card]

another religion sucks thread, isn't it?

I'll try to morph it into a "politics sucks" thread....

[PassedOut]

Except for speech (and writing) which poses a clear physical danger to others, I think that everything should be allowed. I also think that people should get a good enough education to be able to sort out the crap for themselves.

 

"Protecting" people from scary or loathsome opinions wastes time and resources on methods that don't work anyway (people can always come up with more nonsense independently) and it risks perpetuating the preferred foolishness of "the deciders."

[blackshoe]

It made me wonder if a church could also be held liable for its signs, and that by expressing something as fact "Sinners will burn in hell" they could or should be held accountable for any psychological damages claimed to have been caused by exposure to their sign or if they would be considered to be immune to a damage claim due to either freedom of religion or freedom of speech.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a Constitutional scholar, but it seems to me that the freedom of religion clause simply prohibits the establishment of a state religion. It does not, IMO, absolve the practitioners of any religion from liability for their actions in practicing their religion. As an extreme example, suppose a group decided to adopt Aztec religious practices, requiring frequent (and messy, but that's not really relevant) human sacrifices. If a defense on the basis of freedom of religion would get them off the hook, I'd have to say our society is crazier than I ever thought it could be.

 

As far as the freedom of speech issue is concerned, I think churches should be held to the same standards as anybody else. Whether that is in fact what the law does I don't know.