i can go for the definitions below ("public safety" or "safety from
bodily harm"), but what about "public morality"?  isn't there room for
limiting free speech to prevent "pornography", i.e., speech that the
majority of citizens find offensive because of their ethical
preferences?  i realize that this inclusion can be perverted, but what
definition cannot?

thanks for your responses.

norm

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Lawrence Libby wrote:
>
> As they teach you in 4th grade, free speech should be limited only by public
> safety.  But, of course, it gets more complicated than that in the real
> world.  Who gets to define "public safety"?  Does it apply only to bodily
> safety?  (Apparently not.)   If I were king of the world (or got to cast the
> deciding vote:) ) the line would be bodily harm only.
> There have been varying degrees of speech permitted by the US gov't.
> throughout history and it seems to me that people get about as much right to
> speech as they fight for.
> Larry Libby
>
> "F. Leon Wilson" wrote:
>
> > CHOMSKY Thinkers:
> >
> > Is there ever a time when the rights of a human being should be limited in
> > the areas of the expressing of ones personal feeling and ideas?
> >
> > What limits should be placed on free speech?
> >
> > F. Leon