• vaguerant@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    ·
    2 days ago

    “OK, have fun. Enjoy your right to free speech. The armed forces welcomes your dissent.”

    Screen grab of the "Free Speech Zone" from Arrested Development season 1, episode 20: "Whistler's Mother". It is a fenced in cage in the middle of nowhere where protests are allowed to occur. A protester inside holds a placard: "LARGER FREE SPEECH ZONE".

  • Placid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    The U.S. Supreme Court determined that airports could not be considered a public forum to practice free speech. According to the ruling, airports exist solely for air travel and not for free expression.

    Prior to the court’s decision, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, a not-for-profit religious corporation, would often practice going into public places to distribute literature and asking for donations to support their religion.

    Since 1992, airports across the country have adopted regulations governing speech, such as Lambert’s “Free Speech” booths.

    https://fox2now.com/news/missouri/why-does-lambert-airport-have-free-speech-booths/#%3A~%3Atext=One+booth+sits+directly+inside%2Cliterature%2C+or+petitioning+and+protesting.

      • Placid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        2 days ago

        To give them a designated spot to stay in so they’re not wandering around bothering people waiting to collect their bags from baggage claim. It limits disruptive and frankly antisocial behavior.

        • ryannathans@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          But you could just kick them out or refuse them entry to the airport as they aren’t required to permit free speech?

          • Krudler@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            I’m not trying to justify or leap to any defense, just trying to understand myself.

            But I’m kind of getting the feeling that they are trying to do a catch-all.

            For all practical purposes, if it was a free-for-all of people treating airports like public forums, it just keeps sliding. The reason the airport is there is to facilitate people’s travel, travelers don’t want to be annoyed by constant destractions, let’s face it, customs and enforcement wants the least amount of chaos. The airport doesn’t want to bear the continual cost of extra staff to manage. Police don’t want to have a hotspot of constant nuisance calls.

            I think this type of post really inflames people, but in a way it seems to have practical purpose. I’m not even sure that it implies that free speech is not allowed in the airport. Just like tacitly… Dear annoying assholes that hide behind Free Speech, go stand here.

          • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yes, but they can still annoy you with dumb lawsuits. Maybe this reduces those.

        • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          pillowtalk voice

          Only $1.99 a minute, so call now, citizen. We’re all here, waiting to do free speech things with you. C’mon. Reach out and touch another heart, (inside this cage we share) as we slowly go insane together.

    • 3abas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 day ago

      Well, considering freedom of speech doesn’t cover yelling “bomb”, probably arrested for causing mass panic.

      • sudoshakes@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        No, it wouldn’t.

        Jesus Christ has no one taken a civics class or studied how your government works?

        Free speech limitations are clearly set with multiple case precedent. You would be arrested, convicted, and banned from ever flying. Full stop.

        • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          29
          ·
          1 day ago

          Well then that’s not free speech. If there are any limitations, even sensible ones, it needs a different name. Like, limited speech for example

          • sudoshakes@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Free speech is rooted in the founding idea that you can speak or print your opinion about a government without a government’s reprisal.

            Like most rights, these are codified and then matured or refined over time in the form of amendments.

            I would very much like to change the name of the 14th amendment for all that it matters, since it now protects corporate personhood over individuals, but I digress.

            Free speech is, again like other rights, not to be enshrined where it would allow you to do harm to others. You have the right to preach in an airport or say the government is hiding aliens or that the president is a shit bird. You do not have the right to cause a panic by screaming fire or bomb, as this had the very real harm to other’s safety in crowded public places. You can’t scream fire in a theater, for the same reason.

            The most simple way to put this is that your rights end at your nose, not other people’s noses.

            You can’t harm other’s freedom to operate unmolested, and where we draw that line is the foundation of English law.

          • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            You’re an idiot. You have the freedom to speak in whatever way you want. You do not have the freedom from the consequences of misusing that very same speech.

            In exactly the same way you have the right to bear arms but do not have the right to use those arms to attack your fellow citizen.

            • TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              19 hours ago

              Free speech means freedom from legal consequences. If it’s a crime to say a thing, and there is a penalty for saying them, then it’s a misnomer to call it free speech.

              • KingGimpicus@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                13 hours ago

                That’s where you’ve got this whole concept fucked up. You can say whatever you want. You cannot say whatever you want in any manner that you want. It’s ALL about time, place, and manner. Time, place, and manner restrictions have always and will always be a part of the freedom of speech.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Yeah, basically. They’re not uncommon, usually the way it works is you can reserve the booth as a representative of a non-disruptive, non-commercial group then go there and hand out your pamphlets on how ankles are sinful or collect signatures for a ballot initiative or just generally ramble on about how knitting is lizardpeople math. Do whatever, you just can’t approach people outside the little defined space.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Wait, how? Not like in general, obviously it sucks here, but how is this particularly egregious…?

      • StinkyFingerItchyBum@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Because no where else in the world with free speech is this considered at all, let alone considered a good idea.

        • Øπ3ŕ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          …no where else in the world with free speech…

          Now, think about what you had to qualify there, and try to recognize what it means. Of all the places where free speech is tolerated, this is unacceptable -to the silent, powerless masses. 😶🤌🏼

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          You think ya’ll don’t have community spaces? I have 100% seen things like this flying into numerous European countries and in the larger train stations, they just didn’t have the obnoxiously ostentatious signs (which I sorta appreciate having, though it’s form is laughable it’s a decent warning about what’s going on there so you can avoid it like the plague). It’s pretty common to have some sort of designated managed space within public spaces, with an admitted abstraction it’s not all that different from getting parade permits or reserving space in a park.

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 day ago

              I think that’s commonly what things like this are called, do you have a better name? Regardless of that though, that doesn’t really address that this is a very common concept across a great many cultures, most likely including your own.

    • A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sure. But.

      Story time:

      I was once annoyed at the airport x-ray and joked something like “duh, of course there’s a bomb in my bag 🙄”.
      The security guy then said: “I know you’re joking, you know you’re joking, but I now must search your luggage thoroughly. Congratulations.”

      Lesson learned: never say “bomb” in an airport. You might have the right, but it will make your & other people’s day shittier.

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    This kind of shit makes me want to stand somewhere deliberately away from it and protest free speech being restricted to “zones.”

    • doingthestuff@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      You’re a few generations too late. The supreme court has a long history of case precedent supporting time, place and manner restrictions.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        The Supreme Court has a long history of shit takes like Dred Scott and Korematsu, too. Doesn’t make 'em right.

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The qyestion is is that nooth in the secure part of terminal? And if it is, can it really be considered “free speech” if you need to purchase a ticket to get in that part of airport to use it?