Here is part of what Wikipedia (usually my last choice for citation) has to say about the protection of free speech under the US constitution:
Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. There are exceptions to these general protections <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions>, including the Miller test <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test> for obscenity <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_obscenity_law>, child pornography laws, speech that incites imminent lawless action <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action>, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Within these limited areas, other limitations on free speech <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech> balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as rights for authors over their works (copyright <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright>), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on fighting words <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words>), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander>). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance. Now, debate on where things said fall into the loose structure is certainly an option. Can someone tell me I should be ashamed of myself. I guess so, although it is certainly uncomfortable for me to see that in writing, all caps, and know it is repeated in RSS blogs across the internet. Is it slanderous? Calling someone a paranoid schizophrenic in public may be slanderous but worse is done every day all across the globe, unfortunately. Law is in place to be argued in court, and who wants to do that except lawyers and those that have lost much because their rights were violated. But I think in groups there is a social contract that shapes the perimeters of civility, one that all members contribute and define by the coming and going of the group. Internet groups are complicated because of the anonymity of identity and lack of accountability possible. What members are left with is the choice to leave the group, as demonstrated here with our dwindling numbers. I don't have an answer but believe in free speech and the group. And I must say I am enjoying the fact that every thread does not disintegrate into the same old flame war. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
