who decides what these "protected categories"

Here's how it's done in the US, complete with how the categories are formed and applied.

what is public

Generally it is defined as any entity engaged in commerce that is advertised as selling a product or service to customers at large.
------------------

Of course calls to one is illegal and one is not aren't that useful as the question is why do think it's ok for one to be illegal?

Well, the problem at bottom is that what is "OK" is not the proper standard for judging what should be *allowed* in a society that values liberty as a general value. Legality is not isomorphic in any sense with moral rectitude, and in fact the law excludes behavior that would be morally upright and includes behavior that is reprehensible, because the lines need to be drawn the simplest way possible to accommodate the most behaviors that should intuitively be allowed while still disallowing those which should be intuitively disallowed. Since such lines can't be drawn perfectly without infringing on one or the other side (allowing some major category of behavior that is detrimental to the stability of the society or preventing some behavior vital to the same), we are required to tolerate those behaviors which are despicable but not strictly harmful (in the civil tort sense).

I think you can see what I'm going to ask now ... who decides what these "protected categories" are and what is public and what is not. Why should a shop I own be any different to say this blog. Of course calls to one is illegal and one is not aren't that useful as the question is why do think it's ok for one to be illegal?

A private citizen burning a holy text has no underlying act that is illegal, because it does not deprive anyone of any publicly offered service on the basis of protected categories.

"each underlying act being itself illegal."

... and that's what I'm intrested in. Why do you think this is illegal but say buring a holy text isn't?

There is a marked difference between speech and action. Refusal of service in public accommodations is an action. It may be accompanied by speech, certainly, but that is not the element that makes it legally problematic. And, certain elements of commercial speech are understood as implicit actions; for example, a sign that says "Irish need not apply" or "No Colored Guests" is not simply an expression of distaste for particular groups, but also an *advertisement* of either a restriction of the terms of providing a service or restricting the consideration of the employment pool in a proscribed way, each underlying act being itself illegal.

James,

I think what you said is part of my point - where is the cross over line between discrimination and freedom of expression. Is a Christian couple refusing to allow two gay men to stay at their B&B the former or the latter?

Jabster,
I'm not sure that acts of discrimination are covered by the term "freedom of expression", which is "any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used." So a bus driver cannot refuse to take a woman to Planned Parenthood because he thinks she might be getting an abortion and a Christian Registrar cannot refuse to give two lesbians a civil ceremony, just as an atheist estate agent cannot refuse to sell a Christian couple a house because he doesn't like Christians. They are free to voice their opinion and to lobby to have the law changed, but they can't break the law in this way and claim their freedom of expression or humans rights are being violated (well, they can and have, but the courts tend to take a different view).

@JonJon

I agree with you ... harm really is a very difficult term to define although I can see the reasoning behind it. Any law that has to take into account non-physical harm is always difficult as you start to rely heavily of self reporting and what may be considered reasonable.

@JameG

One curtailing of freedom of expression that you've not mentioned is the various equality laws. I'd rather have them than have to debate why it wasn't ok not to serve "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs". Although I have noticed that it now seems to be no gays. Of course certain parts of the media claim scream that it's persecuting Christians if you say it's wrong. I do wonder if a Muslim hotel owner refused to let a Christian couple stay, what the reaction would be?

Mmm, I'm even a little worried about "harm" here. Emotional harm, verbal abuse, and vicious slurs are almost certainly allowed. Slander is explicitly not. "Harm" is tricky to define.

So as long as free speech does not infringe on someone else's rights and does not harm anyone, it should be allowed?

Commercial fraud is the other major category of never-protected speech.

I think that Freedom of Speech should not be curtailed except in very specific circumstances:

- when such speech will create a clear and imminent danger (even if it is not direct incitement to that danger). For example, directly inciting a large group of people to riot, or the famous example of starting a stampede by yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

- slanderous comments, such as falsely claiming that you have evidence someone is a paedophile, rapist or wife beater. This should only cover things that are falsifiable and not your opinion of someone, which should never be illegal.

There might be some other circumstances, but I can't think of any of the top of my head. I don't like openly racist or homophobic speech, flag burning or holocaust denial, but banning them is a bad idea. But they're wrong and therefore I'd rather have a straight fight with them in the open where I know we'll eventually win.

"The problem with saying that a particular attitude or set of statements are no longer helpful or useful or beneficial to society is ultimately that some sort of governing body would have to make that decision for everyone."

Exactly. There is no governing body in history that I trust that much.

Some attitudes or sets of statements are not only unhelpful, but straight up detrimental to society. But it is better to combat those attitudes with debate than to try to silence them. What is acceptable depends on who's doing the accepting, and acceptable speech changes over time.

To use the example of racism, it is currently the popular and "acceptable" opinion in most civilized countries that racism is wrong and stupid. Obviously this is a better opinion than the one which once prevailed in those countries (and still exists to a scary degree). But that shift in opinion occurred largely as a result of the civil rights movement which could never have gotten off the ground if there had not been allowances for opinions which were considered unacceptable at the time. Not that long ago, the majority in the U.S. believed desegregation "shouldn't be allowed since it is pretty much universally frowned upon". If there were not room for expressing "unacceptable" ideas, then there would never be new ideas.

And I think the best way for good ideas to triumph is not to censor bad ideas, but rather to put good and bad ideas side by side in a fair and open forum where they can be judged for what they are. Better to let the idiots look like idiots than to help them look like martyrs.

In my perfect world, Glenn Beck would be on a f*cking sidewalk somewhere with a cardboard sign screaming at traffic. But I would never want to silence him.

@Elem

"Well, in the US there is a decently bright line between speech in a public forum and speech in a private forum, with the former being nearly unlimited and the latter (such as Daniel's forum) being *entirely* up to the proprietor."

Which is think is part of my point that freedom of speech is considered totally differently in a public and private forum, particularly in the US, and why is such a strong distinction made i.e. if it is accepted that in a private forum certain limits can be imposed, and are desirable, without some crying freedom of speech (well in general!) why does that not carry other in the public realm - someones individual freedoms over their "property" are greater than freedom of speech?

"US History is replete with problematic speech, so I don't think this hypothesis holds water."

That was probably me presenting it in a far to simple way. The US has had problems but Europe's history is scattered with violence that has been fuelled by hate speech with the Balkans conflict being the last in a long line and Northern Ireland one that is much closer to home for me. We do of course have laws against Holocaust Denial which are a result of our history and a law that thankfully the UK saw no need to in act.

With reference to you second point, I'm not sure I entirely agree as (and this is where my knowledge of European cultural norms starts to break down) self imposed limits of free speech are certainly very strong in England but I don't believe that this applies across Europe. Of course that still doesn't mean that the US isn't an exception over and above a European cultural norm.

I should of course add the above aren't strong opinions but just thoughts ...

@Darwin

"Similarly, disparaging statements targeted at all members of a group(homosexuals, Muslims, etc.) don't really contribute anything useful."

I'll agree that it's not particularly useful but I certain don't think that there should be a law against it. This is something that should be handled by social convenient as a law such as this would be ripe for abuse by interested parties - who gets to decide what disparaging means for example? See also JonJon's comment

"Not helpful" is more or less irrelevant to the idea of free speech, as are "frowned upon," or "acceptable," or even "useful." The problem with saying that a particular attitude or set of statements are no longer helpful or useful or beneficial to society is ultimately that some sort of governing body would have to make that decision for everyone. This is the whole reason why freedom of speech is important in the first place. Giving someone that kind of power over a large number of people is extremely dangerous. See fascism or dystopian fiction for examples.

Edit:

To put it another way--

"disparaging statements targeted at all members of a group(homosexuals, Muslims, etc.) don't really contribute anything useful."

is a completely true statement. However, it is not (in and of itself) a good enough justification for limiting or removing someone's right to say those unhelpful things.

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like."
-Noam Chomsky

As far as I know, incitement to violence is illegal in most countries and that´s where the limits of free speech should stay. Who gets to define what racism is? For some people the "Jungle Book" cartoon is racist. Should that be banned? Any individual blog owner should be able to set whatever limits on speech that they deem fit. But the state should not be deciding it for them.

Screaming "All Muslims are terrorists" in public doesn't help anybody.

It helps me to know what the guy screaming "All Muslims are terrorists" is thinking, and helps me know what people who approve of his shouting it are thinking. In short, it helps me to identify bigots, which I'd say is pretty important. In a world where these things can't be expressed, it is impossible or nearly impossible to figure out what sort of prejudices a person is operating under, a far more dangerous condition than when it is openly revealed.

What I'm trying to say is that racism in this day and age is no longer acceptable and shouldn't be allowed since it is pretty much universally frowned upon.
Similarly, disparaging statements targeted at all members of a group(homosexuals, Muslims, etc.) don't really contribute anything useful. That isn't an intelligent opinion, it's just loud, annoying and encourages violence.
Screaming "All Muslims are terrorists" in public doesn't help anybody.

I'd appreciate it if somebody could tell me any problems with these ideas

The most obvious one would be that you're for speech censorship.

I think that there should be some limits to what you can or cannot say. For example, open racism is not acceptable. Generally spewing hate towards a certain group is not acceptable. I'd appreciate it if somebody could tell me any problems with these ideas as I'm writing these of the top of my head.

So simple examples could be the Daniel bans evangelism from the main threads (and as far as I can tell most people agree with that) but surely that is technical a limit of freedom of speech

Well, in the US there is a decently bright line between speech in a public forum and speech in a private forum, with the former being nearly unlimited and the latter (such as Daniel's forum) being *entirely* up to the proprietor.

Maybe this is due to more problems that have occurred outside the US of maybe it's very much the case of what you've grown up with becomes what you think is right.

US History is replete with problematic speech, so I don't think this hypothesis holds water. As far as the other half, the US has been blessed (and cursed) with an absence of strong cultural norms due to being very young, and so the powerful sense of propriety that is endemic to strong cultural values is mostly absent; this might have something to do with the fairly strong disjunct between American conceptions of the limits of speech and European conceptions of the same.

The have been a few topics recently where the subject of freedom of speech has been talked about and it got me thinking that although there is a general consensus that freedom of speech is a good thing there still seems a grey area over what limits if any should be placed on it. One thing that did become apparent is that the definition of freedom of speech isn't that clear (well not for me anyway) and covers both freedom of verbal expression and freedom of physical expression; secondly there would seem a difference between those from the US compared to others, in that US views seem far more freedom of speech should not be limited whereas others seem to think that some limits are sensible. Maybe this is due to more problems that have occurred outside the US of maybe it's very much the case of what you've grown up with becomes what you think is right.

The have been a few topics recently where the subject of freedom of speech has been talked about and it got me thinking that although there is a general consensus that freedom of speech is a good thing there still seems a grey area over what limits if any should be placed on it. One thing that did become apparent is that the definition of freedom of speech isn't that clear (well not for me anyway) and covers both freedom of verbal expression and freedom of physical expression; secondly there would seem a difference between those from the US compared to others, in that US views seem far more freedom of speech should not be limited whereas others seem to think that some limits are sensible. Maybe this is due to more problems that have occurred outside the US of maybe it's very much the case of what you've grown up with becomes what you think is right.

So where was I, oh yes, what does freedom of speech mean to the posters here and what limits if any should be imposed?

So simple examples could be the Daniel bans evangelism from the main threads (and as far as I can tell most people agree with that) but surely that is technical a limit of freedom of speech; should women be allowed to were the burqa or does the balance of religious expression (is this even freedoom of speech) outweigh other problems?