5 ms·
Do you have a source? I'd be surprised to hear that's the case. My understanding was the first amendment covered all speech.
by ancarda 10y ago
Do you have a source? I'd be surprised to hear that's the case. My understanding was the first amendment covered all speech.
- enraged_camel 10y agoYou are right, "hate speech" was not the right term to use. That said, there absolutely are types of speech that the First Amendment doesn't cover: http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiatives_awards/students_in_action/debate_hate.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/initiativ... >>In this country there is no right to speak fighting words—those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently.
- icebraining 10y agoIt does cover all speech; racial and ethnic epithets are still covered, just not in a very specific context. Which never applies in Twitter.
- bzbarsky 10y agoAs I understand it, "fighting words" is _very_ context-dependent and narrow in modern jurisprudence. See https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-censorship-tropes-in-the-medias-coverage-of-free-speech-controversies/ https://www.popehat.com/2015/05/19/how-to-spot-and-critique-... and search for "Trope seven". In particular, application of "fighting words" pretty much requires that the speaker and listener were in close physical proximity, such that a fight could actually occur. Not really relevant to twitter, for the most part.