3 ms·

I think I expressly acknowledge that there's a difference, and I'm not looking for government intercession. > Further, certain kinds of speech have never been

I think I expressly acknowledge that there's a difference, and I'm not looking for government intercession. > Further, certain kinds of speech have never been considered protected: "fighting words", certain classes of harassment, fomenting seditious, the famous "fire!" in a crowded theater You should really read this: https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... and to a lesser extent, this: https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... Also, legislatively, the fighting words doctrine is basically toothless today, if it's not entirely dead. Worth noting though that punishments for use of speech are an entirely different thing than refusing to allow someone to speak. Again, I acknowledge that no one is beholden to DailyStormer, or any other nazi to hosting their site -- I get that, and it's not a decision that I particularly fault -- it just doesn't sit well with me that a website has apparently been searching for a host for some time now and can't find one. Maybe that's a testament to how far we've come as society -- perhaps if I were a better human, that's how I'd see it, but I see it as troubling, regardless of the content. > Anyway. "free speech" is not a uniform perfect right that applies maximally in all situations Nor have I suggested that it is, but it seems you think you understand the subject better than you do, and I think it's an important enough right to be informed on.

pnathan 9y ago
Popehat tends to be a highly libertarian site. I would prefer not to be instructed by a highly libertarian site. It usually contains presuppositions that render it of limited use in thinking about the matter. If you, however, have a link to a paper or op-ed put out by a reputable constitutional scholar in a reputable publication, e.g., Harvard Law Review, I would be more than happy to read such a thing.

pnathan 9y ago

Popehat tends to be a highly libertarian site. I would prefer not to be instructed by a highly libertarian site. It usually contains presuppositions that render it of limited use in thinking about the matter. If you, however, have a link to a paper or op-ed put out by a reputable constitutional scholar in a reputable publication, e.g., Harvard Law Review, I would be more than happy to read such a thing.