6 ms·
Them's the breaks. Free speech is of loftier purpose than preserving the reputation of a hedgefund guy. It's also ironic and quite frankly terrifying that a ne
by sqdbps 9y ago
Them's the breaks. Free speech is of loftier purpose than preserving the reputation of a hedgefund guy.
It's also ironic and quite frankly terrifying that a news outlet would be lamenting the extensive free speech protections in the US.
This is apparently a part of a series exploring the trendy technopanic of "fake news online", which increasingly looks like a campaign by old media to reclaim their gatekeeping status even if that means thumbing their noses at the first amendment.
- justherefortart 9y agoThem's the breaks? Lmfao. Ah, Russian shill maybe? Or just delusional Libertarian?
- sqdbps 9y agoI'm both actually.
- justherefortart 9y agoComments seemed pretty spot on.
- dang 9y agoThis comment breaks the site guidelines. Please read and follow them when commenting here, regardless of how wrong some other commenter may be. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- toss1 9y agoUm, NO. Free speech is one thing. It is rightly protected. But it is not unlimited, and rightly so. Libel/Slander, yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater, and incitement to riot are something different, and are not protected. Entities such as Google/FB, who serve as editors of what speech/writing/media gets propagated and featured, even though they do it by algorithm, and it might be inconvenient, must also be held to account for properly distinguishing between those types.
- sqdbps 9y agoActually there are no expectations in the text of the first amendment but that is for another discussion. As for libel Google isn't the party that wrote that statement so they aren't liable for libel. The yelling "fire" thing is a WWI era anachronism that wouldn't hold today. As for incitement, intent must be proven. Free speech is very well protected in the US.
- eric_h 9y ago> The yelling "fire" thing is a WWI era anachronism that wouldn't hold today. Eh? Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre is most definitely still a thing you could be prosecuted for, especially if someone died/was seriously injured in the resultant stampede.
- msla 9y agohttps://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... > But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago. > First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience." > The crowded theater remark that everyone remembers was an analogy Holmes made before issuing the court's holding. He was explaining that the First Amendment is not absolute. It is what lawyers call dictum, a justice's ancillary opinion that doesn't directly involve the facts of the case and has no binding authority. The actual ruling, that the pamphlet posed a "clear and present danger" to a nation at war, landed Schenk in prison and continued to haunt the court for years to come.
- neolefty 9y agoDefamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation > ... communication of a false statement that harms the reputation ... Treated very differently from country to country, but universally considered an illegitimate use of speech.