4 ms·

I would prefer being harrased and bullied rather than having to live in a country that has a legal power to punish me for what I say.

orf 8y ago
> to punish me for what I say. But doesn't, unless you say something reprehensible that the society you live in agrees that you stepped way over the line.
- wetpaws 8y ago
  I don't give a damnt about what society like or don't like. Tomorrow special sjw snowflakes could say that breathing or saying "hello" is harrasment.
arcticbull 8y ago
You can absolutely get punished for what you say in the US -- freedom of speech was long ago recognized as anything but absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Obscenity (as defined in Miller v. California) is not protected by the constitution. You can't lie under oath. You can't deliberately tell lies about people (Libel). The First Amendment doesn’t protect the speech of people plotting to overthrow the government (Dennis v. United States). House Bill 347 authorized Secret Service agents to arrest anyone protesting in the president’s or vice president’s proximity. The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States. And it's really not that different, is it?
- jstarfish 8y ago
  Not to mention the myriad of other nonsense charges they'll get you with ("loitering", "soliciting", etc) if they can't find anything specifically against your speech. You can shout grammatically correct, sensible and lawful speech from the public street corner ("eat right! exercise! wash behind your ears!"), but if a cop simply tells you to move along and you refuse, you're still looking at being jailed.
- opo 8y ago
  >...You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Wrong. 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... >...The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States. It looks like the US probably has the strongest free speech protections of any country in the world - that isn't a bad thing.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Those free speech protections have been implicated in an ongoing series of terrorist murders, which is a bad thing. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/17/splc-report-nearly-100-murdered-stormfront-users https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/17/splc-report-n... > Almost 100 people were murdered over the last five years by registered users of Stormfront, the largest racist Web forum in the world, according to a report released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
    - ra1n85 8y ago
      >Those free speech protections have been implicated in an ongoing series of terrorist murders, which is a bad thing. How did free speech carry out terrorist murders?
    - jimbokun 8y ago
      Well now that we Americans can murder people directly with words, we can merge the first and second amendments.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    …right. That article bemoans the use of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" as a rhetorical device, but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such speech. (IANAL, but there exists such a thing as depraved indifference murder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder)
    - 8y ago
- caf 8y ago
  Don't forget "born secret" Restricted Data.
brazzledazzle 8y ago
The US does have that legal power so it seems to be more about where you draw the line.
iforgotpassword 8y ago
You sure that isn't just a reflex "defending my country" reply? I mean, extending on that statement, you probably also think sexual harassment, as long as it stays verbal, is OK to have in the name of freedom. As a guy you probably don't have to worry there anyways. People are driven into suicide through harassment. And why don't you feel the same about the right to just shoot anyone at will? Clearly your government is strongly restricting your freedom there, but we probably don't Need to argue why this is a good thing.

orf 8y ago

> to punish me for what I say. But doesn't, unless you say something reprehensible that the society you live in agrees that you stepped way over the line.

wetpaws 8y ago
I don't give a damnt about what society like or don't like. Tomorrow special sjw snowflakes could say that breathing or saying "hello" is harrasment.

arcticbull 8y ago

You can absolutely get punished for what you say in the US -- freedom of speech was long ago recognized as anything but absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Obscenity (as defined in Miller v. California) is not protected by the constitution. You can't lie under oath. You can't deliberately tell lies about people (Libel). The First Amendment doesn’t protect the speech of people plotting to overthrow the government (Dennis v. United States). House Bill 347 authorized Secret Service agents to arrest anyone protesting in the president’s or vice president’s proximity. The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States. And it's really not that different, is it?

jstarfish 8y ago
Not to mention the myriad of other nonsense charges they'll get you with ("loitering", "soliciting", etc) if they can't find anything specifically against your speech. You can shout grammatically correct, sensible and lawful speech from the public street corner ("eat right! exercise! wash behind your ears!"), but if a cop simply tells you to move along and you refuse, you're still looking at being jailed.
opo 8y ago
>...You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Wrong. 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... >...The only difference is they've chosen to draw the line somewhere just offset from what you're used to. There's still a line in these here United States. It looks like the US probably has the strongest free speech protections of any country in the world - that isn't a bad thing.
- gowld 8y ago
  Those free speech protections have been implicated in an ongoing series of terrorist murders, which is a bad thing. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/17/splc-report-nearly-100-murdered-stormfront-users https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2014/04/17/splc-report-n... > Almost 100 people were murdered over the last five years by registered users of Stormfront, the largest racist Web forum in the world, according to a report released today by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
  - ra1n85 8y ago
    >Those free speech protections have been implicated in an ongoing series of terrorist murders, which is a bad thing. How did free speech carry out terrorist murders?
  - jimbokun 8y ago
    Well now that we Americans can murder people directly with words, we can merge the first and second amendments.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  …right. That article bemoans the use of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" as a rhetorical device, but doesn't actually discuss the legality of such speech. (IANAL, but there exists such a thing as depraved indifference murder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depraved-heart_murder)
  - 8y ago
caf 8y ago
Don't forget "born secret" Restricted Data.

brazzledazzle 8y ago

The US does have that legal power so it seems to be more about where you draw the line.

iforgotpassword 8y ago

You sure that isn't just a reflex "defending my country" reply? I mean, extending on that statement, you probably also think sexual harassment, as long as it stays verbal, is OK to have in the name of freedom. As a guy you probably don't have to worry there anyways. People are driven into suicide through harassment. And why don't you feel the same about the right to just shoot anyone at will? Clearly your government is strongly restricting your freedom there, but we probably don't Need to argue why this is a good thing.