8 ms·

Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing t

by 1996 8y ago

Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.

pvg 8y ago
Regardless of their reasons It's their actual job.
Waterluvian 8y ago
I was thinking it would turn out to be one of those bizarre elected judges that the US has. But I think federal judges are all appointed through some resemblance of a sensible process, so I'm at a loss as well.
- refoundglory 8y ago
  Trump gets to appoint them these days.
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  This judge was nominated by G W Bush. Conservatives seem to be staunchly against the press except their version of it.
latch 8y ago
I know this isn't related to hate speech, it was done to protect someone's family, but in much of the world, various forms of speech are regulated (by judges or elected officials). To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. This is not a slippery slope. I think it's good to be vigilant about these things and scrutinize judges and officials though.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Personally I am highly suspicious of the 'for the subject's family' motivation as it seems very selectively applied and often comes up only when 'their people' are at risk from their own wrongdoing. I'm of the view that it should be for everybody or nobody and not to discretion because their discretion always leads to selfish behavior that holds the people who most need to be held accountable to be the least so.
  - grasshopperpurp 8y ago
    Especially when the DoJ says that fleeing domestic and gang violence are not grounds for asylum, it's ridiculous to consider the lives of a corrupt cop and his family above society, which this decision does.
- mr_spothawk 8y ago
  > To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. no serious person would suggest that this is a situation which requires limits on speech. you're using it as a platform for suggesting that it is, which I think is insane. > This is not a slippery slope. this is the very definition of a slippery slope.
- Aloha 8y ago
  In politics, there is an adage I like, never give yourself more power than you want your opponent to have. Free speech is one of those things that fits into this category, regulating speech that makes people uncomfortable does have a very provable slippery slope effect. https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la... We've experimented with aggressively limiting free speech before, and it went very very bad, very fast, I'd rather not try the experiment again. Another point I'd like to make, is that I'd rather know what peoples 'real' views are, so I can either avoid them or help change their mind, pushing objectionable opinion underground, does not stop people from holding those opinions, it just hides them where it cannot been seen, and actioned upon.
njharman 8y ago
Judges and elected officials routinely regulate free speech. Every court sealed record, every copyright performance enforcement, every liable/slander ruling, every pornograpy lewd speech law/FCC regulation, hate crime and bullying laws that limit what anyone can say, tons of national security arms export that restrict wide gamut of things like CPUs and maths algorithms. Some of those I agree with. Some I don't. Point is Supreme Court has rightly ruled Free Speech is not a absolute right. It does not trump all other rights. Nor all the duties/responsibilities we put onto governments.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  > every copyright performance enforcement Apropos of anything else, if I go somewhere and broadcast Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, or whatever, that is in no way my speech, and regulating the ability to do so without commission or royalty in no way restricts my ability to speak.
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    It is if you make a derived work.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      Show me all the court cases smacking down genuine derivative works or parodies. It does happen, but fairly rarely, and there's usually "more to it".
      - SamReidHughes 8y ago
        Dude, the treatment of derivative works is textbook copyright law.
      - jkaplowitz 8y ago
        Deriving from a copyrighted work without permission is infringement unless it falls into some exception like fair use. As you note, parodies often qualify for that exception, but that's not the general rule.
mr_spothawk 8y ago
> Double wrong I think you mean "double-plus wrong".
- kabdib 8y ago
  Doubleplusungood is the official term, comrade.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
I just want to point out that this type of all-or-nothing thinking may be the most effective way to alienate people from your perspective. I'd consider myself a free-speech nut, but comments like this make me want to distance myself from that label.
pietroglyph 8y ago
Removal from office is the last thing that should happen in this situation. The judge made a questionable decision, which will be appealed, but the judge should not be fired (that is an action reserved for actual misconduct). If we do the latter to judges with whom we do not agree, we jeopardize the independence of our judiciary.
- maxpupmax 8y ago
  Disagree with the overall sentiment. If judges make decisions which don't represent the mandate of their constituents, they can/should be removed. See the Brock Turner judge in the SF bay area. Glad he's gone! That said, you may be right about this particular situation.
  - georgek 8y ago
    Just a clarification: federal judges (like the one in this article) are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. They are not elected and do not have constituents in the same way elected officials do.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    > If judges make decisions which don't represent the mandate of their constituents, they can/should be removed. This collapses separation of powers, is against the idea that "law" and "politics" are separate things, and paves the way for removing judges who don't support the views of the Party.
    - chii 8y ago
      Some judges in the USA is elected (while some are appointed for life). See https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-are-judges-selected.html https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-are-judges-s... But i do believe that judges should be appointed by a panel of existing judges, and once appointed, can only be removed by said panel (and not the gov't).
  - mnw21cam 8y ago

by 1996 8y ago

pvg 8y ago

Regardless of their reasons It's their actual job.

Waterluvian 8y ago

I was thinking it would turn out to be one of those bizarre elected judges that the US has. But I think federal judges are all appointed through some resemblance of a sensible process, so I'm at a loss as well.

refoundglory 8y ago
Trump gets to appoint them these days.
nickthemagicman 8y ago
This judge was nominated by G W Bush. Conservatives seem to be staunchly against the press except their version of it.

latch 8y ago

I know this isn't related to hate speech, it was done to protect someone's family, but in much of the world, various forms of speech are regulated (by judges or elected officials). To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. This is not a slippery slope. I think it's good to be vigilant about these things and scrutinize judges and officials though.

Nasrudith 8y ago
Personally I am highly suspicious of the 'for the subject's family' motivation as it seems very selectively applied and often comes up only when 'their people' are at risk from their own wrongdoing. I'm of the view that it should be for everybody or nobody and not to discretion because their discretion always leads to selfish behavior that holds the people who most need to be held accountable to be the least so.
- grasshopperpurp 8y ago
  Especially when the DoJ says that fleeing domestic and gang violence are not grounds for asylum, it's ridiculous to consider the lives of a corrupt cop and his family above society, which this decision does.
mr_spothawk 8y ago
> To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. no serious person would suggest that this is a situation which requires limits on speech. you're using it as a platform for suggesting that it is, which I think is insane. > This is not a slippery slope. this is the very definition of a slippery slope.
Aloha 8y ago
In politics, there is an adage I like, never give yourself more power than you want your opponent to have. Free speech is one of those things that fits into this category, regulating speech that makes people uncomfortable does have a very provable slippery slope effect. https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-laws-are-often-used-to-suppress-and-punish-left-wing-viewpoints/ https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la... We've experimented with aggressively limiting free speech before, and it went very very bad, very fast, I'd rather not try the experiment again. Another point I'd like to make, is that I'd rather know what peoples 'real' views are, so I can either avoid them or help change their mind, pushing objectionable opinion underground, does not stop people from holding those opinions, it just hides them where it cannot been seen, and actioned upon.

njharman 8y ago

Judges and elected officials routinely regulate free speech. Every court sealed record, every copyright performance enforcement, every liable/slander ruling, every pornograpy lewd speech law/FCC regulation, hate crime and bullying laws that limit what anyone can say, tons of national security arms export that restrict wide gamut of things like CPUs and maths algorithms. Some of those I agree with. Some I don't. Point is Supreme Court has rightly ruled Free Speech is not a absolute right. It does not trump all other rights. Nor all the duties/responsibilities we put onto governments.

FireBeyond 8y ago
> every copyright performance enforcement Apropos of anything else, if I go somewhere and broadcast Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, or whatever, that is in no way my speech, and regulating the ability to do so without commission or royalty in no way restricts my ability to speak.
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  It is if you make a derived work.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Show me all the court cases smacking down genuine derivative works or parodies. It does happen, but fairly rarely, and there's usually "more to it".
    - SamReidHughes 8y ago
      Dude, the treatment of derivative works is textbook copyright law.
    - jkaplowitz 8y ago
      Deriving from a copyrighted work without permission is infringement unless it falls into some exception like fair use. As you note, parodies often qualify for that exception, but that's not the general rule.

mr_spothawk 8y ago

> Double wrong I think you mean "double-plus wrong".

kabdib 8y ago
Doubleplusungood is the official term, comrade.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

I just want to point out that this type of all-or-nothing thinking may be the most effective way to alienate people from your perspective. I'd consider myself a free-speech nut, but comments like this make me want to distance myself from that label.

pietroglyph 8y ago

Removal from office is the last thing that should happen in this situation. The judge made a questionable decision, which will be appealed, but the judge should not be fired (that is an action reserved for actual misconduct). If we do the latter to judges with whom we do not agree, we jeopardize the independence of our judiciary.

maxpupmax 8y ago
Disagree with the overall sentiment. If judges make decisions which don't represent the mandate of their constituents, they can/should be removed. See the Brock Turner judge in the SF bay area. Glad he's gone! That said, you may be right about this particular situation.
- georgek 8y ago
  Just a clarification: federal judges (like the one in this article) are appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. They are not elected and do not have constituents in the same way elected officials do.
- pjc50 8y ago
  > If judges make decisions which don't represent the mandate of their constituents, they can/should be removed. This collapses separation of powers, is against the idea that "law" and "politics" are separate things, and paves the way for removing judges who don't support the views of the Party.
  - chii 8y ago
    Some judges in the USA is elected (while some are appointed for life). See https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-are-judges-selected.html https://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/how-are-judges-s... But i do believe that judges should be appointed by a panel of existing judges, and once appointed, can only be removed by said panel (and not the gov't).
- mnw21cam 8y ago