4 ms·
> Why is insider trading a different category than other forms of speech? The speech isn't illegal - the act of trading based on insider information is. This w
by k_sh 8y ago
> Why is insider trading a different category than other forms of speech?
The speech isn't illegal - the act of trading based on insider information is. This works in a similar manner to bomb-making plans being legal to disseminate, but making a bomb being very illegal.
> Why is paying someone to murder someone a different category than other forms of speech?
This is solicitation to commit a crime, which is a specific exception to the 1A.
> Why are intentionally deceptive drug advertisements a different category than other forms of speech?
This is a false statement of fact, which is a specific exception to the 1A.
> Why is pointing a gun at someone and telling them to do something a different category than other types of speech?
Pointing a gun isn't speech, it's coercion.
- Dylan16807 8y ago> The speech isn't illegal - the act of trading based on insider information is. The act of paying for something. That's not a very helpful distinction to make when the proposal is not being able to pay for certain ads. > This is a false statement of fact, which is a specific exception to the 1A. Political ads are deceptive all the time. And what does "specific exception" mean? Specified by what?
- JdeBP 8y agoHerewith the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, wherein one will find no specific exceptions actually made. * https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript#toc-amendment-i https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc... Enjoy.
- manigandham 8y agoThat's not how this works. The constitution and amendments are the foundation. There are centuries of supreme court rulings and further legal precedent that determine the modern framework. Free speech does have certain restrictions, which you can easily read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
- JdeBP 8y agoActually, it is how it works. You are confusing case law with what k_sh actually claimed, which was specific exceptions. There do exist U.S. constitutional provisions with specific exceptions, such as the 5th Amendment. The 1st Amendment is not one of them. Indeed, it is famous for being neither specific nor having clear exceptions. Contrast with the Basic Law of Germany article 5, that has already come up in this discussion, which outlines specific exceptions in paragraph 2. (For another example, see article 8.)
- manigandham 8y agoIncorrect. What is being discussed are the applicable rules to citizens today, and the cumulative legislation states that there are exceptions. We do not follow only the constitution and bill of rights, otherwise what do you think the thousands of other laws are doing exactly? Real exceptions exist, regardless of whether they are written in the original amendment text or in rulings afterward.
- Dylan16807 8y agoThe exceptions are 'real', but they're fuzzy, they change over time, and they're not in the constitution itself. They're the opposite of 'specific'.
- manigandham 8y agoThe amendments themselves are not in the constitution itself, so do they not apply? Amendments were added to the body of laws after the constitution, and congress and the supreme court have since added more to the body of laws after the amendments. The cumulative result is what governs citizens today. Those laws are in fact very specific about their exceptions, as shown very clearly in the wikipedia link. What exactly do you find fuzzy or confusing about them?
- Dylan16807 8y ago