3 ms·

I believe "no" if "disingenuous" is a synonym for false I think it'd be like "yelling fire in a crowded theater": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_i

by lbotos 8y ago

I believe "no" if "disingenuous" is a synonym for false I think it'd be like "yelling fire in a crowded theater": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... IANAL

gowld 8y ago
Your link says "yes". > limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).
rayiner 8y ago
"Fire in a crowded theater" is probably the wrong example. (In part because it was used to justify restrictions on political speech that would not fly today.) A better example is: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/705/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/705/ > Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public gathering that, if inducted into Army (which he vowed would never occur) and made to carry a rifle "the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.," held to be crude political hyperbole which, in light of its context and conditional nature, did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President within the coverage of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a). Freedom of speech in the U.S. is extremely broad. False and damaging speech is in theory not protected (so defamation laws are valid), but the standard is very high even then. "Disingenuous" speech is protected (OP is calling it "disingenuous" because he can't prove it's clearly false.)
- tareqak 8y ago
  I used the phrase "disingenuous communication" not "disingenuous speech". The part that is misleading is a person using a bot that pretends to be another person (real or imaginary) to make a claim. The veracity of the claim doesn't really matter so much as the claims ability to stoke emotion. The part I find disingenuous (insincere) is pretending to be a human being and using other people's naïve assumption that the act is real to influence current events.

by lbotos 8y ago

gowld 8y ago

Your link says "yes". > limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

rayiner 8y ago

"Fire in a crowded theater" is probably the wrong example. (In part because it was used to justify restrictions on political speech that would not fly today.) A better example is: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/705/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/394/705/ > Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public gathering that, if inducted into Army (which he vowed would never occur) and made to carry a rifle "the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.," held to be crude political hyperbole which, in light of its context and conditional nature, did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President within the coverage of 18 U.S.C. § 871(a). Freedom of speech in the U.S. is extremely broad. False and damaging speech is in theory not protected (so defamation laws are valid), but the standard is very high even then. "Disingenuous" speech is protected (OP is calling it "disingenuous" because he can't prove it's clearly false.)

tareqak 8y ago
I used the phrase "disingenuous communication" not "disingenuous speech". The part that is misleading is a person using a bot that pretends to be another person (real or imaginary) to make a claim. The veracity of the claim doesn't really matter so much as the claims ability to stoke emotion. The part I find disingenuous (insincere) is pretending to be a human being and using other people's naïve assumption that the act is real to influence current events.