5 ms·

It has never been the US government's job to decide which speech is 'harmful' and should be silenced. The First Amendment prevents that. (Of course, some things

It has never been the US government's job to decide which speech is 'harmful' and should be silenced. The First Amendment prevents that. (Of course, some things like slander are illegal, but that's nothing like the 'harmful speech' Facebook is talking about.)

ben509 8y ago
> Of course, some things like slander are illegal Specifically, to prove slander, the defamed party has to demonstrate intent and damages. Same with fraud. Both of these are cases of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."
- danieltillett 8y ago
  Not in many non-USA countries. Just damage and negligence is enough in many other English speaking countries [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
  - ben509 8y ago
    It also depends if it's a tort or criminal.
reissbaker 8y ago
It is entirely the US government's job to decide which speech is harmful: it just takes the view that most speech isn't harmful, and should be allowed. The First Amendment is part of the US government's decision on speech: its view is that most speech is more good than bad, and thus is protected. When it does decide that certain speech, like libel, is harmful, it bans it. It even can ban speech in specific contexts! For example, in Brandenburg v. Ohio the court upheld that speech "which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action" could be banned. So, saying an inflammatory thing privately to your friend, for example, could be fine, but boosting that post to millions of people could be viewed as "likely to incite imminent lawless action" such as a riot.
- erichocean 8y ago
  > The First Amendment is part of the US government's decision on speech This is just flat out incorrect. The Bill of Rights was the people saying "You want a US government ruling over the several States? Here are the rules for what you're allowed to do." The US gov't never made a decision on speech, they agreed to the terms of "We, The People", full stop. You're acting like it's the opposite. This is also why the gov't can't just rewrite the 1st amendment willy nilly—all of the US government's legitimacy with the American people comes from respecting the Bill of Rights. Stop respecting those rights and a rebellion is right around the corner. Historically, the States had to approve the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the new Constitution) in order for it to come into effect. It's definitely NOT the US gov't "deciding", and it never was. All of the power resided in the States. Interestingly, the "Federalists" that (re-)wrote the Constitution were mostly opposed to the Bill of Rights—that's the contribution made by the anti-Federalists to the US Gov't as it exists today. Isn't it funny how most citizens treasure the Bill of Rights more than anything else in the Constitution? That makes it pretty clear which "side" had the well-being of the people in mind.

ben509 8y ago

> Of course, some things like slander are illegal Specifically, to prove slander, the defamed party has to demonstrate intent and damages. Same with fraud. Both of these are cases of "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose."

danieltillett 8y ago
Not in many non-USA countries. Just damage and negligence is enough in many other English speaking countries [1]. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
- ben509 8y ago
  It also depends if it's a tort or criminal.

reissbaker 8y ago

It is entirely the US government's job to decide which speech is harmful: it just takes the view that most speech isn't harmful, and should be allowed. The First Amendment is part of the US government's decision on speech: its view is that most speech is more good than bad, and thus is protected. When it does decide that certain speech, like libel, is harmful, it bans it. It even can ban speech in specific contexts! For example, in Brandenburg v. Ohio the court upheld that speech "which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action" could be banned. So, saying an inflammatory thing privately to your friend, for example, could be fine, but boosting that post to millions of people could be viewed as "likely to incite imminent lawless action" such as a riot.

erichocean 8y ago
> The First Amendment is part of the US government's decision on speech This is just flat out incorrect. The Bill of Rights was the people saying "You want a US government ruling over the several States? Here are the rules for what you're allowed to do." The US gov't never made a decision on speech, they agreed to the terms of "We, The People", full stop. You're acting like it's the opposite. This is also why the gov't can't just rewrite the 1st amendment willy nilly—all of the US government's legitimacy with the American people comes from respecting the Bill of Rights. Stop respecting those rights and a rebellion is right around the corner. Historically, the States had to approve the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the new Constitution) in order for it to come into effect. It's definitely NOT the US gov't "deciding", and it never was. All of the power resided in the States. Interestingly, the "Federalists" that (re-)wrote the Constitution were mostly opposed to the Bill of Rights—that's the contribution made by the anti-Federalists to the US Gov't as it exists today. Isn't it funny how most citizens treasure the Bill of Rights more than anything else in the Constitution? That makes it pretty clear which "side" had the well-being of the people in mind.