3 ms·

> Just as you can’t be half-pregnant, there is no such thing as government regulated free speech How is that reconcilable with the limitations on and restricti

> Just as you can’t be half-pregnant, there is no such thing as government regulated free speech How is that reconcilable with the limitations on and restrictions of free speech that already exist in the US [0]? I've seen this type of all-or-nothing argument quite a few times and it just does not make sense to me -- surely you need to distinguish between different kinds of restrictions of free speech? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Types_of_speech_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
P_I_Staker 7y ago
The "restrictions" are absurdly narrow, and especially when it comes to content. Technically, there's the "obscenity" exception, though I can't speak for how commonly it's applied (oftentimes it doesn't seem to stick, and doesn't appear to be heavily used). Generally, we don't have a discussion as a society over what speech the government allows* , in terms of content; everything goes. It's just that there are a few exceptions for inciting illegal acts, obsenity, fighting words, ect. The proposed change would require us to get together and decide what people are allowed to say, so nobody gets offended. That's a big departure from tradition in the USA. * PS I know there have been high profile challenges to offensive speech (eg. Frank Zappa, Lenny Bruce, 2LiveCrew, Video Games, ect.), but certainly appears that in the long run free speech has won out in the USA.