4 ms·

> I thought the Supreme Court has already shown that there are limits to speech Yes correct, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are a lot of limitations

by dahart 7y ago

> I thought the Supreme Court has already shown that there are limits to speech Yes correct, freedom of speech is not absolute, there are a lot of limitations in the U.S.: “libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations The problem in this case is it can be reasonably argued that quarantine is damaging to some people, and not quarantining is damaging to other people. Even if it really is a bad idea to protest, it might be really difficult to establish clearly and legally that protesting is causing unnecessary harm, and greater harm than not protesting. I’ve read the Wikipedia page on Freedom of Speech before, but I just noticed for the first time the interesting criteria called “Imminent lawless action”. I’m not a lawyer, but it seems possible this could apply even if harm can’t be demonstrated. “Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if the speaker intends to incite a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

hartator 7y ago
> libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.” Half of this doesn’t apply to the US. In the same Wikipedia article: > The opinion in Brandenburg discarded the previous test of "clear and present danger" and made the right to freedom of (political) speech's protections in the United States almost absolute.
- dahart 7y ago
  > Brandenburg [...] made the right to freedom of (political) speech's protections in the United States almost absolute. Ah, yeah that is a good point, since these protests are political speech. Does it matter that the protests are assembling? I could imagine the protected ability to say anything you want about politics, while reserving some rights about the ability to do anything. Personally, I don’t think it should be illegal to protest this. It doesn’t seem like a particularly bright idea though. This situation doesn’t have a lot of legal precedent, and it might cause some to occur right now. But since communicable disease is a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the law and constitution weren’t exactly written with global pandemic in mind, do you think the ability to assemble should be absolute? > Half of this doesn’t apply to the US. Here’s the US specific list... it’s still long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... * Actually, would you mind listing the specific exceptions above that you believe do not apply to the US? I could be wrong, but I scrubbed through all of them and can’t find a single one that doesn’t seem to apply at least partially. In the US, fighting words, obscenity and pornography are there explicitly; false statements of fact covers things like libel, slander, dignity and perjury; the imminent lawless action exception covers sedition and incitement; commercial speech and speech owned by others covers classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, and non-disclosure agreements; right to privacy is implicitly granted by several amendments in the constitution, and the right to be forgotten has legal precedent. I think that’s all of them. What did I miss?
kelnos 7y ago
Given that the gatherings themselves would be illegal due to shelter-in-place orders, planning a protest would seem to be speech that "incites a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely". But then I guess you have to contend with the question of whether or not making gatherings illegal in the first place is constitutional, even for the purposes of curbing a public health crisis. I personally hope it is constitutional, but I'm no legal scholar.
- dahart 7y ago
  I wouldn’t frame it that way, it’s not a question of whether gatherings are constitutional. They are, and legal, peaceful protesting is protected in this country. But there already are some kinds of gatherings that are illegal and unprotected, so it’s not some kind of slippery slope. Whether it’s legal, protected and/or constitutional always depends on what kind of gathering you’re talking about.

by dahart 7y ago

hartator 7y ago

> libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.” Half of this doesn’t apply to the US. In the same Wikipedia article: > The opinion in Brandenburg discarded the previous test of "clear and present danger" and made the right to freedom of (political) speech's protections in the United States almost absolute.

dahart 7y ago
> Brandenburg [...] made the right to freedom of (political) speech's protections in the United States almost absolute. Ah, yeah that is a good point, since these protests are political speech. Does it matter that the protests are assembling? I could imagine the protected ability to say anything you want about politics, while reserving some rights about the ability to do anything. Personally, I don’t think it should be illegal to protest this. It doesn’t seem like a particularly bright idea though. This situation doesn’t have a lot of legal precedent, and it might cause some to occur right now. But since communicable disease is a threat to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the law and constitution weren’t exactly written with global pandemic in mind, do you think the ability to assemble should be absolute? > Half of this doesn’t apply to the US. Here’s the US specific list... it’s still long https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce... * Actually, would you mind listing the specific exceptions above that you believe do not apply to the US? I could be wrong, but I scrubbed through all of them and can’t find a single one that doesn’t seem to apply at least partially. In the US, fighting words, obscenity and pornography are there explicitly; false statements of fact covers things like libel, slander, dignity and perjury; the imminent lawless action exception covers sedition and incitement; commercial speech and speech owned by others covers classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, and non-disclosure agreements; right to privacy is implicitly granted by several amendments in the constitution, and the right to be forgotten has legal precedent. I think that’s all of them. What did I miss?

kelnos 7y ago

Given that the gatherings themselves would be illegal due to shelter-in-place orders, planning a protest would seem to be speech that "incites a violation of the law that is both imminent and likely". But then I guess you have to contend with the question of whether or not making gatherings illegal in the first place is constitutional, even for the purposes of curbing a public health crisis. I personally hope it is constitutional, but I'm no legal scholar.

dahart 7y ago
I wouldn’t frame it that way, it’s not a question of whether gatherings are constitutional. They are, and legal, peaceful protesting is protected in this country. But there already are some kinds of gatherings that are illegal and unprotected, so it’s not some kind of slippery slope. Whether it’s legal, protected and/or constitutional always depends on what kind of gathering you’re talking about.