32 ms·

I wish people would take the time to read 1st Amendment case law. I think people would be shocked, even when the court get it wrong, the justices and opinions

I wish people would take the time to read 1st Amendment case law. I think people would be shocked, even when the court get it wrong, the justices and opinions explore the subject in a depth that laymen will go their entire lives never exploring or understanding. Plus the bonus of it being maybe one of the more interesting areas of law factually. Some of the major topics I suggest looking at/googling: -1st amendment restricts the government from infringing speech Not private parties (I.e. you say something about my wife/kids I can shut your mouth, maybe I will face criminal/civil penalties for damaging your face, but not for chilling your speech) -the marketplace of ideas (perhaps my favorite concept in free speech) -government can restrict Speech based on time/location (i.e. require permits for using public spaces or limiting your access to public space such as closing a park at night and arresting you for trespassing preventing you from distributing your speech when/where you want) -“Fuck the draft” (just lol) vs burning draft cards -obscene speech (porn - Imagine the justices Getting together with their popcorn and watching porn together...they still can’t define it, “but they know it when they see it”)...this extends to child porn too I’ll leave it there, have fun!

vmception 6y ago
The psychology behind the Supreme Court is interesting too. They seek compliance with their orders and won't rule in a way that nobody expects. They will rule in a way that many people disagree with, but it will match a possibility everyone had in mind, or they won't take the case at all. They don't want constitutional amendments, or the need to revisit cases over and over again because the people and the states aren't satisfied. They are fine with the legislature simply changing narrowly tailored laws to avoid people from encountering the disagreement again. So you see this in obscenity. It won't ever clarify this because it doesn't match the social contract people have with the government anymore. ie. Gore and explicit sex is so commonplace in media that it will never clarify.
- throwaway_jobs 6y ago
  One of my favorite phrases comes from the obscenity cases, and I tend to use it as often as I can: “Appeals to (Your) prurient interests” Many other jokes to be made at the expense of the justices on these cases, Which get far dirtier, such as the pinnacle case being Miller v California which was essentially about mail order dildos/sex toys, one would have thought double-sided dildos were about as obscene as it gets at the time, and yet leave it to the justices to develop the Miller Test which is coincidentally a “three-prong Obscenity test”.
koheripbal 6y ago
Free Speech != 1st Amendment. Free Speech is a principle that allowing opposing viewpoints is the cornerstone of political discourse and a functioning democracy. Only through discussion, debate, and argument, do we avoid what all governments are designed to avoid - violence. The 1st Amendment is a Law that is meant to protect the people from restrictions on freedom of speech from the government. It if not the totality of the idea. In the same way that the government regulations on clothing imports are not a national dress code. The dangerous territory we have recently waded into is that the younger voters are so emotionally tied to their political ideas within their bubble that they cannot stand to hear discussions that do not agree with their existing world view - and are happy to see violence used to silence dissent. It is the principle of Freedom of Speech that is under attack - not the 1st Amendment.
- throwaway_jobs 6y ago
  Well of course in addition to free speech the 1st amendment includes other rights such as freedom of religion (Separation of church and state), freedom of the press, right to assemble and right to petition the government for grievances. In its plain wording “the government shall make no law...prohibiting free speech...” but people get hung up on that when we know government can in fact pass all sorts of laws that limit free speech and in my experience I can get even the most die hard “absolutists” To agree certain speech should be illegal (this typically stems from the fact people don’t understand what “speech” is from a legal context). I stand by what I said, people should read the case law. While you say the danger is young people being emotional in their bubble, I think you will find every generation says something similar about the next generation. Why I encourage people to read the case law is because it provides historical context for these rights and how the law is actually applied. I think one of the biggest dangers, is failure to educate ourselves especially learn our own history (history of our laws or otherwise). The point of studying history is so we can hopefully avoid the mistakes of our past...yet as history suggests we will continue to neglect history and make the exact same mistakes.

vmception 6y ago

The psychology behind the Supreme Court is interesting too. They seek compliance with their orders and won't rule in a way that nobody expects. They will rule in a way that many people disagree with, but it will match a possibility everyone had in mind, or they won't take the case at all. They don't want constitutional amendments, or the need to revisit cases over and over again because the people and the states aren't satisfied. They are fine with the legislature simply changing narrowly tailored laws to avoid people from encountering the disagreement again. So you see this in obscenity. It won't ever clarify this because it doesn't match the social contract people have with the government anymore. ie. Gore and explicit sex is so commonplace in media that it will never clarify.

throwaway_jobs 6y ago
One of my favorite phrases comes from the obscenity cases, and I tend to use it as often as I can: “Appeals to (Your) prurient interests” Many other jokes to be made at the expense of the justices on these cases, Which get far dirtier, such as the pinnacle case being Miller v California which was essentially about mail order dildos/sex toys, one would have thought double-sided dildos were about as obscene as it gets at the time, and yet leave it to the justices to develop the Miller Test which is coincidentally a “three-prong Obscenity test”.

koheripbal 6y ago

Free Speech != 1st Amendment. Free Speech is a principle that allowing opposing viewpoints is the cornerstone of political discourse and a functioning democracy. Only through discussion, debate, and argument, do we avoid what all governments are designed to avoid - violence. The 1st Amendment is a Law that is meant to protect the people from restrictions on freedom of speech from the government. It if not the totality of the idea. In the same way that the government regulations on clothing imports are not a national dress code. The dangerous territory we have recently waded into is that the younger voters are so emotionally tied to their political ideas within their bubble that they cannot stand to hear discussions that do not agree with their existing world view - and are happy to see violence used to silence dissent. It is the principle of Freedom of Speech that is under attack - not the 1st Amendment.

throwaway_jobs 6y ago
Well of course in addition to free speech the 1st amendment includes other rights such as freedom of religion (Separation of church and state), freedom of the press, right to assemble and right to petition the government for grievances. In its plain wording “the government shall make no law...prohibiting free speech...” but people get hung up on that when we know government can in fact pass all sorts of laws that limit free speech and in my experience I can get even the most die hard “absolutists” To agree certain speech should be illegal (this typically stems from the fact people don’t understand what “speech” is from a legal context). I stand by what I said, people should read the case law. While you say the danger is young people being emotional in their bubble, I think you will find every generation says something similar about the next generation. Why I encourage people to read the case law is because it provides historical context for these rights and how the law is actually applied. I think one of the biggest dangers, is failure to educate ourselves especially learn our own history (history of our laws or otherwise). The point of studying history is so we can hopefully avoid the mistakes of our past...yet as history suggests we will continue to neglect history and make the exact same mistakes.