4 ms·

actually the supreme court has ruled that fighting words, pornography etc, are all perimissable to be banned within the scope of the 1st ammendment. it’s very

actually the supreme court has ruled that fighting words, pornography etc, are all perimissable to be banned within the scope of the 1st ammendment. it’s very specific legal terminology. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_words

geofft 6y ago
Re fighting words, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire : > The complaint against Chaplinsky stated that he shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity. It wouldn't surprise me if public sentiment in the US in 1940 was that such terms were not constitutionally protected, but First Amendment jurisprudence has changed a lot since then - see e.g. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... and https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... for some background. Is this site actually taking the position that calling someone "a damned Fascist" is a) not constitutionally protected, as we understand the constitution today b) worth banning? Re pornography, it is very much legal and constitutionally protected in the US. Obscenity (which "appeals to the prurient interest ... depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct ... and ... lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value") isn't constitutionally protected, but this site bans pornography, obscenity, and non-obscene indecency.
- jlgaddis 6y ago
  > It wouldn't surprise me if public sentiment in the US in 1940 was that such terms were not constitutionally protected, ... Hell, the debate over George Carlin's "seven dirty words" [0] didn't happen until three decades later (a real "gentleman" would never speak such atrocious words!). I can't even imagine how much was verboten in the '40s. --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words
- alkibiades 6y ago
  pornography is banned in public squares despite being legal. you can’t just show it in the middle of downtown... that itself is a restriction re: fighting words they’ve since narrowed the definition but it’s never been overturned
  - DanBC 6y ago
    Women can go topless in New York. Can a woman post a photograph of herself topless on Parler?

geofft 6y ago

Re fighting words, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire : > The complaint against Chaplinsky stated that he shouted: "You are a God-damned racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Chaplinsky admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity. It wouldn't surprise me if public sentiment in the US in 1940 was that such terms were not constitutionally protected, but First Amendment jurisprudence has changed a lot since then - see e.g. https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-ha... and https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... for some background. Is this site actually taking the position that calling someone "a damned Fascist" is a) not constitutionally protected, as we understand the constitution today b) worth banning? Re pornography, it is very much legal and constitutionally protected in the US. Obscenity (which "appeals to the prurient interest ... depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct ... and ... lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value") isn't constitutionally protected, but this site bans pornography, obscenity, and non-obscene indecency.

jlgaddis 6y ago
> It wouldn't surprise me if public sentiment in the US in 1940 was that such terms were not constitutionally protected, ... Hell, the debate over George Carlin's "seven dirty words" [0] didn't happen until three decades later (a real "gentleman" would never speak such atrocious words!). I can't even imagine how much was verboten in the '40s. --- [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words
alkibiades 6y ago
pornography is banned in public squares despite being legal. you can’t just show it in the middle of downtown... that itself is a restriction re: fighting words they’ve since narrowed the definition but it’s never been overturned
- DanBC 6y ago
  Women can go topless in New York. Can a woman post a photograph of herself topless on Parler?