6 ms·

1st amendment advocates are soon going to be put in the same position as 2nd amendment advocates to retain any semblance of freedom. Speech doesn't kill people

by imgabe 6y ago

1st amendment advocates are soon going to be put in the same position as 2nd amendment advocates to retain any semblance of freedom. Speech doesn't kill people. People kill people. Blaming this on Facebook instead of the people swinging the machetes is not going to solve the problem.

bfieidhbrjr 6y ago
Normally I'd agree but there's something weird about social media that brings out the worst in people. It's kind of automatically polarizing and divisive.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  Part of the problem is the exclusive nature of the social graphs. Suddenly the world is full of cliques, cabals and clandestine societies.
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  I think the factor Social media misses is the get popped in the mouth factor. People have always spewed trash, though they dealt with the responses of others "popping them in the mouth". Social media / the internet as a whole, allows you to say and do things without any real fear of repercussion in the real world. That definitely doesn't help. Compound that by the ease of which we all can fall into an echo chamber, only hearing the ideals we seek out, and it's risky for sure. The dopamine fix of winning in arguments or commentary through the various gamification definitely feed an unhealthy addiction.
- MikusR 6y ago
  It's the same thing that turns protesters into looters and rioters.
bashinator 6y ago
Do you think the second amendment should provide for an individual right to own nuclear arms?
- tick_tock_tick 6y ago
  Only for yields below 100 kilotons.
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    Pocket nukes
  - jojobas 6y ago
    So, no assault nukes?
    - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
      Semi-automatic Ar-14 Assault Nukes with 30 round clip magazines. You'll need a $200 NFA tax stamp.
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  The jump to nuclear weapons immediately in any conversation of the 2A is as many would say a "Strawman" argument. But to play along, NO, because 42 U.S. Code § 2122 makes that illegal. If nuclear weapons are ever issued as standard individual weapons to soldiers, then they will be covered by the 2A via the Militia Act. Until they are, nukes are not covered by the 2A. The constitution and current laws, clearly define what you can or can't have under the 2A. NFA laws exist as were voted to control Automatic weapons, SBR's, Silencers, Sawed off Shotguns etc. Until new laws are enacted that change this, it's pretty clear. I for one don't want new laws written to change my first amendment rights, lest we get to the point where the 2nd is needed to defend the first.
- zepto 6y ago
  Do you think the first amendment should provide for an individual to use a 10,000db loudhailer?
  - sbelskie 6y ago
    Asking the real questions.
tw04 6y ago
Fortunately you're wrong, and the Supreme Court already addressed this. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free to say anything you want at any time, and it never has. >As the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the government may forbid “incitement”—speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action” (such as a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building). But speech urging action at some unspecified future time may not be forbidden.
- Yc4win 6y ago
  Government cannot put restrictions on natural rights like freedom of speech, so it doesn't really matter what the supreme court may think. You are free to say what ever you feel like, and if anyone tells you differently say you use a foreign VPN! ;)
content_sesh 6y ago
Hate speech is not generally considered protected free speech. And since you're using American standards, it also does not fall under 1st Amendment protections. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't kill people, people trampling other people kills people. That seems about the sum total of the argument you just made
- bitcurious 6y ago
  Hate speech is in fact protected speech, with narrow exceptions. > The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[2][3]:702 Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. > The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  I don't think that's a fair assessment of their comment. There are clear guidelines and interpretations of the 1st and 2nd amendment. The context I believe they tried to share is that if we go beyond what we have established as free speech (to include your comments)_then we start our way down a slippery slope. Small changes will have big impacts. The same is said for control measures around the 2A. I don't see op's comment as anything beyond that.
wahern 6y ago
> 1st amendment advocates are soon going to be put in the same position as 2nd amendment advocates to retain any semblance of freedom. You mean living in the country with the broadest, most unrestricted recognition of such a right in the entire world? And suffering from a persecution complex, nurtured by a steady diet of historical revisionism, concurrently with a creeping expansion of those rights? I'm pretty sure we're already there.
- imgabe 6y ago
  Are you arguing that "most X in the world" is equivalent to "the optimal amount of X"? Just because something is worse somewhere else doesn't mean that it can't be improved.
  - wahern 6y ago
    > Are you arguing that "most X in the world" is equivalent to "the optimal amount of X"? No. > Just because something is worse somewhere else doesn't mean that it can't be improved. I agree. I'm just not sure what needs to be improved, or why. The discourse around free speech has become, for lack of a better word, incoherent. The only thing I have a substantial degree of certainty about is that most people, including an unfortunately large number of supposed legal scholars, have a very ahistorical notion of (or at least unjustified certitude about) what the term has meant politically and legally and the significance it was given relative to other rights.[1] And while history shouldn't dictate our decisions, its unfolding is often a good reference for understanding the interplay of various ideas. The loss of that reference is the loss of an anchor that could help keep the discourse grounded and constructive. Instead "free speech" has become a vehicle into which we shove a diverse array of beliefs and aspirations, which by dint of our fetishization of the Bill of Rights then become unquestionable and even sacred. [1] For a hint at what might have been on the minds of the drafters we could look at, for example, Chapter VI, The Right to Freedom of Discussion in A.V. Dicey's famous Introduction to the Study of The Law of the [British] Constitution. I don't mean to suggest that British law was the same in the late 19th century as in 18th century America (or 18th century Britain, for that matter), but Dicey's take on the issue as well as his distinctions between British and French law suggest that American developments (most quite late, occurring in the mid 20th century), such as giving political speech and journalists special protections from, e.g., libel law, or eliding the distinctions between commercial and individual speech, might partially conflict with both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment as originally conceived. I could provide many other examples that contradict the history of free speech in the U.S. as we commonly assume it. None of which to say I think our modern conception is inherently bad; only that it is, indeed, modern, and in many respects can be traced in a direct line back to--or through--Louis Brandeis (i.e. market place of ideas, truth will conquer lies in a Darwinian struggle). So cries about the sky falling seem misplaced.
cloverich 6y ago
... but if Facebook were _preferentially_ putting machetes in the hands of people most likely to use them for nefarious purposes?
Balgair 6y ago
Ethiopia does not have amendments to it's constitution. It is a young democracy, the constitution only being signed in 1995. Freedom of speech is enshrined in law, but practically it ranks 101 / 179 in press freedom. Private gun ownership is not protected by law and licensing is required generally for firearms related issues. Guns are not popular in Ethiopia; ownership rates are ~4/1000 people and it ranks as 174 / 178 in gun ownership. I agree there are parallels to US based issues, but this article is about Ethiopia and the struggles of the people living is a dynamic young system. In fact, the article is a very good look into a country that is estimated to have ~300M people by the end of the century.
jariel 6y ago
This is really quite provably wrong, and an extremely dangerous position to take. The 'pen' amplified by the media - is much, much, mightier than the sword. It is mass/social media that creates waves of outrage that compound unto themselves, without this, general uprisings are really quite hard to fathom. This is exactly what happened in the Rwandan Genocide. In Rwanda it was 'radio jockeys' on a daily basis would spew really crazy hate speech all day, every day: "The Tutsi/Hutus are like cockroaches, one day, we will exterminate all of them! They are vile creatures, from hell, they rape our children, the rape our women, soon we will rise up!" And then it gets worse, and worse until one day "The time is now, come out of your homes, rise up and kill them!" Now imagine people coming out of their homes, with machetes, hacking up their neighbours with knifes. It's uglier than a zombie film. Pregnant women hacked to bits, on the side of the road. Roving gangs of people, literally blood in their hands, burning down buildings with people inside them. Breaking into catholic girls schools, grabbing the girls, raping them, then hacking them up. Unthinkable stuff. The Rwandan genocide was not 'Force A' (pro this) and 'Force B' (pro that) fighting one another, it was more or less widespread ethnic warfare - a lot of regular people on the streets coming out to fight one another. When General Dallaire (Cdn. General overseeing the tiny UN mission) tried to take action - it was to go the radio station to try to get them to appeal for calm, because that was the primary means of mass communication. It's really, really easy to ferment 'hate' in the populist sense of the word. It's one thing to talk about 'hate speech' in the sense of 'some guy said something terrible about another' - that's more or less an intellectual concept. But when it starts to be organized and compounded, it becomes a serious problem very quickly. Nobody cares about the redneck next door - but when people start forming mini-local movements ("Kill all the Cops", "Kill the Negros", "Kill the White People") then it will get out of hand, fast. I have seen on TikTok in the last few days, some really scary stuff: A young Black man referring to some kind of African 'God' that will come and wipe out all the 'pale skins' and the 'sun will wither their white skin away'. Literally calling for genocide. And a young white guy with sunglasses, just staring at the camera with a note: "Hey, what if we didn't have any Black People in America. Just sayin' ..." Which is directly more or less a controversial, rhetorical question, but it has some pretty heavy/scary overtones. This stuff can get out of hand very fast. Finally note that the press - including CNN/Fox/MSNBC etc. have drastically toned down their coverage of protests. There are protests all over the nation right now - if you turn on TikTok it's crazy - there is a lot going on. The press realizes their 'complicity' in that covering such activities gives rise to the notion in other people and I believe have 'turned it down' on purpose on some level. Certainly the 'pro Biden' press is very wary because they realize images of violence hurt him. Consider the 'Tea Party Movement'. It was a relatively small movement, but when Fox decided to 'go all in' on it, it got very big, very fast. When a small movement is thrust into the homes of millions of people, led and supported by 'respected advocates' then such things can grow quickly. Without national coverage, it's very difficult for movements to get big - which is of course one of the central sources of problematic editorial bias for cable news: they 'decided' what is going to be 'national news' by virtue of where they point the lens. This is why propaganda works, and it's how you can get millions of ostensibly civilized people to put millions of other civilized people into gas chambers. We can be smart as individuals, but mostly petty plebes when in groups and we are easily manipulated especially with anger. Organized hate speech is different than 'individuals expressing their angry opinions'.

by imgabe 6y ago

bfieidhbrjr 6y ago

Normally I'd agree but there's something weird about social media that brings out the worst in people. It's kind of automatically polarizing and divisive.

mr_toad 6y ago
Part of the problem is the exclusive nature of the social graphs. Suddenly the world is full of cliques, cabals and clandestine societies.
ganoushoreilly 6y ago
I think the factor Social media misses is the get popped in the mouth factor. People have always spewed trash, though they dealt with the responses of others "popping them in the mouth". Social media / the internet as a whole, allows you to say and do things without any real fear of repercussion in the real world. That definitely doesn't help. Compound that by the ease of which we all can fall into an echo chamber, only hearing the ideals we seek out, and it's risky for sure. The dopamine fix of winning in arguments or commentary through the various gamification definitely feed an unhealthy addiction.
MikusR 6y ago
It's the same thing that turns protesters into looters and rioters.

bashinator 6y ago

Do you think the second amendment should provide for an individual right to own nuclear arms?

tick_tock_tick 6y ago
Only for yields below 100 kilotons.
- ganoushoreilly 6y ago
  Pocket nukes
- jojobas 6y ago
  So, no assault nukes?
  - ganoushoreilly 6y ago
    Semi-automatic Ar-14 Assault Nukes with 30 round clip magazines. You'll need a $200 NFA tax stamp.
ganoushoreilly 6y ago
The jump to nuclear weapons immediately in any conversation of the 2A is as many would say a "Strawman" argument. But to play along, NO, because 42 U.S. Code § 2122 makes that illegal. If nuclear weapons are ever issued as standard individual weapons to soldiers, then they will be covered by the 2A via the Militia Act. Until they are, nukes are not covered by the 2A. The constitution and current laws, clearly define what you can or can't have under the 2A. NFA laws exist as were voted to control Automatic weapons, SBR's, Silencers, Sawed off Shotguns etc. Until new laws are enacted that change this, it's pretty clear. I for one don't want new laws written to change my first amendment rights, lest we get to the point where the 2nd is needed to defend the first.
zepto 6y ago
Do you think the first amendment should provide for an individual to use a 10,000db loudhailer?
- sbelskie 6y ago
  Asking the real questions.

tw04 6y ago

Fortunately you're wrong, and the Supreme Court already addressed this. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're free to say anything you want at any time, and it never has. >As the Supreme Court held in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the government may forbid “incitement”—speech “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and “likely to incite or produce such action” (such as a speech to a mob urging it to attack a nearby building). But speech urging action at some unspecified future time may not be forbidden.

Yc4win 6y ago
Government cannot put restrictions on natural rights like freedom of speech, so it doesn't really matter what the supreme court may think. You are free to say what ever you feel like, and if anyone tells you differently say you use a foreign VPN! ;)

content_sesh 6y ago

Hate speech is not generally considered protected free speech. And since you're using American standards, it also does not fall under 1st Amendment protections. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't kill people, people trampling other people kills people. That seems about the sum total of the argument you just made

bitcurious 6y ago
Hate speech is in fact protected speech, with narrow exceptions. > The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."[2][3]:702 Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. > The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
ganoushoreilly 6y ago
I don't think that's a fair assessment of their comment. There are clear guidelines and interpretations of the 1st and 2nd amendment. The context I believe they tried to share is that if we go beyond what we have established as free speech (to include your comments)_then we start our way down a slippery slope. Small changes will have big impacts. The same is said for control measures around the 2A. I don't see op's comment as anything beyond that.

wahern 6y ago

> 1st amendment advocates are soon going to be put in the same position as 2nd amendment advocates to retain any semblance of freedom. You mean living in the country with the broadest, most unrestricted recognition of such a right in the entire world? And suffering from a persecution complex, nurtured by a steady diet of historical revisionism, concurrently with a creeping expansion of those rights? I'm pretty sure we're already there.

imgabe 6y ago
Are you arguing that "most X in the world" is equivalent to "the optimal amount of X"? Just because something is worse somewhere else doesn't mean that it can't be improved.
- wahern 6y ago
  > Are you arguing that "most X in the world" is equivalent to "the optimal amount of X"? No. > Just because something is worse somewhere else doesn't mean that it can't be improved. I agree. I'm just not sure what needs to be improved, or why. The discourse around free speech has become, for lack of a better word, incoherent. The only thing I have a substantial degree of certainty about is that most people, including an unfortunately large number of supposed legal scholars, have a very ahistorical notion of (or at least unjustified certitude about) what the term has meant politically and legally and the significance it was given relative to other rights.[1] And while history shouldn't dictate our decisions, its unfolding is often a good reference for understanding the interplay of various ideas. The loss of that reference is the loss of an anchor that could help keep the discourse grounded and constructive. Instead "free speech" has become a vehicle into which we shove a diverse array of beliefs and aspirations, which by dint of our fetishization of the Bill of Rights then become unquestionable and even sacred. [1] For a hint at what might have been on the minds of the drafters we could look at, for example, Chapter VI, The Right to Freedom of Discussion in A.V. Dicey's famous Introduction to the Study of The Law of the [British] Constitution. I don't mean to suggest that British law was the same in the late 19th century as in 18th century America (or 18th century Britain, for that matter), but Dicey's take on the issue as well as his distinctions between British and French law suggest that American developments (most quite late, occurring in the mid 20th century), such as giving political speech and journalists special protections from, e.g., libel law, or eliding the distinctions between commercial and individual speech, might partially conflict with both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment as originally conceived. I could provide many other examples that contradict the history of free speech in the U.S. as we commonly assume it. None of which to say I think our modern conception is inherently bad; only that it is, indeed, modern, and in many respects can be traced in a direct line back to--or through--Louis Brandeis (i.e. market place of ideas, truth will conquer lies in a Darwinian struggle). So cries about the sky falling seem misplaced.

cloverich 6y ago

... but if Facebook were _preferentially_ putting machetes in the hands of people most likely to use them for nefarious purposes?

Balgair 6y ago

Ethiopia does not have amendments to it's constitution. It is a young democracy, the constitution only being signed in 1995. Freedom of speech is enshrined in law, but practically it ranks 101 / 179 in press freedom. Private gun ownership is not protected by law and licensing is required generally for firearms related issues. Guns are not popular in Ethiopia; ownership rates are ~4/1000 people and it ranks as 174 / 178 in gun ownership. I agree there are parallels to US based issues, but this article is about Ethiopia and the struggles of the people living is a dynamic young system. In fact, the article is a very good look into a country that is estimated to have ~300M people by the end of the century.

jariel 6y ago

This is really quite provably wrong, and an extremely dangerous position to take. The 'pen' amplified by the media - is much, much, mightier than the sword. It is mass/social media that creates waves of outrage that compound unto themselves, without this, general uprisings are really quite hard to fathom. This is exactly what happened in the Rwandan Genocide. In Rwanda it was 'radio jockeys' on a daily basis would spew really crazy hate speech all day, every day: "The Tutsi/Hutus are like cockroaches, one day, we will exterminate all of them! They are vile creatures, from hell, they rape our children, the rape our women, soon we will rise up!" And then it gets worse, and worse until one day "The time is now, come out of your homes, rise up and kill them!" Now imagine people coming out of their homes, with machetes, hacking up their neighbours with knifes. It's uglier than a zombie film. Pregnant women hacked to bits, on the side of the road. Roving gangs of people, literally blood in their hands, burning down buildings with people inside them. Breaking into catholic girls schools, grabbing the girls, raping them, then hacking them up. Unthinkable stuff. The Rwandan genocide was not 'Force A' (pro this) and 'Force B' (pro that) fighting one another, it was more or less widespread ethnic warfare - a lot of regular people on the streets coming out to fight one another. When General Dallaire (Cdn. General overseeing the tiny UN mission) tried to take action - it was to go the radio station to try to get them to appeal for calm, because that was the primary means of mass communication. It's really, really easy to ferment 'hate' in the populist sense of the word. It's one thing to talk about 'hate speech' in the sense of 'some guy said something terrible about another' - that's more or less an intellectual concept. But when it starts to be organized and compounded, it becomes a serious problem very quickly. Nobody cares about the redneck next door - but when people start forming mini-local movements ("Kill all the Cops", "Kill the Negros", "Kill the White People") then it will get out of hand, fast. I have seen on TikTok in the last few days, some really scary stuff: A young Black man referring to some kind of African 'God' that will come and wipe out all the 'pale skins' and the 'sun will wither their white skin away'. Literally calling for genocide. And a young white guy with sunglasses, just staring at the camera with a note: "Hey, what if we didn't have any Black People in America. Just sayin' ..." Which is directly more or less a controversial, rhetorical question, but it has some pretty heavy/scary overtones. This stuff can get out of hand very fast. Finally note that the press - including CNN/Fox/MSNBC etc. have drastically toned down their coverage of protests. There are protests all over the nation right now - if you turn on TikTok it's crazy - there is a lot going on. The press realizes their 'complicity' in that covering such activities gives rise to the notion in other people and I believe have 'turned it down' on purpose on some level. Certainly the 'pro Biden' press is very wary because they realize images of violence hurt him. Consider the 'Tea Party Movement'. It was a relatively small movement, but when Fox decided to 'go all in' on it, it got very big, very fast. When a small movement is thrust into the homes of millions of people, led and supported by 'respected advocates' then such things can grow quickly. Without national coverage, it's very difficult for movements to get big - which is of course one of the central sources of problematic editorial bias for cable news: they 'decided' what is going to be 'national news' by virtue of where they point the lens. This is why propaganda works, and it's how you can get millions of ostensibly civilized people to put millions of other civilized people into gas chambers. We can be smart as individuals, but mostly petty plebes when in groups and we are easily manipulated especially with anger. Organized hate speech is different than 'individuals expressing their angry opinions'.