7 ms·
Free speech has never meant that citizens get carte blanche abilities to say absolutely anything they want, and there are pretty darn good reasons why it's ille
by save_ferris 6y ago
Free speech has never meant that citizens get carte blanche abilities to say absolutely anything they want, and there are pretty darn good reasons why it's illegal to impersonate an officer.
Free speech laws don't cover the distribution of child porn, for example. Are you saying that the government shouldn't restrict the distribution of child porn because it infringes on free speech?
- NoPicklez 6y agoI don't see any responses to your comment, I wonder why! Perhaps you made sense.
- garbagetime 6y agoActually, perse[1] didn't make much sense. Perse missed the point. The point is that whether some speech is prosecutable under US law is not a deciding factor of whether it should be protected under the principles of freedom of expression. [1]https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html https://stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html
- bobthepanda 6y agoWhat rules of freedom of expression actually cover false impersonation?
- garbagetime 6y agoI'm not sure why you ask. But one example would be as follows: -RULES OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION- 1. Any person may say anything
- bobthepanda 6y agoYeah I don't think any reasonable person believes this is the absolute inviolable sacrosanct ideal, nor is this actually a legal standard anywhere. Spouting falsehoods under a false pretense as an authority shouldn't be protected. Otherwise what's stopping society from drowning in a he-said she-said of conspiracy noise?
- garbagetime 6y agoA reasonable person might reason as follows: 1. If the government is to restrict speech, then it must be granted the power to restrict speech 2. If the government is granted the power to restrict speech, then it may misuse this power in its own perceived interests 3. If the government misuses its power in this way then democracy will be threatened 4. Democracy is good Conclusion: the government should not be allowed to restrict speech
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoThat means blackmail, threats of violence, divulging state secrects, forging documents, fake passports, and terrorist propaganda should all be allowed.
- garbagetime 6y agoAgreed.
- save_ferris 6y ago> The point is that whether some speech is prosecutable under US law is not a deciding factor of whether it should be protected under the principles of freedom of expression. You're arguing that whether a particular form of speech is illegal or not should have no weight on deciding whether or not to protect that form of speech? Are you really arguing that laws don't matter here? So straight up, do you believe that the government is infringing on people's rights by banning child porn, yes or no?
- garbagetime 6y agoConsider two things: A. The kinds of expression protected under U.S. law B. The kinds of expression which should be protected according to the principles of freedom of speech The point is that, because A and B are separate things, the fact that impersonating an FBI officer is not protected under US law[1] does not entail that impersonating an FBI officer should not be protected according to the principles of freedom of speech. [1]which may or may not be the case, I'm not a lawyer nor an American
- save_ferris 6y agoSo what exactly are the "principles of freedom of speech" you describe here, and how do they take precedence over the law? Is it just your interpretation of the concept of freedom of speech? It's one thing to argue that a particular law isn't kosher, but you're differentiating on this nebulous term that in no way supersedes the actual law here.
- garbagetime 6y agoSorry, could explain more simply what it is that you are asking?
- garbagetime 6y ago>So straight up, do you believe that the government is infringing on people's rights by banning child porn, yes or no? According to U.S. law some kinds of child pornography are legal. Do you believe, therefore, that it is against the principles of freedom of speech that the NZ government has banned them. Yes or no?
- encom 6y agoCP isn't a free speech issue. It's a child abuse issue. Even a hypothetical no-holds-barred free speech extremist situation, CP would still be illegal.
- save_ferris 6y agoProponents of child porn argue that it should be protected speech, just as distribution of legal porn is often argued on free speech grounds. I completely agree that it child porn exposes children to abuse and should be illegal, but it’s important to note how proponents of that medium argue for its legitimacy.
- mason240 6y agoThere is a coinvent sidestep to this issue. Distributing sexual images of someone without their consent is a clear crime against that person. Children can not consent.
- UncleMeat 6y ago> Even a hypothetical no-holds-barred free speech extremist situation, CP would still be illegal. This is what they always say. All of the exceptions get some reason why they don't count as free speech. Why can't this argument be used on both sides?
- stOneskull 6y agoblah blah blah