5 ms·

> 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

> 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 ago
Consider 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 ago
  So 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 ago
    Sorry, 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?
- save_ferris 6y ago
  > According to U.S. law some kinds of child pornography are legal. Do you have any evidence of this? I'm not aware that this is true at all and I don't believe it to be the case. > Do you believe, therefore, that it is against the principles of freedom of speech that the NZ government has banned them. Yes or no? No, I believe that freedom of speech comes with limitations and preventing distribution of child porn is a perfectly good limitation to put in place on freedom of speech.
  - garbagetime 6y ago
    Paintings, sketches, cartoons, etc. of children and of a pornographic nature are legal at the federal level so long as they have artistic, cultural, or [something I've forgotten] merit. Or so I believe - not a lawyer. Anyway, to make the point in a more straightforward way: What ought and oughtn't be allowed expression according to the principles of freedom of speech is not a clear-cut thing. There are many different views on it, and to dismiss all those with views different from those who wrote US law is silly.
gpm 6y ago
> 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? I don't know if they're arguing that, but I will argue that. Whether or not it is protected speech is a question you approach before you decide whether or not it is illegal. For example, speech intended to cause someone to immediately assault you is not protected. It's not protected regardless of whether or not the government chooses to make it illegal, it can both not be protected speech, and still be legal. On the other hand arguing for a political position (with the goal of advancing the political position, not "arguing" a political position in an attempt to get someone to immediately punch you) is protected. It's protected regardless of whether or not congress passes a law forbidding it. > So straight up, do you believe that the government is infringing on people's rights by banning child porn, yes or no? This question misses the point, no, but I also wouldn't believe it was protected speech if the government had just not passed a law against it. Rather I would continue to believe that by virtue of it's lack of expressive nature and by virtue of how it harms people unable to consent that it is not protected speech.
- zaarn 6y ago
  What does protected speech mean and how does it differ from not being protected if it is different from laws making certain things illegal? And how is legal/illegal relevant to arguing in relation to protected/unprotected since it seems your arguments steers towards that being a philosophical definition.
  - gpm 6y ago
    Protected speech is the set of things you can do and say that are covered under freedom of speech from a philosophical standpoint. It is the set of things protected by 1a legally in the us (roughly, 1a also includes some non-speech rights). It is the set of things that you should not forbid as a legislature, and the set of things that courts will not enforce laws against even if you try to forbid them anyways. All those are slightly different definitions, but I wasn't being precise enough in my previous comment that the differences are important.
defterGoose 6y ago
Conversely, if laws have no meaning, what makes them think that the concept of free speech is protected by law? It's turtles all the way down.
- garbagetime 6y ago
  > Conversely, if laws have no meaning, what makes them think that the concept of free speech is protected by law? It's turtles all the way down. Nothing. There are some aspects where US law is pretty well aligned with the principles of freedom of speech, and others where it isn't aligned at all. For example: A significant percentage of speech is carried out on social media, where US law does not require free speech to be enforced - but, according to the principles of freedom of expression, free speech is very valuable.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Generally speaking the US Constitution restricts the actions of government, and not anybody else. E.g. you can preach with a megaphone whatever you want on the sidewalk; you can't do it in my living room without my consent. Also people tend to forget that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences; limiting consequences of speech, even if it were desirable, can start restricting others' freedom of expression and association. If Bob gets on a stump and starts spewing controversial hate speech his employer is perfectly free to not want to associate with that behavior and fire him.
roenxi 6y ago
> So straight up, do you believe that the government is infringing on people's rights by banning child porn, yes or no? As I recall it, people can and have been prosecuted for drawing and owning cartoons of child porn. That is a victimless crime - so yes it probably has gotten to the point where the government is infringing rights unreasonably. The government can walk in and created a loser in a situation where nobody was unhappy. It is the production of the porn that worries me rather than the possession. I'd be ok with the whole situation if everyone was sticking to one cache of obscene material produced 50 years ago and nobody new was being harmed. But more to the topic at hand, CP isn't a free speech issue. The crime is, by and large, possession of child porn and so the issue is one of privacy rather than speech. They may as well legalise distribution, if anyone were stupid enough to do it publicly it would make it easy for the police to find everyone involved and prosecute them.

garbagetime 6y ago

Consider 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 ago
So 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 ago
  Sorry, 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?

save_ferris 6y ago
> According to U.S. law some kinds of child pornography are legal. Do you have any evidence of this? I'm not aware that this is true at all and I don't believe it to be the case. > Do you believe, therefore, that it is against the principles of freedom of speech that the NZ government has banned them. Yes or no? No, I believe that freedom of speech comes with limitations and preventing distribution of child porn is a perfectly good limitation to put in place on freedom of speech.
- garbagetime 6y ago
  Paintings, sketches, cartoons, etc. of children and of a pornographic nature are legal at the federal level so long as they have artistic, cultural, or [something I've forgotten] merit. Or so I believe - not a lawyer. Anyway, to make the point in a more straightforward way: What ought and oughtn't be allowed expression according to the principles of freedom of speech is not a clear-cut thing. There are many different views on it, and to dismiss all those with views different from those who wrote US law is silly.

gpm 6y ago

> 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? I don't know if they're arguing that, but I will argue that. Whether or not it is protected speech is a question you approach before you decide whether or not it is illegal. For example, speech intended to cause someone to immediately assault you is not protected. It's not protected regardless of whether or not the government chooses to make it illegal, it can both not be protected speech, and still be legal. On the other hand arguing for a political position (with the goal of advancing the political position, not "arguing" a political position in an attempt to get someone to immediately punch you) is protected. It's protected regardless of whether or not congress passes a law forbidding it. > So straight up, do you believe that the government is infringing on people's rights by banning child porn, yes or no? This question misses the point, no, but I also wouldn't believe it was protected speech if the government had just not passed a law against it. Rather I would continue to believe that by virtue of it's lack of expressive nature and by virtue of how it harms people unable to consent that it is not protected speech.

zaarn 6y ago
What does protected speech mean and how does it differ from not being protected if it is different from laws making certain things illegal? And how is legal/illegal relevant to arguing in relation to protected/unprotected since it seems your arguments steers towards that being a philosophical definition.
- gpm 6y ago
  Protected speech is the set of things you can do and say that are covered under freedom of speech from a philosophical standpoint. It is the set of things protected by 1a legally in the us (roughly, 1a also includes some non-speech rights). It is the set of things that you should not forbid as a legislature, and the set of things that courts will not enforce laws against even if you try to forbid them anyways. All those are slightly different definitions, but I wasn't being precise enough in my previous comment that the differences are important.

defterGoose 6y ago

Conversely, if laws have no meaning, what makes them think that the concept of free speech is protected by law? It's turtles all the way down.

garbagetime 6y ago
> Conversely, if laws have no meaning, what makes them think that the concept of free speech is protected by law? It's turtles all the way down. Nothing. There are some aspects where US law is pretty well aligned with the principles of freedom of speech, and others where it isn't aligned at all. For example: A significant percentage of speech is carried out on social media, where US law does not require free speech to be enforced - but, according to the principles of freedom of expression, free speech is very valuable.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Generally speaking the US Constitution restricts the actions of government, and not anybody else. E.g. you can preach with a megaphone whatever you want on the sidewalk; you can't do it in my living room without my consent. Also people tend to forget that freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences; limiting consequences of speech, even if it were desirable, can start restricting others' freedom of expression and association. If Bob gets on a stump and starts spewing controversial hate speech his employer is perfectly free to not want to associate with that behavior and fire him.

roenxi 6y ago

> So straight up, do you believe that the government is infringing on people's rights by banning child porn, yes or no? As I recall it, people can and have been prosecuted for drawing and owning cartoons of child porn. That is a victimless crime - so yes it probably has gotten to the point where the government is infringing rights unreasonably. The government can walk in and created a loser in a situation where nobody was unhappy. It is the production of the porn that worries me rather than the possession. I'd be ok with the whole situation if everyone was sticking to one cache of obscene material produced 50 years ago and nobody new was being harmed. But more to the topic at hand, CP isn't a free speech issue. The crime is, by and large, possession of child porn and so the issue is one of privacy rather than speech. They may as well legalise distribution, if anyone were stupid enough to do it publicly it would make it easy for the police to find everyone involved and prosecute them.