3 ms·

People need to stop hiding behind the first amendment and "but censorship" as a way of allowing democracy-threatening activity. Speech has ALWAYS had limitatio

People need to stop hiding behind the first amendment and "but censorship" as a way of allowing democracy-threatening activity. Speech has ALWAYS had limitations. You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre. You cannot publish falsehoods that harm a person's reputation. You cannot reveal classified information. You cannot imitate a police officer. Why is "you cannot incite violent terrorism" suddenly controversial? Particularly when these are private corporations making the decisions, who are not duty-bound to enable free spech in the first place?

riversflow 6y ago
>democracy-threatening activity. Yes, like handing the keys to public discourse over to a private corporation and then defending their right to censor it as they please. >You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre. Actually, you can. This is protected by Brandenberg as I understand it. >You cannot publish falsehoods that harm a person's reputation. Sure, thats defamation. I agree that should be illegal. >You cannot reveal classified information. You can also sign an NDA! >Why is "you cannot incite violent terrorism" suddenly controversial? Because without the freedom to "incite violent terrorism" we are essentially captive to the whims of the government. To quote Thomas Jefferson. "What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."[1] The whole letter I take this quote from is worth a read. [1]https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tree-liberty-quotation https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tre... edit: formatting
- rovolo 6y ago
  >>You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre. >Actually, you can. This is protected by Brandenberg as I understand it. Brandenberg says that the government can't restrict inflammatory speech unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". The case specifies three requirements for punishing speech: 'intent', 'immenent lawless action', and 'likely to incite'. Shouting 'fire' is discussed in the opinion as potentially prosecutable: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ > The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts. > The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. > This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 357 U. S. 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience. P.S. the theater company can ban you for being a nuisance even if it's not illegal.
- drtillberg 6y ago
  Riversflow, the reference to the replenishment of the "tree of liberty" is unhelpful. It's cliche and generates far more heat than light. The real reason it can be dangerous to ban speech connected with "terrorism" is the quoted term is so poorly defined as to potentially be almost anything abrasive and unpopular. I haven't seen any cohesive explanation of how the occupation of the Capitol January 6 was terroristic in nature, and yet the event broadly is being criticized as such, exemplifying why high-stakes laws against ill-defined things could have a chilling effect far broader than just those things we all agree should not occur. Is the line when protesters are unlawfully in a location? Like the middle of a street? When they advocate for things that are not currently lawful, e.g., changes in law? When they are agitated, animated and frighten their neighbors?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> You cannot yell “fire” in a movie theatre. That’s the standard illustration of the Schenk (which suppressed what is widely now recognized as core political speech) “clear and present danger” test, which probably comes to a different result under the Brandenberg “incites imminent lawless action” test which replaced it
doubleunplussed 6y ago
They're not 'hiding behind it'. They believe that suppressing speech makes extremism worse in the long run. Speech has limitations, but banning an entire social media network at the decision of tech oligarchs instead of the actual legal limits on speech is a precedent many see as escalation of the conflict. I do. This is a giant mistake that will breed resentment and do nothing but confirm to Trumpists that there is, in fact, a conspiracy against them.
- indemnity 6y ago
  Why must we provide them a platform to spew their hate of anyone who is not a white conservative? If they want such a platform, they can go build their own parallel economy and technology infrastructure. Good luck to them.
  - swordsmith 6y ago
    > spew their hate of anyone who is not a white conservative? This is extremely biased and ignorant. For one, there are plenty of non-white non-conservatives on the platform. Your statement here reveals much about your biases. You are basically removing platform of communication is ok for people that hold opinions other than the mainstream politically-correct ones. This is exactly the sort of things authoritarian government such as China do.
    - nwmcsween 6y ago
      The irony that the conservative movement wants less regulation and government yet cries foul when the vendors they use aren't regulated
  - doubleunplussed 6y ago
    They're going to do exactly that and you're not going to like it.
ButtSpark69 6y ago
>Why is "you cannot incite violent terrorism" suddenly controversial? When it takes pages to describe why something is inciting violence, and the result is huge numbers of people arguing it both was and wasn't inciting violence - including very, very intelligent people on both sides - then maybe it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Or is everyone who disagrees with you either disingenuous or stupid?

riversflow 6y ago

>democracy-threatening activity. Yes, like handing the keys to public discourse over to a private corporation and then defending their right to censor it as they please. >You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre. Actually, you can. This is protected by Brandenberg as I understand it. >You cannot publish falsehoods that harm a person's reputation. Sure, thats defamation. I agree that should be illegal. >You cannot reveal classified information. You can also sign an NDA! >Why is "you cannot incite violent terrorism" suddenly controversial? Because without the freedom to "incite violent terrorism" we are essentially captive to the whims of the government. To quote Thomas Jefferson. "What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."[1] The whole letter I take this quote from is worth a read. [1]https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tree-liberty-quotation https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tre... edit: formatting

rovolo 6y ago
>>You cannot yell "fire" in a movie theatre. >Actually, you can. This is protected by Brandenberg as I understand it. Brandenberg says that the government can't restrict inflammatory speech unless it's "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". The case specifies three requirements for punishing speech: 'intent', 'immenent lawless action', and 'likely to incite'. Shouting 'fire' is discussed in the opinion as potentially prosecutable: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ > The line between what is permissible and not subject to control and what may be made impermissible and subject to regulation is the line between ideas and overt acts. > The example usually given by those who would punish speech is the case of one who falsely shouts fire in a crowded theatre. > This is, however, a classic case where speech is brigaded with action. See Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 357 U. S. 536-537 (DOUGLAS, J., concurring). They are indeed inseparable, and a prosecution can be launched for the overt acts actually caused. Apart from rare instances of that kind, speech is, I think, immune from prosecution. Certainly there is no constitutional line between advocacy of abstract ideas, as in Yates, and advocacy of political action, as in Scales. The quality of advocacy turns on the depth of the conviction, and government has no power to invade that sanctuary of belief and conscience. P.S. the theater company can ban you for being a nuisance even if it's not illegal.
drtillberg 6y ago
Riversflow, the reference to the replenishment of the "tree of liberty" is unhelpful. It's cliche and generates far more heat than light. The real reason it can be dangerous to ban speech connected with "terrorism" is the quoted term is so poorly defined as to potentially be almost anything abrasive and unpopular. I haven't seen any cohesive explanation of how the occupation of the Capitol January 6 was terroristic in nature, and yet the event broadly is being criticized as such, exemplifying why high-stakes laws against ill-defined things could have a chilling effect far broader than just those things we all agree should not occur. Is the line when protesters are unlawfully in a location? Like the middle of a street? When they advocate for things that are not currently lawful, e.g., changes in law? When they are agitated, animated and frighten their neighbors?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> You cannot yell “fire” in a movie theatre. That’s the standard illustration of the Schenk (which suppressed what is widely now recognized as core political speech) “clear and present danger” test, which probably comes to a different result under the Brandenberg “incites imminent lawless action” test which replaced it

doubleunplussed 6y ago

They're not 'hiding behind it'. They believe that suppressing speech makes extremism worse in the long run. Speech has limitations, but banning an entire social media network at the decision of tech oligarchs instead of the actual legal limits on speech is a precedent many see as escalation of the conflict. I do. This is a giant mistake that will breed resentment and do nothing but confirm to Trumpists that there is, in fact, a conspiracy against them.

indemnity 6y ago
Why must we provide them a platform to spew their hate of anyone who is not a white conservative? If they want such a platform, they can go build their own parallel economy and technology infrastructure. Good luck to them.
- swordsmith 6y ago
  > spew their hate of anyone who is not a white conservative? This is extremely biased and ignorant. For one, there are plenty of non-white non-conservatives on the platform. Your statement here reveals much about your biases. You are basically removing platform of communication is ok for people that hold opinions other than the mainstream politically-correct ones. This is exactly the sort of things authoritarian government such as China do.
  - nwmcsween 6y ago
    The irony that the conservative movement wants less regulation and government yet cries foul when the vendors they use aren't regulated
- doubleunplussed 6y ago
  They're going to do exactly that and you're not going to like it.

ButtSpark69 6y ago

>Why is "you cannot incite violent terrorism" suddenly controversial? When it takes pages to describe why something is inciting violence, and the result is huge numbers of people arguing it both was and wasn't inciting violence - including very, very intelligent people on both sides - then maybe it's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be. Or is everyone who disagrees with you either disingenuous or stupid?