4 ms·

> we must have some distinguishing fundamental characteristic I think our court system does a good job of defining this already. Our court system is extremely

by stale2002 5y ago

> we must have some distinguishing fundamental characteristic I think our court system does a good job of defining this already. Our court system is extremely conservative regarding the types of speech that it allows the government to punish people for. If you disagree, you are going to have to repeal the 1st amendment, I guess.

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
> I think our court system does a good job of defining this already. I'm not sure that it does. Short of "I know it when I see it" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it) what definitions of the essential characteristic of good speech vs bad speech do we actually have if not overtly causing harm? > If you disagree, you are going to have to repeal the 1st amendment, I guess. The 1st amendment wasn't suddenly repealed when we got consumer protection laws, so I don't think so.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > what definitions do we actually have? By definitions, I am simply referring to how courts have ruled in the past on this stuff. Which is to put very strict limits on what the government can do. > The 1st amendment wasn't suddenly repealed The courts have traditionally ruled pretty darn strictly on what the government is allowed to do. You should compared the supreme court precedents that we have in the US, to other countries, and you will see just how much more strict the US is, regarding what the government can ban. So yes, based on how strict courts have been in the past, if you want to redefine how speech laws work in the US, you are going to have an uphill battle.
  - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
    > Which is to put very strict limits on what the government can do. Based on what, though? What specific essential characteristics define the cases where it is deemed acceptable to restrict speech and how do the same exact criteria not also apply to many other scenarios as well? Restrictable speech either has a clear essential nature or it doesn't, so one of three things must be true: 1) No such essential characteristic exists, which means that our regulations are applied arbitrarily. 2) Some essential characteristic does exist, but we just look the other way sometimes, which similarly means that our regulations are applied arbitrarily. 3) Some essential characteristic does exist that is actually applied everywhere that somehow morally differentiates "fraud" from "deception with intent". I don't see truth in 1 or 3, so I think we must be doing 2.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > What specific criteria are used in the cases If you are actually looking for the answer to that question, there are a multitude of supreme court cases that you can read. Just go google supreme court, 1st amendment cases, and reach the actual primary sources. People teach whole classes on this stuff, and the specific reasonings that our courts give, for their strictness. It is a complicated, but we'll established topic, for which you could read many many books on. And if you truly are looking for the answer, as to the many nuances to that question, you need to read the actual court cases yourself. > Restrictable speech either has a clear essential nature or it doesn't, so one of three things must be true Unfortunately, speech laws are not a topic that you can learn in an afternoon. There are people who spend their entire lives studying it. And you are not going to come up with some clever insight to it, in an afternoon. Instead, you are going to have to actually do the work, and study the topic, for you to understand it fully.
      - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
        I'd had assumed that you would want to give an answer that clarifies your stated position instead of deflecting and sending me off to https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research. If one's position is "I think our court system does a good job of defining this already", one should be able to point to an established definition that doesn't also apply equally to many other antiregulated contexts. Otherwise what the court system is doing a good job of is not "defining". > Unfortunately, speech laws are not a topic that you can learn in an afternoon. Laws are numerous and capricious. I'm not asking about laws. I'm not even asking about history. I'm asking about any existing philosophical position that differentiates what we _should_ restrict from what we _should not_ restrict. If we start from the notion that capital-F Fraud is bad, which we must since we regulate it, surely we should be able to say why it is so and apply the same reason elsewhere.
        stale2002 5y ago
        Oh, the stated position is quite clear. The stated position is that you are going to be completely unable to understand, in an afternoon, the nuances of a topic, for which people spend their lives studying. Thus, if you actually care about the topic, you need to read the supreme court cases or the numerous literature on the topic. Otherwise, you are not going to be able to understand what the supreme court even does, or why they do it, when there is thousands of pages of reasoning, on this stuff. > surely we should be able to say why it is so and apply the same reason elsewhere And I am saying that such discussions require you to actually read the primary sources here, which is books and books, and court case after court case. Sorry, but complicated topics are not solved by people debating a paragraph here and there. Yes, you will actually have to take a class on this, or read books on this, to understand it. Sorry, that's just life. When you ask extremely general and expansive questions, about philosophy, such as "what is the difference between different speech", unfortunately these are topic for which there is lifetimes of work discussing it, and you are not going to be able to have a debate in a couple paragraphs on it.
watwut 5y ago
Critical theory is being outlawed in variety of contexts right now and it is legal.
- xupybd 5y ago
  I might be out of date but isn't this being removed from government funded schools? I don't think that is free speech related?
  - watwut 5y ago
    Well, people talk about censorship when teachers voluntary changes book list. And these laws are literally all about scaring schools and teachers from saying things that make some people a bit uncomfortable. So, yes, the way we use term free speech, it falls into that.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    If the Seuss estate pulling three books is censorship, then surely the government telling faculty what they cannot teach is censorship.
    - xupybd 5y ago
      I'm a big fan of free speech but have not thought about it in terms of schooling. Does this mean that the idea of a curriculum is at odds with free speech?
      - UncleMeat 5y ago
        It is complicated. I think it is right to fire a teacher who advocates for fascism in the classroom. I think it is wrong to fire a teacher who teaches systemic racism in the classroom. To me, the content does matter. But the point is that we only see the people who claim to promote free speech as a general rule showing up to defend roughly one side of the education process (conservative students) and largely being silent when faculty are attacked.

BugsJustFindMe 5y ago

> I think our court system does a good job of defining this already. I'm not sure that it does. Short of "I know it when I see it" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it) what definitions of the essential characteristic of good speech vs bad speech do we actually have if not overtly causing harm? > If you disagree, you are going to have to repeal the 1st amendment, I guess. The 1st amendment wasn't suddenly repealed when we got consumer protection laws, so I don't think so.

stale2002 5y ago
> what definitions do we actually have? By definitions, I am simply referring to how courts have ruled in the past on this stuff. Which is to put very strict limits on what the government can do. > The 1st amendment wasn't suddenly repealed The courts have traditionally ruled pretty darn strictly on what the government is allowed to do. You should compared the supreme court precedents that we have in the US, to other countries, and you will see just how much more strict the US is, regarding what the government can ban. So yes, based on how strict courts have been in the past, if you want to redefine how speech laws work in the US, you are going to have an uphill battle.
- BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
  > Which is to put very strict limits on what the government can do. Based on what, though? What specific essential characteristics define the cases where it is deemed acceptable to restrict speech and how do the same exact criteria not also apply to many other scenarios as well? Restrictable speech either has a clear essential nature or it doesn't, so one of three things must be true: 1) No such essential characteristic exists, which means that our regulations are applied arbitrarily. 2) Some essential characteristic does exist, but we just look the other way sometimes, which similarly means that our regulations are applied arbitrarily. 3) Some essential characteristic does exist that is actually applied everywhere that somehow morally differentiates "fraud" from "deception with intent". I don't see truth in 1 or 3, so I think we must be doing 2.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > What specific criteria are used in the cases If you are actually looking for the answer to that question, there are a multitude of supreme court cases that you can read. Just go google supreme court, 1st amendment cases, and reach the actual primary sources. People teach whole classes on this stuff, and the specific reasonings that our courts give, for their strictness. It is a complicated, but we'll established topic, for which you could read many many books on. And if you truly are looking for the answer, as to the many nuances to that question, you need to read the actual court cases yourself. > Restrictable speech either has a clear essential nature or it doesn't, so one of three things must be true Unfortunately, speech laws are not a topic that you can learn in an afternoon. There are people who spend their entire lives studying it. And you are not going to come up with some clever insight to it, in an afternoon. Instead, you are going to have to actually do the work, and study the topic, for you to understand it fully.
    - BugsJustFindMe 5y ago
      I'd had assumed that you would want to give an answer that clarifies your stated position instead of deflecting and sending me off to https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Do_your_own_research. If one's position is "I think our court system does a good job of defining this already", one should be able to point to an established definition that doesn't also apply equally to many other antiregulated contexts. Otherwise what the court system is doing a good job of is not "defining". > Unfortunately, speech laws are not a topic that you can learn in an afternoon. Laws are numerous and capricious. I'm not asking about laws. I'm not even asking about history. I'm asking about any existing philosophical position that differentiates what we _should_ restrict from what we _should not_ restrict. If we start from the notion that capital-F Fraud is bad, which we must since we regulate it, surely we should be able to say why it is so and apply the same reason elsewhere.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        Oh, the stated position is quite clear. The stated position is that you are going to be completely unable to understand, in an afternoon, the nuances of a topic, for which people spend their lives studying. Thus, if you actually care about the topic, you need to read the supreme court cases or the numerous literature on the topic. Otherwise, you are not going to be able to understand what the supreme court even does, or why they do it, when there is thousands of pages of reasoning, on this stuff. > surely we should be able to say why it is so and apply the same reason elsewhere And I am saying that such discussions require you to actually read the primary sources here, which is books and books, and court case after court case. Sorry, but complicated topics are not solved by people debating a paragraph here and there. Yes, you will actually have to take a class on this, or read books on this, to understand it. Sorry, that's just life. When you ask extremely general and expansive questions, about philosophy, such as "what is the difference between different speech", unfortunately these are topic for which there is lifetimes of work discussing it, and you are not going to be able to have a debate in a couple paragraphs on it.

watwut 5y ago

Critical theory is being outlawed in variety of contexts right now and it is legal.

xupybd 5y ago
I might be out of date but isn't this being removed from government funded schools? I don't think that is free speech related?
- watwut 5y ago
  Well, people talk about censorship when teachers voluntary changes book list. And these laws are literally all about scaring schools and teachers from saying things that make some people a bit uncomfortable. So, yes, the way we use term free speech, it falls into that.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  If the Seuss estate pulling three books is censorship, then surely the government telling faculty what they cannot teach is censorship.
  - xupybd 5y ago
    I'm a big fan of free speech but have not thought about it in terms of schooling. Does this mean that the idea of a curriculum is at odds with free speech?
    - UncleMeat 5y ago
      It is complicated. I think it is right to fire a teacher who advocates for fascism in the classroom. I think it is wrong to fire a teacher who teaches systemic racism in the classroom. To me, the content does matter. But the point is that we only see the people who claim to promote free speech as a general rule showing up to defend roughly one side of the education process (conservative students) and largely being silent when faculty are attacked.