2 ms·

> 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 y

by 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.
shkkmo 5y ago
> Just go google supreme court, 1st amendment cases, and reach the actual primary sources. Such as the case that gave rose to the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" idiom The reason why it takes a lifetime of study to understand what sorts of speech are actually protected is because the Supreme Court has had some very inconsitent decisions (such as the one I mention above) that require tortured reasoning to align with the first amendment and other case law. Id there are indeed some clear criteria, you should be able provide a reasonable summary of them; it should not require a lifetime of study. If the average american can't be said to understand what their free speech rights are...can you really say that they have thoae rights in prqctice?
- stale2002 5y ago
  > can you really say that they have those rights in practice? Yes, because the court system has traditionally been extremely strict, most of the time, in defending free speech, compared to other countries. So yes, I can confidently say that the court system has defended free speech in the US, much more than in other countries, most of the time. > If the average american can't be said to understand Courts protecting a right that someone doesn't understand is still better than the courts not protecting it. Sometimes our rights only matter to us when we really need them, and it is still better that they are protected in those cases.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    So the court only strictly protects those rights "most of the time" and that creates a complex legal situation that requires a lifetime of study...how then can the average citizen know what they are allowed to say and trust that when they actually really need those protections that they won't end up as one of the other times where the court values government control over freedom of speech. We'll see if the Supreme Court has anything to say when the US finally get Assange extradited and puts him on trial for his speech. I don't have a lot of confidence he'll get any protections.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

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.

shkkmo 5y ago

> Just go google supreme court, 1st amendment cases, and reach the actual primary sources. Such as the case that gave rose to the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" idiom The reason why it takes a lifetime of study to understand what sorts of speech are actually protected is because the Supreme Court has had some very inconsitent decisions (such as the one I mention above) that require tortured reasoning to align with the first amendment and other case law. Id there are indeed some clear criteria, you should be able provide a reasonable summary of them; it should not require a lifetime of study. If the average american can't be said to understand what their free speech rights are...can you really say that they have thoae rights in prqctice?

stale2002 5y ago
> can you really say that they have those rights in practice? Yes, because the court system has traditionally been extremely strict, most of the time, in defending free speech, compared to other countries. So yes, I can confidently say that the court system has defended free speech in the US, much more than in other countries, most of the time. > If the average american can't be said to understand Courts protecting a right that someone doesn't understand is still better than the courts not protecting it. Sometimes our rights only matter to us when we really need them, and it is still better that they are protected in those cases.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  So the court only strictly protects those rights "most of the time" and that creates a complex legal situation that requires a lifetime of study...how then can the average citizen know what they are allowed to say and trust that when they actually really need those protections that they won't end up as one of the other times where the court values government control over freedom of speech. We'll see if the Supreme Court has anything to say when the US finally get Assange extradited and puts him on trial for his speech. I don't have a lot of confidence he'll get any protections.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]