5 ms·
What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? What say aclu?
by mc32 5y ago
What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? What say aclu?
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> What consequences should there be for exercising the right to free speech? None. For organizing a violent insurrection? Several.
- gruez 5y agoSites were being deplatformed before the "violent insurrection" though.
- mc32 5y agoIf there were people who organized a violent movement to overthrow the government, they should be prosecuted. Just like organizers who organized the burning of police stations should be investigated and prosecuted. However, I don't think we should prosecute people for having attended an event that got co-opted and where they had no intent on participating in an insurrection or burning police stations.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> I don't think we should prosecute people for having attended an event that got co-opted and where they had no intent on participating in an insurrection or burning police stations Totally agreed. Notably, nobody has suggested this. And nobody has, at least so far, been prosecuted for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
- CrazyPyroLinux 5y ago"wrong place" meaning "inside the capitol at all" but certainly non-violent: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2021/06/23/capitol-riot-sees-1st-sentence-given-indianas-anna-morgan-lloyd/5309991001/ https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2021/06/23/capitol...
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago“Wrong place” in my comment meant you were at the rally and went along with it. At the point you’re storming a federal building, you should know you’re breaking all manner of laws.
- slumdev 5y agoHow can you storm a building when the police are holding the door open for you and ushering you in?
- krapp 5y agoLike so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukU_aTzmF3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukU_aTzmF3M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1pIkbPvI8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1pIkbPvI8s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2npCYNnV18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2npCYNnV18
- slumdev 5y agoAnd you would use the actions of a few agents provocateurs to smear the rest of the peaceful protestors who were let in by police? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiF4EIReuY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiF4EIReuY4
- krapp 5y agoYour implication that they were "agents provocateurs to smear the rest of the peaceful protestors" is lacking evidence, where there is plenty of evidence, both in testimony and captured communications from various groups of protestors intent on committing violence and mayhem, to the contrary. At best, those "peaceful" protestors (who somehow in their naive purity managed not to be able to read the vibe of a crowd that erected a noose and gallows outside the White House, or notice the rioting, broken doors and tear gas) are still at least guilty of trespassing, and some of vandalism.
- kyuudou 5y agoWhat if the FBI had a large part in organizing such a movement? Should they be prosecuted too?
- mc32 5y agoYou know, the FBI has a long history of provocation. Yes, they should be prosecuted. Often times they enlist people who are very malleable and little education or have mental issues. I think it's a shame this happens and I wish we had an administration with the guts to put an end to this kind of entrapment.
- tomp 5y agoIt's similar to college rape accusations. If the accusation is true, then it's a crime and the punishment should be much more severe. If the accusation is false, then it's a non-issue (and clearly not a crime), and there should be no punishment. Big tech and universities do not have the skills, experience, resources or obligation to resolve the question of guilt clearly and fairly. Let's leave that to the courts.
- hellcow 5y agoIs this a serious comment? Of course there's consequences for your speech. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence. If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech. Freedom of speech means you won't be arrested for it, not that everyone needs to listen.
- gruez 5y ago>If you're an outspoken Nazi, you have the right to your speech, but I have the right to not interact with you, and companies have the right not to serve you. Those are consequences of your speech. So you'd be fine if amazon refused to serve you because you're a pro-union sympathizer, right?
- mc32 5y agoOh, no! No, that's different. That... that... Just do as I say, and we'll all be okay, I know the right path, follow me to perdition.
- mc32 5y agoThis is getting very Stalin-esque. Sure, you have many rights in the constitution, but if you actually exercise them then you suffer unwritten consequences. The Soviet constitution granted citizens more rights then the US constitution does us, but it was just worthless promises. I can't believe people don't see the similarity and are willingly going down this path. It's so blindingly obvious that it's the same tactic used in Stalinism, Maoism and McCarthyism but people gleefully want to wrap their arms around it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- neurobashing 5y agowell for example there is no law against standing in a public square, be it physical or virtual, and screaming racial epithets. The government cannot forbid it, and within certain limitations (eg "disruption of the peace") they cannot stop someone from doing it with law or force. It is free and protected speech, albeit abhorrent. However there is no law against our hypothetical racist being uninvited from the opening of an art gallery whose first exhibition is the work of african-american artists. It is a private organization who does not want to associate with someone. Or to put it simply: it's OK to downvote someone. That's how communities work!
- mc32 5y agoI would agree with the above. I don't like radical anti-abortionists who camp out at abortion clinics, but I recognize we all have this right. I wish they would pursue their goals more civilly, they would likely get some sympathy if they were humane about it, for example.
- adamrezich 5y agowhat's more civil than peacefully protesting?
- krapp 5y agoRadical anti-abortionists also harass and intimidate people (while "peacefully" protesting,) bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors. That's probably what mc32 is referring to.
- adamrezich 5y agohow did you get "bomb abortion clinics and kill doctors" from "camp out at abortion clinics"?
- krapp 5y agoI got there from "radical anti-abortionists," and the context of the rest of the comment. edit: but apparently I misinterpreted the comment so mea culpa, my bar for "radical" is different than mc32's.
- Finnucane 5y agoDepends on what you are saying. If you make a credible threat against someone, you can be held criminally liable for that. If you libel someone, they can sue you. Free speech means that you have a right to say what you want and the government can't block you from doing so. There's a very high legal bar for prior restraint. After the fact there are circumstances in which you could be in legal trouble.
- ohgodplsno 5y agoFrom the state ? Most likely none, unless you are actively calling for harm, rebellion, terrorism, things like that. From individuals ? I would be more than happy to punch you for preaching nazi rethoric, for example, and so would thousands of us.
- mc32 5y agoI think we can all agree we vehemently disagree with people who threaten our existence. We still do not have a right to inflict physical violence upon those who are voicing their opinions, no matter how vile they are. Now, of course you may be rightfully upset and unwind, but that is not a protected right. If you disagree with the above, I'm afraid it's a misunderstanding of the intentions of the first amendment to the US constitution.
- ohgodplsno 5y agoThe first amendment to the US Constitution only applies to the US Government. The government cannot prevent you from spewing your bile. It in no way applies to interactions between individual citiizens. You a dreadfully mistaken if you think it's a free pass because "muh free speech". Additionally, hate speech is also violence, and you cannot hide behind free speech to say "but look, you're doing physical violence to me". So, yeah, beat up nazis.
- gruez 5y ago>From individuals ? I would be more than happy to punch you for preaching nazi rethoric, for example, and so would thousands of us. Isn't that literally terrorism? >The deliberate commission of an act of violence to create public fear through the suffering of the victims in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
- ohgodplsno 5y agoNo, it's self defense. Especially not when the actual nazis are the ones committing acts of terrorism in your very own country.
- jcranmer 5y agoParallel to freedom of speech is freedom of association. The consequence to exercising your right to free speech is that other people might decide you're too horrible a person to work with. Consider this hypothetical situation. Imagine your favorite actor comes out with some really, really horrible political views, like women should be the chattel slaves of their male guardians. For a lot of people, even maybe you yourself, discovering this about a person is going to heavily color your views not only of him but of other things he does, and you're not going to enjoy seeing films he stars in any more. Since the film studios aren't idiots, he's going to be essentially blacklisted from any future roles. There's the consequences.
- mc32 5y agoThat's on the individual level and that's okay -that's our right as individuals. Institutionally it should be different. Otherwise we'll have to ban those actors who might be sympathetic to the communists. As an aside, most "creatives" have deep problems that would make them horrible people to participate in life with. Sure, I might completely disagree with Sean Connery's attitude toward women, for example, but that will not diminish my joy watching his movies. You have to separate the character from the actor and the art from the artist.