3 ms·

The US allows both of them......

pphysch 5y ago
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Push too far and your "free speech" gets reclassified as something illegal. See: Jan 6 dissidents, Julian Assange, Aaron Swartz, et al.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  The January 6 people didn't get in trouble for speech. They disrupted the legislature during the middle of a vital transfer of power process.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    Exactly. Their free speech/protest was reclassified as something illegal.
    - Manuel_D 5y ago
      No. The speech and protest was entirely legal. The overwhelming majority of people who protested on Jan 6. didn't invade the capitol building, and faced no legal repercussions. The ones that did get into trouble were the ones that broke into the Capitol building. Speech is legal, rioting is not. Put it more bluntly: it's fine to hold up a sign saying "meat is murder" and protest. It's not okay to break into abattoirs and trash them. Speech is legal, breaking and entering is not.
      - pphysch 5y ago
        You realize the Chinese government makes this exact same argument about the recent Hong Kong riots, right?
        Manuel_D 5y ago
        Except in one of those, protesters weren't invading government buildings, they were assembled in an open square. And it wasn't just one rioter about to break into the house chamber that got shot, it was hundreds or even thousands of people gunned down. Drawing any sort of equivalency between these two events strikes me as extremely far fetched.
        pphysch 5y ago
        Yeah, if only because HK rioters actually assaulted and seriously injured people. They absolutely destroyed govt property too.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  > Jan 6 dissidents Trespassing and trashing the Capitol Building is what got people in trouble. The people peacefully protesting faced no legal repercussions. > Julian Assange, Leaking classified documents isn't the same as political messaging. > Aaron Swartz, et al. Knowingly and deliberately violating copyright laws. These instances definitely had political motivation, but the crimes in question were not because of speech itself.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    Assange didn't even get in trouble for leaking classified documents. The charges were for hacking.
  - pphysch 5y ago
    Sounds like America doesn't protect free speech if it threatens powerful interests.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. Push too far and your "free speech" gets reclassified as something illegal. See: Jan 6 dissidents, Julian Assange, Aaron Swartz, et al.

lalaland1125 5y ago
The January 6 people didn't get in trouble for speech. They disrupted the legislature during the middle of a vital transfer of power process.
- pphysch 5y ago
  Exactly. Their free speech/protest was reclassified as something illegal.
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    No. The speech and protest was entirely legal. The overwhelming majority of people who protested on Jan 6. didn't invade the capitol building, and faced no legal repercussions. The ones that did get into trouble were the ones that broke into the Capitol building. Speech is legal, rioting is not. Put it more bluntly: it's fine to hold up a sign saying "meat is murder" and protest. It's not okay to break into abattoirs and trash them. Speech is legal, breaking and entering is not.
    - pphysch 5y ago
      You realize the Chinese government makes this exact same argument about the recent Hong Kong riots, right?
      - Manuel_D 5y ago
        Except in one of those, protesters weren't invading government buildings, they were assembled in an open square. And it wasn't just one rioter about to break into the house chamber that got shot, it was hundreds or even thousands of people gunned down. Drawing any sort of equivalency between these two events strikes me as extremely far fetched.
        pphysch 5y ago
        Yeah, if only because HK rioters actually assaulted and seriously injured people. They absolutely destroyed govt property too.
Manuel_D 5y ago
> Jan 6 dissidents Trespassing and trashing the Capitol Building is what got people in trouble. The people peacefully protesting faced no legal repercussions. > Julian Assange, Leaking classified documents isn't the same as political messaging. > Aaron Swartz, et al. Knowingly and deliberately violating copyright laws. These instances definitely had political motivation, but the crimes in question were not because of speech itself.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  Assange didn't even get in trouble for leaking classified documents. The charges were for hacking.
- pphysch 5y ago
  Sounds like America doesn't protect free speech if it threatens powerful interests.