3 ms·

The US doesn’t limit speech. Private platforms are self censoring. It has even upheld the right of citizens to burn the flag [0](reprehensible as it might be in

The US doesn’t limit speech. Private platforms are self censoring. It has even upheld the right of citizens to burn the flag [0](reprehensible as it might be in the view of the majority). 0. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-texas-v-johnson https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
vharuck 4y ago
US law permits restrictions on speech, but only in very specific cases for very good reasons. For example, gag orders during court proceedings are temporary limitations on speech meant to ensure a fair trial. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order And obviously, any speech that is intrinsically part of another crime would be punishable (e.g. telling somebody you're from the IRS so you could steal their return).
- lostlogin 4y ago
  > US law permits restrictions on speech, but only in very specific cases for very good reasons. Does it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fr... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California This one is partially overturned as it is argued to have been used to punish ideas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
lostlogin 4y ago
I’m not sure that burning a flag is as reprehensible an act to everyone - it seems like something that would get people fired up a century ago. I was under the impression that incitement to violence or encouraging suicide was not protected, but I am very far from expert. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... Edit: Freedom of speech does not include the right: To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007). https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re... This list is quite amusing with the focus on schools.
- sofixa 4y ago
  > To make or distribute obscene materials That's one of the stupidest ones IMHO. Free speech absolutists harping about how great the US is in that regard forget to mention that speech is okay when it's money, insulting people for their skin colour and a bunch of other edge cases most other developed countries disagree with, but heavens forbid boobs!
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    Oh, I’d assumed it was something more subversive than a nipple. Puritans…

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

vharuck 4y ago

US law permits restrictions on speech, but only in very specific cases for very good reasons. For example, gag orders during court proceedings are temporary limitations on speech meant to ensure a fair trial. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/gag_order And obviously, any speech that is intrinsically part of another crime would be punishable (e.g. telling somebody you're from the IRS so you could steal their return).

lostlogin 4y ago
> US law permits restrictions on speech, but only in very specific cases for very good reasons. Does it? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fraser https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethel_School_District_v._Fr... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California This one is partially overturned as it is argued to have been used to punish ideas: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

lostlogin 4y ago

I’m not sure that burning a flag is as reprehensible an act to everyone - it seems like something that would get people fired up a century ago. I was under the impression that incitement to violence or encouraging suicide was not protected, but I am very far from expert. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_ex... Edit: Freedom of speech does not include the right: To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957). To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986). Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007). https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-re... This list is quite amusing with the focus on schools.

sofixa 4y ago
> To make or distribute obscene materials That's one of the stupidest ones IMHO. Free speech absolutists harping about how great the US is in that regard forget to mention that speech is okay when it's money, insulting people for their skin colour and a bunch of other edge cases most other developed countries disagree with, but heavens forbid boobs!
- lostlogin 4y ago
  Oh, I’d assumed it was something more subversive than a nipple. Puritans…