6 ms·

The 1st Amendment is one of the strongest legal protections on speech in the world.

swiftcoder 4y ago
> The 1st Amendment is one of the strongest legal protections on speech in the world. Just as long as that speech isn't pornographic. Or advocating direct harm towards a protected class. Or perceived to be threatening towards an elected official... The 1st amendment may have been intended as an absolute, but courts have typically interpreted it with a fair amount of leeway.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  That the 1st Amendment is not an absolute protection on all speech does not change the fact that it is one of the strongest protections that does exist. Additionally, the Supreme Court has protected porn under the 1st Amendment countless times. I doubt that any serious person wants threats of violence to be universally legal.
  - Timwi 4y ago
    One does not need to want for it to be universally legal to point out that the wording of the 1st amendment technically implies that it is.
- sebastianconcpt 4y ago
  In paper is right and aims right. In practice we can discuss your claims but it's still one of the best (or more fairly, less worst) implementations in human history so far. And what's the alternative anyway? Some kind of Newspeak (with an officially approved typography)?
  - vkou 4y ago
    > And what's the alternative anyway? Any of the other implementations of the same concept found in most of the western world, take your pick. Whatever criticism you have of them, I'll probably be able to point that it also applies to some application of the FA (or of how speech is/was allowed in practice) in the united states.
    - mannerheim 4y ago
      You won't get arrested for performing a Nazi salute in the US, but you will in Germany. You won't get arrested for a joke video about training your dog to do a Nazi salute in the US, but you will in the UK.
      - vkou 4y ago
        People were arrested and imprisoned for distributing leaflets opposing the draft. The First Amendment didn't help them much, despite remaining completely unchanged for the past 250 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States Who's to say that the current SCOTUS won't choose to interpret it in that way again?
        mannerheim 4y ago
        Your example of America not having free speech is a case from a century ago which has been overturned since then. Not going to bother responding to any further replies since you obviously aren't arguing in good faith.
        vkou 4y ago
        Has anything about the FA changed over the past century? Why do you think the current stronger interpretation of it is not a passing fad? Why do you assume that rights strengthen over time? We just had a plethora of examples to the contrary.
    - drdaeman 4y ago
      I think the primary intent for the First Amendment and best indicator how US is different from most places is how in the US anyone can freely say whatever is on their mind about anything government. Okay, sure, except for the hate speech such as calls for violence, obviously. Or make a sort of a statement by desecrating national symbols - such as burning the flag or flying it upside down. And fear no legal persecution. People are people - they have emotions and whenever they argue politely or swear profusely they must not be persecuted for being upset with something. Even if they're most terribly wrong. I found this nice summary table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult_of_officials_and_the_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult_of_officials_and_the_st... (sure, Wikipedia can be wrong, but I think this table should be accurate enough). It's all "no" only in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Georgia, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia and the United States. This is a minority, surely not "most of the western world".
- educaysean 4y ago
  Your argument is that the 1st Amendment is not one of the strongest legal protection of speech in the world? I'm not well versed in other nations' approach as it pertains to free speech. Can you enlighten me in terms of how other countries provide legal protection for speech in a way that you perceive to be "stronger" than the U.S? I can't imagine a functioning code of laws that allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater whose nation isn't straight up incapable or corrupt.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    The United States allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater, and I agree with your judgment on it (although not for your reason.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... edit: it's strange not to even be able to imagine the circumstances you are currently in.
    - vba616 4y ago
      >The United States allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater I don't understand. According to the article you yourself link to, the phrase, in the US, has been a metaphor for conduct not protected by the first amendment for over a hundred years. All that seems to have changed is the exact definition of "clear and present danger". Is there a case you know about where someone literally falsely yelled fire in a crowd and it was deemed protected speech in the US?
      - Nasrudith 4y ago
        It was a metaphor used to defend calling protesting World War 1 and the draft dangerous lawlessness conduct. It is a horrible metaphor. I would imagine any play about the Chicago fire would be an example, let alone firing squads.
- mannerheim 4y ago
  You can advocate direct harm towards a protected class. What do you think the Skokie case was about?
briantakita 4y ago
...of the governments imposing bureaucratic will over natural man.
the_only_law 4y ago
That gives you legal protection against the government, but doesn't otherwise affect general culture.
framapotari 4y ago
Unless you're a student and want to hold up a sign saying "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" outside of school property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
DonaldFisk 4y ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of s***ch, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to ***emble, and to pe***ion the Government for a redress of grievances."

> The 1st Amendment is one of the strongest legal protections on speech in the world. Just as long as that speech isn't pornographic. Or advocating direct harm towards a protected class. Or perceived to be threatening towards an elected official... The 1st amendment may have been intended as an absolute, but courts have typically interpreted it with a fair amount of leeway.

cmeacham98 4y ago
That the 1st Amendment is not an absolute protection on all speech does not change the fact that it is one of the strongest protections that does exist. Additionally, the Supreme Court has protected porn under the 1st Amendment countless times. I doubt that any serious person wants threats of violence to be universally legal.
- Timwi 4y ago
  One does not need to want for it to be universally legal to point out that the wording of the 1st amendment technically implies that it is.
sebastianconcpt 4y ago
In paper is right and aims right. In practice we can discuss your claims but it's still one of the best (or more fairly, less worst) implementations in human history so far. And what's the alternative anyway? Some kind of Newspeak (with an officially approved typography)?
- vkou 4y ago
  > And what's the alternative anyway? Any of the other implementations of the same concept found in most of the western world, take your pick. Whatever criticism you have of them, I'll probably be able to point that it also applies to some application of the FA (or of how speech is/was allowed in practice) in the united states.
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    You won't get arrested for performing a Nazi salute in the US, but you will in Germany. You won't get arrested for a joke video about training your dog to do a Nazi salute in the US, but you will in the UK.
    - vkou 4y ago
      People were arrested and imprisoned for distributing leaflets opposing the draft. The First Amendment didn't help them much, despite remaining completely unchanged for the past 250 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States Who's to say that the current SCOTUS won't choose to interpret it in that way again?
      - mannerheim 4y ago
        Your example of America not having free speech is a case from a century ago which has been overturned since then. Not going to bother responding to any further replies since you obviously aren't arguing in good faith.
        vkou 4y ago
        Has anything about the FA changed over the past century? Why do you think the current stronger interpretation of it is not a passing fad? Why do you assume that rights strengthen over time? We just had a plethora of examples to the contrary.
  - drdaeman 4y ago
    I think the primary intent for the First Amendment and best indicator how US is different from most places is how in the US anyone can freely say whatever is on their mind about anything government. Okay, sure, except for the hate speech such as calls for violence, obviously. Or make a sort of a statement by desecrating national symbols - such as burning the flag or flying it upside down. And fear no legal persecution. People are people - they have emotions and whenever they argue politely or swear profusely they must not be persecuted for being upset with something. Even if they're most terribly wrong. I found this nice summary table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult_of_officials_and_the_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insult_of_officials_and_the_st... (sure, Wikipedia can be wrong, but I think this table should be accurate enough). It's all "no" only in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Georgia, Ireland, Romania, Slovakia and the United States. This is a minority, surely not "most of the western world".
educaysean 4y ago
Your argument is that the 1st Amendment is not one of the strongest legal protection of speech in the world? I'm not well versed in other nations' approach as it pertains to free speech. Can you enlighten me in terms of how other countries provide legal protection for speech in a way that you perceive to be "stronger" than the U.S? I can't imagine a functioning code of laws that allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater whose nation isn't straight up incapable or corrupt.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  The United States allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater, and I agree with your judgment on it (although not for your reason.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... edit: it's strange not to even be able to imagine the circumstances you are currently in.
  - vba616 4y ago
    >The United States allows for yelling fire in a crowded theater I don't understand. According to the article you yourself link to, the phrase, in the US, has been a metaphor for conduct not protected by the first amendment for over a hundred years. All that seems to have changed is the exact definition of "clear and present danger". Is there a case you know about where someone literally falsely yelled fire in a crowd and it was deemed protected speech in the US?
    - Nasrudith 4y ago
      It was a metaphor used to defend calling protesting World War 1 and the draft dangerous lawlessness conduct. It is a horrible metaphor. I would imagine any play about the Chicago fire would be an example, let alone firing squads.
mannerheim 4y ago
You can advocate direct harm towards a protected class. What do you think the Skokie case was about?

briantakita 4y ago

...of the governments imposing bureaucratic will over natural man.

the_only_law 4y ago

That gives you legal protection against the government, but doesn't otherwise affect general culture.

framapotari 4y ago

Unless you're a student and want to hold up a sign saying "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" outside of school property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

DonaldFisk 4y ago

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of s***ch, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to ***emble, and to pe***ion the Government for a redress of grievances."