3 ms·

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 hi

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".
  - mannerheim 4y ago
    > Okay, sure, except for the hate speech such as calls for violence, obviously. Hate speech is protected speech, as well as calls for violence (in limited circumstances); the standard for when speech is not protected is the event of 'imminent lawless action'. So, for instance, if you're in a lynch mob, and you yell to lynch a specific person, that's not protected, but if, e.g., you're marching down the street yelling to kill all the Jews, that is still protected speech (see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). > Or make a sort of a statement by desecrating national symbols - such as burning the flag or flying it upside down. These are also constitutionally protected speech. Some places still have laws on the books regarding this, and some overzealous police departments might try to enforce them, but they would never hold up in court.
    - drdaeman 4y ago
      > see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie Oh, I didn't knew about this. Nice, it's even stronger than I thought. Thanks! > These are also constitutionally protected speech. Yeah, I've used those as examples of that. I know government doesn't fancy it and there are attempts to make this sort of desecration illegal now and then, but they're all ruled down in the end.

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".
- mannerheim 4y ago
  > Okay, sure, except for the hate speech such as calls for violence, obviously. Hate speech is protected speech, as well as calls for violence (in limited circumstances); the standard for when speech is not protected is the event of 'imminent lawless action'. So, for instance, if you're in a lynch mob, and you yell to lynch a specific person, that's not protected, but if, e.g., you're marching down the street yelling to kill all the Jews, that is still protected speech (see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie). > Or make a sort of a statement by desecrating national symbols - such as burning the flag or flying it upside down. These are also constitutionally protected speech. Some places still have laws on the books regarding this, and some overzealous police departments might try to enforce them, but they would never hold up in court.
  - drdaeman 4y ago
    > see National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie Oh, I didn't knew about this. Nice, it's even stronger than I thought. Thanks! > These are also constitutionally protected speech. Yeah, I've used those as examples of that. I know government doesn't fancy it and there are attempts to make this sort of desecration illegal now and then, but they're all ruled down in the end.