4 ms·

Defamation, Slander, etc. None are protected. Free speech protects you from the Government, not your fellow citizens.

by BooneJS 4y ago

BurningFrog 4y ago
The court is part of the government.
- function_seven 4y ago
  The court oversaw the case. It did not bring it. Example: I specifically prohibit peanuts in my kitchen, because I serve meals to allergic children. You sneak peanuts into the kitchen. I sue you and win. Does this mean "Peanuts are illegal"? No. I have a civil action and we have a system of civil courts wherein these grievances can be aired and adjudicated.
- bandyaboot 4y ago
  Leaving aside the absurd logic, it doesn’t matter. Slanderous speech is not protected speech…the government is allowed and expected to facilitate consequences.
- decebalus1 4y ago
  That's a false equivalence. The court mediates the case between private parties. That's what civil court does. This is not a trial between 'the people' (the State) and Alex Jones. It's between some of the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre and Alex Jones. Jones is free to say whatever and the state cannot make laws about what he can say or cannot say, but that doesn't stop private individuals from suing him and winning.
  - notahacker 4y ago
    to be fair, whilst it's true the distinction is hugely important to US concepts of free speech, it's also true it's not necessarily as material as it might seem. The state is composed of people, who have the right to sue their critics for alleged slander/libel (quite a lot of political speech involves making adversarial claims about people or corporate entities which could theoretically be ruled as malicious and factually untrue). Politicians suing other politicians or critics is unusual rather than not permitted in the US, but in other places like Singapore tort law is used consistently against prominent critics. It's possible for civil courts to be consistently biased in favour of politically-connected individuals and companies and for the consequences for criticism of them to be financially ruinous, and possible for actual criminal speech offences in other jurisdictions to have [lower] purely financial penalties, stronger presumptions in favour of the defendant and more scrupulously independent judicial processes.
kevinpet 4y ago
This is an incorrect analysis of where the conclusion comes from. Allowing the use of the courts to prohibit slander is a government action. Slander and libel are long standing exceptions to free speech. "Fighting words", espionage, contempt of court, or insubordination in the military are other exceptions that come to mind. The "the first amendment only applies to the government" is an argument that anyone is free to choose not to associate with you, or consider you a jerk, for something you said.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  > The "the first amendment only applies to the government" is an argument "Congress shall make no law..." We've extrapolated a bunch from there, but the founding words are pretty clear.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

Defamation, Slander, etc. None are protected. Free speech protects you from the Government, not your fellow citizens.

BurningFrog 4y ago

The court is part of the government.

function_seven 4y ago
The court oversaw the case. It did not bring it. Example: I specifically prohibit peanuts in my kitchen, because I serve meals to allergic children. You sneak peanuts into the kitchen. I sue you and win. Does this mean "Peanuts are illegal"? No. I have a civil action and we have a system of civil courts wherein these grievances can be aired and adjudicated.
bandyaboot 4y ago
Leaving aside the absurd logic, it doesn’t matter. Slanderous speech is not protected speech…the government is allowed and expected to facilitate consequences.
decebalus1 4y ago
That's a false equivalence. The court mediates the case between private parties. That's what civil court does. This is not a trial between 'the people' (the State) and Alex Jones. It's between some of the parents of the Sandy Hook massacre and Alex Jones. Jones is free to say whatever and the state cannot make laws about what he can say or cannot say, but that doesn't stop private individuals from suing him and winning.
- notahacker 4y ago
  to be fair, whilst it's true the distinction is hugely important to US concepts of free speech, it's also true it's not necessarily as material as it might seem. The state is composed of people, who have the right to sue their critics for alleged slander/libel (quite a lot of political speech involves making adversarial claims about people or corporate entities which could theoretically be ruled as malicious and factually untrue). Politicians suing other politicians or critics is unusual rather than not permitted in the US, but in other places like Singapore tort law is used consistently against prominent critics. It's possible for civil courts to be consistently biased in favour of politically-connected individuals and companies and for the consequences for criticism of them to be financially ruinous, and possible for actual criminal speech offences in other jurisdictions to have [lower] purely financial penalties, stronger presumptions in favour of the defendant and more scrupulously independent judicial processes.

kevinpet 4y ago

This is an incorrect analysis of where the conclusion comes from. Allowing the use of the courts to prohibit slander is a government action. Slander and libel are long standing exceptions to free speech. "Fighting words", espionage, contempt of court, or insubordination in the military are other exceptions that come to mind. The "the first amendment only applies to the government" is an argument that anyone is free to choose not to associate with you, or consider you a jerk, for something you said.

rootusrootus 4y ago
> The "the first amendment only applies to the government" is an argument "Congress shall make no law..." We've extrapolated a bunch from there, but the founding words are pretty clear.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]