5 ms·

> If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people you despise you don't believe in it at all. I don't think we have freedom of speech (as Americans know i

by corobo 4y ago

> If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people you despise you don't believe in it at all. I don't think we have freedom of speech (as Americans know it) in the UK anyway so you're not wrong.

bitwize 4y ago
The USA only has such extreme freedom of speech because of a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio. Technically it's as easily overturned as Roe v. Wade was, but I doubt the Trump-stacked Supreme Court would even try. If it were overturned, we could finally pass sensible hate speech laws even in the USA.
- Mountain_Skies 4y ago
  Please give a very specific explanation of what would be "sensible".
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Anyone who disagrees with me should have their mouth taped shut.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > The USA only has such extreme freedom of speech because of a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio. This really highlights the creeping cancerous nature of 'speech as violence'. It was Bradenburg v. Ohio that partially overturned Schenck v. United States, in which protesting the draft was considered a sort of violence against the state (creating a "clear and present danger" to the government.) The premise of 'speech as violence' always starts out with examples most people find reasonable, but its way too easy for authoritarians to expand the scope of what speech constitutes violence inch by inch until one day you can no longer protest your own government forcing young men into a meat grinder. It's way too easy. "Your words offend me, causing a stress reaction which shortens my life. Anything that offends me is ipso facto violence." There needs to be a line drawn in the sand to prevent this escalating madness. Brandenburg v. Ohio does that fairly well.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  The USA free speech is not extreme at all. It's the natural state of people. Repression is the deviance. > sensible hate speech laws are an oxymoron. You cannot stop people from thinking things, or saying their mind. They'll just do it out of sight of you. > Trump-stacked Supreme Court Free speech is in the Constitution. It's not a creation of Trump, though if it were, Trump would be a great man.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Yah, downvote me all you like. I remain proud to be an advocate of free speech, even for those who want to end free speech.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    There's a great segment in The Dawn of Everything[1] that discusses how speech we a check on the rise of authoritarian power in many pre-modern societies. [1]https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity/dp/0374157359 https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity/...
- api 4y ago
  ... then, after it's overturned, the political winds can shift hard to the right and talking about homosexuality or trans or other issues like that can be branded speech-violence and prosecuted. Power, once given to the state, is hard to take away and political winds change. Do people not get this? I say the same thing to right wingers who advocate giving more power to the state in other ways. "We should give Trump unilateral power to fire government employees!" "Okay, then you're fine when President Pelosi inherits those powers?"
  - tekknik 4y ago
    Free speech can’t be overturned anymore than the second amendment. The constitution is rather clear.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      The constitution is quite clear that the constitution is not immutable. On the contrary, the constitution describes processes by which the constitution may be changed.
      - tekknik 4y ago
        Absolutely, so you think you’ll get 2/3s of the states to agree to remove it? The constitution will remain unchanged in this regard.
        MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Definitely not. > you'll I wouldn't even want to.
      - account42 4y ago
        It also does not seem to be immune to creative interpretation. See e.g. current copyright laws.
- gadders 4y ago
  The different between the UK and the US is that the UK is trying to limit free speech via a law. In the US free speech is limited by the revolving door between silicon valley, government and political activism.
karatinversion 4y ago
E.g. Joseph Kelly was sentenced this year to 150 hours of unpaid work and 18 months of supervision for a “grossly offensive” tweet which went viral (he deleted it after 20 minutes).
- flak48 4y ago
  This the first I've heard of this and I assumed there must be more to it. After some Googling I'm shocked that someone can be sentenced in the UK for a mildly offensive tweet (IMO) that went viral before it was deleted in 20 minutes.
  - causi 4y ago
    Famously a UK man was arrested for teaching his dog to raise a paw in imitation of the Nazi salute.
  - norwalkbear 4y ago
    Exactly this issue quickly becomes a motte and bailey tactic for those who hate free speech.
  - xdennis 4y ago
    You even get prison time if you tweet the word. E.g: * 56 days: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992 * 6 weeks: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/30/man-19-jailed-for-racially-abusing-marcus-rashford-on-twitter https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/30/man-19-jaile...
    - account42 4y ago
      Of course neither article reports what the offensive tweets actually were ...

by corobo 4y ago

> If you don't believe in freedom of speech for people you despise you don't believe in it at all. I don't think we have freedom of speech (as Americans know it) in the UK anyway so you're not wrong.

bitwize 4y ago

The USA only has such extreme freedom of speech because of a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio. Technically it's as easily overturned as Roe v. Wade was, but I doubt the Trump-stacked Supreme Court would even try. If it were overturned, we could finally pass sensible hate speech laws even in the USA.

Mountain_Skies 4y ago
Please give a very specific explanation of what would be "sensible".
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Anyone who disagrees with me should have their mouth taped shut.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
> The USA only has such extreme freedom of speech because of a 1969 Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio. This really highlights the creeping cancerous nature of 'speech as violence'. It was Bradenburg v. Ohio that partially overturned Schenck v. United States, in which protesting the draft was considered a sort of violence against the state (creating a "clear and present danger" to the government.) The premise of 'speech as violence' always starts out with examples most people find reasonable, but its way too easy for authoritarians to expand the scope of what speech constitutes violence inch by inch until one day you can no longer protest your own government forcing young men into a meat grinder. It's way too easy. "Your words offend me, causing a stress reaction which shortens my life. Anything that offends me is ipso facto violence." There needs to be a line drawn in the sand to prevent this escalating madness. Brandenburg v. Ohio does that fairly well.
WalterBright 4y ago
The USA free speech is not extreme at all. It's the natural state of people. Repression is the deviance. > sensible hate speech laws are an oxymoron. You cannot stop people from thinking things, or saying their mind. They'll just do it out of sight of you. > Trump-stacked Supreme Court Free speech is in the Constitution. It's not a creation of Trump, though if it were, Trump would be a great man.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Yah, downvote me all you like. I remain proud to be an advocate of free speech, even for those who want to end free speech.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  There's a great segment in The Dawn of Everything[1] that discusses how speech we a check on the rise of authoritarian power in many pre-modern societies. [1]https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity/dp/0374157359 https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity/...
api 4y ago
... then, after it's overturned, the political winds can shift hard to the right and talking about homosexuality or trans or other issues like that can be branded speech-violence and prosecuted. Power, once given to the state, is hard to take away and political winds change. Do people not get this? I say the same thing to right wingers who advocate giving more power to the state in other ways. "We should give Trump unilateral power to fire government employees!" "Okay, then you're fine when President Pelosi inherits those powers?"
- tekknik 4y ago
  Free speech can’t be overturned anymore than the second amendment. The constitution is rather clear.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    The constitution is quite clear that the constitution is not immutable. On the contrary, the constitution describes processes by which the constitution may be changed.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      Absolutely, so you think you’ll get 2/3s of the states to agree to remove it? The constitution will remain unchanged in this regard.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        Definitely not. > you'll I wouldn't even want to.
    - account42 4y ago
      It also does not seem to be immune to creative interpretation. See e.g. current copyright laws.
gadders 4y ago
The different between the UK and the US is that the UK is trying to limit free speech via a law. In the US free speech is limited by the revolving door between silicon valley, government and political activism.

karatinversion 4y ago

E.g. Joseph Kelly was sentenced this year to 150 hours of unpaid work and 18 months of supervision for a “grossly offensive” tweet which went viral (he deleted it after 20 minutes).

flak48 4y ago
This the first I've heard of this and I assumed there must be more to it. After some Googling I'm shocked that someone can be sentenced in the UK for a mildly offensive tweet (IMO) that went viral before it was deleted in 20 minutes.
- causi 4y ago
  Famously a UK man was arrested for teaching his dog to raise a paw in imitation of the Nazi salute.
- norwalkbear 4y ago
  Exactly this issue quickly becomes a motte and bailey tactic for those who hate free speech.
- xdennis 4y ago
  You even get prison time if you tweet the word. E.g: * 56 days: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992 * 6 weeks: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/30/man-19-jailed-for-racially-abusing-marcus-rashford-on-twitter https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/mar/30/man-19-jaile...
  - account42 4y ago
    Of course neither article reports what the offensive tweets actually were ...