5 ms·

Which laws have passed that restrict speech?

slg 4y ago
Two examples that come to mind: "In a Blow to Free Speech, Texas’ Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed Pending Appeal"[1] "A federal judge blocks part of Florida's 'STOP WOKE' Act on the grounds it violates business free speech rights" [2] [1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas-unconstitutional-social-media-law-allowed-proceed-pending https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas... [2] - https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-blocks-part-of-floridas-stop-woke-act-on-the-grounds-it-violates-business-free-speech-rights https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-...
- remarkEon 4y ago
  Neither of these restrict speech, and I'm not sure how one could construe the text of the laws toward that conclusion. The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is banned". The second[1] looks like a workplace and education regulation, which is again well within the boundaries of things the government is charged with regulating. Honestly the text of the law looks pretty benign to me. [1] http://laws.flrules.org/2022/72 http://laws.flrules.org/2022/72
  - rnk 4y ago
    Social media use and restrictions related to that is absolutely a free speech impact. Posting on instagram or twitter is not free speech?
  - slg 4y ago
    >The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is banned". The law prevents private social media companies from adding a warning to posts for things like misinformation. That is banning a speech for these companies. >The second[1] looks like a workplace and education regulation, which is again well within the boundaries of things the government is charged with regulating. Except when those regulations violate the first amendment. This law dictates what private businesses can say while training their employees. How is that not an issue of speech?
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      It's interesting to me that implicit in your argument is that the corporation has some sort of "prime" speech right that users do not, but I understand how you could think that with regard to telling these companies they can't arbitrarily apply a speech to a user's speech (which is what adding a "misinformation" "warning" is doing) based on viewpoint. We already have tons of laws that restrict what businesses can do, that would obviously restrict speech - like banning discrimination. The law does not, in fact, dictate what private businesses can say. It gives them a list of things they cannot say (e.g. certain races are morally superior). I don't see how that's different. edit: bad grammar
      - slg 4y ago
        >It's interesting to me that implicit in your argument is that the corporation has some sort of "prime" speech right that users do not, No I'm not. Both have the same free speech. Except the corporations speech is being restricted by the government while the user's speech is being restricted by a private corporation. Only one of those is a First Amendment issue. >We already have tons of laws that restrict what businesses can do, that would obviously restrict speech - like banning discrimination. Discrimination is usually action and not speech. It is someone being fired, promoted, not hired, or just generally being treated differently. It generally takes for discriminatory speech to venture into harassment or a hostile environment before the government would step in. >The law does not, in fact, dictate what private businesses can say. It gives them a list of things they cannot say How are these not the same thing? Telling someone they can't do something is inherently telling them what they can do.
        salawat 4y ago
        >Except the corporations speech is being restricted by the government while the user's speech is being restricted by a private corporation. Government is of, by and for the People. That Corporation is composed of the People which the Government is of and for, and through which the legal fiction is granted legitimacy. As far as I'm concerned, corporations are de facto extensions of Government.
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    Both cited laws were blocked by judges for violating the first amendment. So you’ll have to provide a better argument than they seem to you to be benign, or well within the bounds of government regulation powers. Because the courts disagree with you.
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      The first is really the first attempt that I'm aware of to regulate social media companies, so it's not surprising that the legal arguments are not that robust or are clumsy at this stage. Surely social media companies are not considered "unregulatable" solely because speech occurs on those platforms. For the second, the article states that only "part of" the law was blocked, and leaves it up to the reader to guess which part. Unfortunately I can't find the actual court opinions, and journalists generally don't link to the primary sources when they have a specific opinion they would like their readers to have, which appears to have worked here.
29083011397778 4y ago
Florida's bill which prevents gay and lesbian teachers discussing their partners, for one. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-don-t-say-gay-bill-desantis-1.6400087 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-don-t-say-gay-bill-des...
- mythrwy 4y ago
  There are many cases of not being allowed to say certain things as an employee or representative of an entity but I don't consider them infringements on "free speech" in general. I'm sure after work these teachers can say whatever they like.
  - trs8080 4y ago
    So it's okay that teachers are allowed to discuss their heterosexual partners but not homosexual? And you consider this not to be a violation of free speech?
    - remarkEon 4y ago
      The text of the law doesn't appear to do that. Is there a different law that you are thinking of? https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...
- remarkEon 4y ago
  I found the law that this (Canadian) article is referencing, and the words "gay" or "homosexual" don't even appear in the text. How does this prevent gay and lesbian teachers from discussing their partners? I see a paragraph that says instruction on sexuality and sexual orientation can't begin before the third grade which seems pretty reasonable. I didn't get that until I was in, I think, fifth grade. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...
  - slg 4y ago
eastbound 4y ago
Title IX

slg 4y ago

Two examples that come to mind: "In a Blow to Free Speech, Texas’ Social Media Law Allowed to Proceed Pending Appeal"[1] "A federal judge blocks part of Florida's 'STOP WOKE' Act on the grounds it violates business free speech rights" [2] [1] - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas-unconstitutional-social-media-law-allowed-proceed-pending https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/blow-free-speech-texas... [2] - https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-blocks-part-of-floridas-stop-woke-act-on-the-grounds-it-violates-business-free-speech-rights https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2022-08-18/a-federal-judge-...

remarkEon 4y ago
Neither of these restrict speech, and I'm not sure how one could construe the text of the laws toward that conclusion. The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is banned". The second[1] looks like a workplace and education regulation, which is again well within the boundaries of things the government is charged with regulating. Honestly the text of the law looks pretty benign to me. [1] http://laws.flrules.org/2022/72 http://laws.flrules.org/2022/72
- rnk 4y ago
  Social media use and restrictions related to that is absolutely a free speech impact. Posting on instagram or twitter is not free speech?
- slg 4y ago
  >The first looks like regulation on social media activities, which is well within the boundaries of government - state or otherwise. Perhaps ill-advised, but "how to regulate the digital town square" is a pretty open and fluid debate, no? I don't see anything in there that says "this kind of speech is banned". The law prevents private social media companies from adding a warning to posts for things like misinformation. That is banning a speech for these companies. >The second[1] looks like a workplace and education regulation, which is again well within the boundaries of things the government is charged with regulating. Except when those regulations violate the first amendment. This law dictates what private businesses can say while training their employees. How is that not an issue of speech?
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    It's interesting to me that implicit in your argument is that the corporation has some sort of "prime" speech right that users do not, but I understand how you could think that with regard to telling these companies they can't arbitrarily apply a speech to a user's speech (which is what adding a "misinformation" "warning" is doing) based on viewpoint. We already have tons of laws that restrict what businesses can do, that would obviously restrict speech - like banning discrimination. The law does not, in fact, dictate what private businesses can say. It gives them a list of things they cannot say (e.g. certain races are morally superior). I don't see how that's different. edit: bad grammar
    - slg 4y ago
      >It's interesting to me that implicit in your argument is that the corporation has some sort of "prime" speech right that users do not, No I'm not. Both have the same free speech. Except the corporations speech is being restricted by the government while the user's speech is being restricted by a private corporation. Only one of those is a First Amendment issue. >We already have tons of laws that restrict what businesses can do, that would obviously restrict speech - like banning discrimination. Discrimination is usually action and not speech. It is someone being fired, promoted, not hired, or just generally being treated differently. It generally takes for discriminatory speech to venture into harassment or a hostile environment before the government would step in. >The law does not, in fact, dictate what private businesses can say. It gives them a list of things they cannot say How are these not the same thing? Telling someone they can't do something is inherently telling them what they can do.
      - salawat 4y ago
        >Except the corporations speech is being restricted by the government while the user's speech is being restricted by a private corporation. Government is of, by and for the People. That Corporation is composed of the People which the Government is of and for, and through which the legal fiction is granted legitimacy. As far as I'm concerned, corporations are de facto extensions of Government.
- ModernMech 4y ago
  Both cited laws were blocked by judges for violating the first amendment. So you’ll have to provide a better argument than they seem to you to be benign, or well within the bounds of government regulation powers. Because the courts disagree with you.
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    The first is really the first attempt that I'm aware of to regulate social media companies, so it's not surprising that the legal arguments are not that robust or are clumsy at this stage. Surely social media companies are not considered "unregulatable" solely because speech occurs on those platforms. For the second, the article states that only "part of" the law was blocked, and leaves it up to the reader to guess which part. Unfortunately I can't find the actual court opinions, and journalists generally don't link to the primary sources when they have a specific opinion they would like their readers to have, which appears to have worked here.

29083011397778 4y ago

Florida's bill which prevents gay and lesbian teachers discussing their partners, for one. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-don-t-say-gay-bill-desantis-1.6400087 https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-don-t-say-gay-bill-des...

mythrwy 4y ago
There are many cases of not being allowed to say certain things as an employee or representative of an entity but I don't consider them infringements on "free speech" in general. I'm sure after work these teachers can say whatever they like.
- trs8080 4y ago
  So it's okay that teachers are allowed to discuss their heterosexual partners but not homosexual? And you consider this not to be a violation of free speech?
  - remarkEon 4y ago
    The text of the law doesn't appear to do that. Is there a different law that you are thinking of? https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...
remarkEon 4y ago
I found the law that this (Canadian) article is referencing, and the words "gay" or "homosexual" don't even appear in the text. How does this prevent gay and lesbian teachers from discussing their partners? I see a paragraph that says instruction on sexuality and sexual orientation can't begin before the third grade which seems pretty reasonable. I didn't get that until I was in, I think, fifth grade. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/...
- slg 4y ago

eastbound 4y ago

Title IX