3 ms·

> suppressing free speech is acceptable in this instance Libel, slander, and defamation are not free speech. You do not have the right to repeatedly, knowingly

> suppressing free speech is acceptable in this instance Libel, slander, and defamation are not free speech. You do not have the right to repeatedly, knowingly, lie about someone else, especially when said lies ruin peoples' lives. > billion dollar fine for some off-hand nutso claim It wasn't a claim, he asserted it as fact, and it wasn't just once, he did this up until he got sued, and even made up conspiracies about the trials as they were happening. > (that he subsequently recanted!) If Jones truly did believe he was correct about Sandy Hook being fake, the moment he found out he was wrong, he should have delivered a formal apology and begged his audience to stop harassing the families of the victims. He should have publicly rebuked people like Wolfgang Halbig and any callers who talked about the "Sandy Hook hoax" and chastised the harassers. But he never did that. Instead it's "I already said I was sorry, I might have been wrong but I'm right like 95+% of the time, why are people so angry at me? It's all part of a plot by the globalists to shut us down, buy my iodine." > a very unpromising barometer for the health of free speech in our country So "free speech" is when someone with a significant media presence is able to knowingly spread lies about you that lead to over a decade of stalking and harassment with no recourse? If you're an American, you might want to consult a lawyer on that. Our civil liberties have been heavily curtailed over the years, but this verdict isn't threatening anyone's rights.

dredmorbius 4y ago
I would take a different tack on this: the speech was legally unhindered, that is, free. The consequences of the speech are, however, borne by the speaker. I'm not sure this covers all cases of consequential burdening, but it does seem to cover many of them. A future prohibition on speech, gag order, banning from online or broadcast services, etc., might be a harder case to make, though these could still be seen as sanctions on behaviour rather than content. I'm not defending Jones at all here, his penalties are exceedingly well deserved and have been far too delayed.
- int_19h 4y ago
  > I would take a different tack on this: the speech was legally unhindered, that is, free. The consequences of the speech are, however, borne by the speaker. If you do redefine freedom of speech thus, then what place in the world doesn't have it? Even in North Korea you can speak freely for a short while before you have to bear the consequences.
  - budder 4y ago
    Exactly. Did the Wuhan doctors sounding the alarm about a new virus, without “evidence” have freedom of speech? The CCP tried to suppress them for “inciting a panic” until it became obvious they couldn’t cover it up any longer
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    Prior restraint and criminal punishment would seem to be two fairly obvious standards. Neither apply in this case. Freedom of speech is never an absolute, it had a long history of far lower significance in the United States prior to the 1950s, and has a long an complex history. I'm not a legal scholar, I'm still researching the background and history myself. Two resources of possible interest and use to yourself and others: Jacob Mchangama's Clear and Present Danger podcast, 40 episodes plus several special installments on the history of free expression. The creator tends rather more libertarian than I, though he's not an absolutist. That said, there's reasonably little bias I'd noted in the overall presentation, which is nuanced. <http://www.freespeechhistory.com/ http://www.freespeechhistory.com/> On texts ... there's a whole heck of a lot. I've not read the Very Short Introduction title yet, but have added it to my own reading mountain/asteroid: <https://www.worldcat.org/title/244062809 https://www.worldcat.org/title/244062809> <http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8647BBCBFB1AADAC2A4C98ED6A516341 http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8647BBCBFB1AADAC2A4C98ED...> Looking that up just now, the author, Nigel Warburton, is known to me from other books on philosophy which were good.

dredmorbius 4y ago

I would take a different tack on this: the speech was legally unhindered, that is, free. The consequences of the speech are, however, borne by the speaker. I'm not sure this covers all cases of consequential burdening, but it does seem to cover many of them. A future prohibition on speech, gag order, banning from online or broadcast services, etc., might be a harder case to make, though these could still be seen as sanctions on behaviour rather than content. I'm not defending Jones at all here, his penalties are exceedingly well deserved and have been far too delayed.

int_19h 4y ago
> I would take a different tack on this: the speech was legally unhindered, that is, free. The consequences of the speech are, however, borne by the speaker. If you do redefine freedom of speech thus, then what place in the world doesn't have it? Even in North Korea you can speak freely for a short while before you have to bear the consequences.
- budder 4y ago
  Exactly. Did the Wuhan doctors sounding the alarm about a new virus, without “evidence” have freedom of speech? The CCP tried to suppress them for “inciting a panic” until it became obvious they couldn’t cover it up any longer
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  Prior restraint and criminal punishment would seem to be two fairly obvious standards. Neither apply in this case. Freedom of speech is never an absolute, it had a long history of far lower significance in the United States prior to the 1950s, and has a long an complex history. I'm not a legal scholar, I'm still researching the background and history myself. Two resources of possible interest and use to yourself and others: Jacob Mchangama's Clear and Present Danger podcast, 40 episodes plus several special installments on the history of free expression. The creator tends rather more libertarian than I, though he's not an absolutist. That said, there's reasonably little bias I'd noted in the overall presentation, which is nuanced. <http://www.freespeechhistory.com/ http://www.freespeechhistory.com/> On texts ... there's a whole heck of a lot. I've not read the Very Short Introduction title yet, but have added it to my own reading mountain/asteroid: <https://www.worldcat.org/title/244062809 https://www.worldcat.org/title/244062809> <http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8647BBCBFB1AADAC2A4C98ED6A516341 http://libgen.rs/book/index.php?md5=8647BBCBFB1AADAC2A4C98ED...> Looking that up just now, the author, Nigel Warburton, is known to me from other books on philosophy which were good.