3 ms·
It is dependent on circumstances, and the people who would draw the line in the end would be the government followed by the court. Not all speech is protected
by belorn 4y ago
It is dependent on circumstances, and the people who would draw the line in the end would be the government followed by the court.
Not all speech is protected speech. Graffiti is speech, and the words being spoken could be argued as protected, but the act of spraying other people properties with it is not protected. Free speech rights does not overwrite other rights. As a defense in a court I would not bet my money on free speech in order to get away with crimes that happens to involves speech.
Historically the US court has defined speech into multiple different categories. One of those are called fraudulent speech which is not protected by free speech rights. An other category is illustrated with the anti-spam law in Washington State, which was found to not be in violation of First Amendment rights because it prevent misleading emails. Washington’s statue regulate deceptive commercial speech and thus passed the constitutional test. An other court ruling, this one in Maryland, confirmed that commercial speech was less protected than other forms of speech and that commercial speech had no protection when it was demonstrably false.
In theory a spammer could make non-commercial, non-misleading, non-fraudulent speech, and a site like twitter would then actually have to think about questions like first-amendment. I can't say I have ever received or seen spam like that.
- buzer 4y ago> In theory a spammer could make non-commercial, non-misleading, non-fraudulent speech, and a site like twitter would then actually have to think about questions like first-amendment. I can't say I have ever received or seen spam like that. While I don't think I have seen it on Twitter (then again I only read it when it's linked) I have seen plenty of it in some older forums & IRC. Generally it's just nonsense like "jqrfefafasok" or ":DDDDDD" being posted lots of times in quick succession, often to either flood out other things, to draw attention to poster or to show annoyance about something (like being banned previously).
- belorn 4y agoYou got a point. Demonstration as a form of free speech is an interesting dilemma. Review spam/bombing for example can be non-commercial, non-misleading, non-fraudulent, while still being a bit of a grey-zone. Removing them is also fairly controversial. Outside the web we have a similar problem when demonstrations and strikes are causing disruption in society. Obviously demonstration and strikes should be legal and are protected by free speech, but at the same time there are exceptions when they are not. I am unsure if one would construct a objective fair model for how to moderate such activity.
- thesuitonym 4y ago>a site like twitter would then actually have to think about questions like first-amendment. I wish people understood that the first amendment does not have anything to do with social media sites allowing people to say anything. Twitter is not a public square, no matter how much you want it to be.