3 ms·
My solution for banning any speech is that the rules have to be nearly unanimously voted in, and voted in for multiple (maybe 3?) presidential administrations.
by hpen 4y ago
My solution for banning any speech is that the rules have to be nearly unanimously voted in, and voted in for multiple (maybe 3?) presidential administrations. Things like banning the shoutout of “fire” in a theater. Some laws need to be low pass filtered.
- Clubber 4y ago>Things like banning the shoutout of “fire” in a theater. Some laws need to be low pass filtered. That was mostly overturned in 1969, though the history of it is interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- hpen 4y agoInteresting info. I think people still get the point I’m making but thanks for the clarification
- Clubber 4y agoYou're welcome. The most interesting part is the "fire in a theater" was at a time when the government was throwing people in jail for protesting WWI under the Wilson administration. When the SCOTUS affirmed the Debs conviction and 10 year sentence and permanent disenfranchisement, they referenced the case of "fire in a theater," as justification. It was a pretty dark time in our history. I'm glad it was overturned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
- hpen 4y agoI will say that you will never find me fighting for speech being banned. Peers of mine bring up the "fire in a theater" as a counter for us already having free speech limitations. I thought that was still the case and so I was looking for a way to make common sense stuff illegal given the precedence that there are active limitations today. I'm really uncomfortable with the way twitter mobs dictate what is and isn't free speech and I was looking for a more democratic, test of time driven solution.