3 ms·

True, citizens can create and share any content they like that doesn't infringe on very specific laws put in place to protect others. It may sound oxymoronic t

True, citizens can create and share any content they like that doesn't infringe on very specific laws put in place to protect others. It may sound oxymoronic that for a law to provide "freedom" to people it must also encumber that freedom with restrictions in order to actually provide the freedom it is trying to provide, but that is the simple truth of it. Otherwise the law would have no power to enforce any law it passed. With that being said, the exceptions are actually quite reasonable. The "No shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater" laws still apply (i.e., it would still be a crime to create and publish a fake bomb threat even if it were intended as a joke if there is any chance whatsoever that any partially reasonable person would possibly take it seriously), as well as common sense laws like, nothing involving underage people being nude (or worse) or not publishing private nude videos without the subject's consent, things like that.

singleshot_ 4y ago
> The "No shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater" laws still apply I wouldn’t be so sure about that…
- rektide 4y ago
  Schenck case (1969), overturning the incredibly domineering WW1 atmosphere of government controlled speech: > "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#The_Schenck_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... Utterly unsurprised to find it was WW1 time-period constraint, as I'm reading the utterly fabulous American Midnight about how the USG built a huge surveillance network & vigilante groups to destroy labor, human-rights, socialistic causes, and anyone not signing up for an incredibly propogandized Big Business lead war. So... Is TikTok creating incitement of illegal acts? What other clear standards might apply to curb citizens use of this medium? Keeps smellingike horseshit to me.

singleshot_ 4y ago

> The "No shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater" laws still apply I wouldn’t be so sure about that…

rektide 4y ago
Schenck case (1969), overturning the incredibly domineering WW1 atmosphere of government controlled speech: > "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#The_Schenck_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the... Utterly unsurprised to find it was WW1 time-period constraint, as I'm reading the utterly fabulous American Midnight about how the USG built a huge surveillance network & vigilante groups to destroy labor, human-rights, socialistic causes, and anyone not signing up for an incredibly propogandized Big Business lead war. So... Is TikTok creating incitement of illegal acts? What other clear standards might apply to curb citizens use of this medium? Keeps smellingike horseshit to me.