3 ms·
> But what is violence to you? The way the US supreme court interprets the 1st amendment is a good bar. In the US, direct violent threats, and things that are
by stale2002 4y ago
> But what is violence to you?
The way the US supreme court interprets the 1st amendment is a good bar.
In the US, direct violent threats, and things that are likely to cause imminent lawless action can be illegal, and most everything else is allowed.
Almost all speech, in the US, is protected, and there are only a couple, pretty specific and rare situations where people get in trouble for speech.
That's a good metric, and solves all the stuff that you brought up in the rest of the post, where you pretend like this is a question that hasn't been discussed to death, and solved, in conversations surrounding the 1st amendment, already.
So whatever the 1st amendment protects right now, is a great metric for what should be allowed.
- hayst4ck 4y ago> So whatever the 1st amendment protects right now, is a great metric for what should be allowed. So if sitting justices decided to re-interpret it in a way that strips people of their rights, would that be a form violence?
- stale2002 4y ago> So if sitting justices decided What I am saying is that on speech stuff specifically, the courts have done a great job, and that this speech stuff has been discussed for centuries, in the court system. So, it is not because a judge says something, that makes it ok. Instead, the causation is reversed. People have been doing this 1st amendment thing for centuries, addressing all the crazy hypotheticals that you bring up. And because of that, they've mostly gotten to a good place.
- hayst4ck 4y agoI would appreciate it if you would directly answer the question with either a yes, a no, or a yes under specific conditions.
- stale2002 4y agoYou didn't actually respond to my comment..... Feel free to quote an exact statement that I made, and say specifically what is right or wrong about it, in reference to the direct quote.