25 ms·

You seem to be misunderstanding the First Amendment. CSMA, classified information, defamation, copyright, etc. are all not permitted under the first amendment.

by nceqs3 3y ago

You seem to be misunderstanding the First Amendment. CSMA, classified information, defamation, copyright, etc. are all not permitted under the first amendment. Not to mention that gag orders are approved by a court and can be appealed.

blibble 3y ago
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. seems pretty clear to me, at least for gag orders less so for the other stuff you mentioned (could you argue pirated Disney movies are speech? probably not)
- dragontamer 3y ago
  And the writers of the 1st Amendment went on to pass the Sedition act of 1798. > That if any person shall write, print, utter. Or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them. or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. Welcome to America. Our laws contradict each other and its all about politics. The Supreme Court figures out where the line is drawn and what is, or isn't, legal according to the Constitution. With regards to 1st Amendment, the limit is drawn today at Libel, Slander, "Fire in a Crowded Theater", pornography, and many other restrictions upon "free speech". Gag orders included.
  - RobotToaster 3y ago
    >"Fire in a Crowded Theater" That one's apparently a myth. https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-cro...
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      Libertarian website argues Libertarian viewpoints. News at 11. I'm more inclined to believe Supreme Court Justice Alito over a Libertarian website. Especially because a sitting Supreme Court Justice literally will preside over the case and make a decision based on their own ethics/process/whatever. An entire article that starts off with "BTW: Supreme Court Justice is wrong on subject" is... well... that's not how this works. The Supreme Court justice literally defines (or at least, is 1/9th of the definition) of our country's legal interpretation. If the Supreme Court says "Obamacare is a tax", then its a tax. No if, and, or buts about it. It can be as ridiculous or contrived an argument they want, its the purview of the Supreme Court. They are the final say on any of these legal matters. And unless "reason.com" (or any other libertarian source) somehow manages to get the ear of the other Supreme Court Justices to believe their argument, I think I can safely ignore their article there. But they know that. I'm guessing they're just trying to clickbait readers and make somewhat sketchy arguments for more clicks + plant more articles that are aligned to libertarian values (as is the point of reason.com).
      - SllX 3y ago
        1. It was falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, and it was not formative of the opinion itself (Schenck vs United States) but rather an aside. 2. Schenck vs United States was largely overturned by Brandenburg vs Ohio, but this aside was still non-jurisprudential. 3. I am unfamiliar with Justice Alito’s opinion on the matter and you didn’t cite it, so with no context I will only temporarily defer to you for the purpose of saying this: SCOTUS makes jurisprudence through the rulings and opinions they hand down when they take a majority vote in conference, draft opinions and sign on to them. One Justice does not make jurisprudence over a statement which itself was never jurisprudential. Reason wears their ideological stripes on their sleeves, but this is still essentially a myth that doesn’t die and a fuller explanation of it isn’t a matter of ideology. You still shouldn’t falsely shout fire in a crowded theater, as people will die. You also shouldn’t pretend a fire isn’t there or part of the show either as people will also die. Basically, if there’s a fire in a theater you’re in, just be glad for modern building and fire codes.
- skissane 3y ago
  In the constitutions of many other countries, you will find an explicit clause saying (to effect) "rights and freedoms granted by this constitution are not absolute and exceptions can be made to them for sufficiently grave reasons". Unlike those other countries, the US Constitution never contained such an explicit clause, but the Supreme Court has always read it as if it did. The Supreme Court feels quite justified in doing that, because if you go back and look at the debates in Congress and the state legislatures over the proposal and ratification of the Bill of Rights, it is clear that its proponents always intended it to be interpreted as if such an "exception clause" existed, even though (for whatever reason) they chose to leave it as implicit rather than explicitly putting it in the text.
fijiaarone 3y ago
The first amendment must be a lot longer than I thought.
account42 3y ago
Copyright is something the first amendmend explicitly carves out exactly because it is incompatible with free speech.

by nceqs3 3y ago

blibble 3y ago

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. seems pretty clear to me, at least for gag orders less so for the other stuff you mentioned (could you argue pirated Disney movies are speech? probably not)

dragontamer 3y ago
And the writers of the 1st Amendment went on to pass the Sedition act of 1798. > That if any person shall write, print, utter. Or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them. or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years. Welcome to America. Our laws contradict each other and its all about politics. The Supreme Court figures out where the line is drawn and what is, or isn't, legal according to the Constitution. With regards to 1st Amendment, the limit is drawn today at Libel, Slander, "Fire in a Crowded Theater", pornography, and many other restrictions upon "free speech". Gag orders included.
- RobotToaster 3y ago
  >"Fire in a Crowded Theater" That one's apparently a myth. https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://reason.com/2022/10/27/yes-you-can-yell-fire-in-a-cro...
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    Libertarian website argues Libertarian viewpoints. News at 11. I'm more inclined to believe Supreme Court Justice Alito over a Libertarian website. Especially because a sitting Supreme Court Justice literally will preside over the case and make a decision based on their own ethics/process/whatever. An entire article that starts off with "BTW: Supreme Court Justice is wrong on subject" is... well... that's not how this works. The Supreme Court justice literally defines (or at least, is 1/9th of the definition) of our country's legal interpretation. If the Supreme Court says "Obamacare is a tax", then its a tax. No if, and, or buts about it. It can be as ridiculous or contrived an argument they want, its the purview of the Supreme Court. They are the final say on any of these legal matters. And unless "reason.com" (or any other libertarian source) somehow manages to get the ear of the other Supreme Court Justices to believe their argument, I think I can safely ignore their article there. But they know that. I'm guessing they're just trying to clickbait readers and make somewhat sketchy arguments for more clicks + plant more articles that are aligned to libertarian values (as is the point of reason.com).
    - SllX 3y ago
      1. It was falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, and it was not formative of the opinion itself (Schenck vs United States) but rather an aside. 2. Schenck vs United States was largely overturned by Brandenburg vs Ohio, but this aside was still non-jurisprudential. 3. I am unfamiliar with Justice Alito’s opinion on the matter and you didn’t cite it, so with no context I will only temporarily defer to you for the purpose of saying this: SCOTUS makes jurisprudence through the rulings and opinions they hand down when they take a majority vote in conference, draft opinions and sign on to them. One Justice does not make jurisprudence over a statement which itself was never jurisprudential. Reason wears their ideological stripes on their sleeves, but this is still essentially a myth that doesn’t die and a fuller explanation of it isn’t a matter of ideology. You still shouldn’t falsely shout fire in a crowded theater, as people will die. You also shouldn’t pretend a fire isn’t there or part of the show either as people will also die. Basically, if there’s a fire in a theater you’re in, just be glad for modern building and fire codes.
skissane 3y ago
In the constitutions of many other countries, you will find an explicit clause saying (to effect) "rights and freedoms granted by this constitution are not absolute and exceptions can be made to them for sufficiently grave reasons". Unlike those other countries, the US Constitution never contained such an explicit clause, but the Supreme Court has always read it as if it did. The Supreme Court feels quite justified in doing that, because if you go back and look at the debates in Congress and the state legislatures over the proposal and ratification of the Bill of Rights, it is clear that its proponents always intended it to be interpreted as if such an "exception clause" existed, even though (for whatever reason) they chose to leave it as implicit rather than explicitly putting it in the text.

fijiaarone 3y ago

The first amendment must be a lot longer than I thought.

account42 3y ago