4 ms·

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 pr

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.
    - dragontamer 3y ago
      > 2. Schenck vs United States was largely overturned by Brandenburg vs Ohio, but this aside was still non-jurisprudential. This here is the evolving nature of the court that I want to highlight most of all however. In 1919, the Supreme Court believed one thing. Later, in 1969, half-a-century later, it believed another thing and overturned the earlier ruling. As an organization, the Supreme Court tends to try to be consistent. But its not always true, and certainly in these days where we've had a dramatic change in the makeup of the court + filled it with young justices, we're going to see a big change in how the court writes opinions in the years, and decades, to come. ----------- Laws are written. Constitutional Amendments are written. A few years ago, the 4th Amendment protected a woman's right to privacy and therefore Abortion. That's no longer true today. Etc. etc. Just a modern quickie example about how changing opinions can change our understanding of long-standing laws (or Constitutional Amendments) from the 1700s. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court is trying to do what's right for our court system. To have laws interpreted consistently over time, and across the country.
      - 3y ago
blibble 3y ago
surely that Act is by definition unlawful? I still don't really understand in the UK: Parliament has unlimited power and people talk quite a bit about formal constitutions being a good model to be followed it seems a bit sad the attempt to protect the population against government using a formal constitution doesn't seem to work in reality (even when the wording is as clear as day)
- dragontamer 3y ago
  > surely that Act is by definition unlawful? Whose definition? Answer: The Supreme Court decides the definition of things. Its only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says so. That's how the USA can get away with... I dunno... the Office of Censorship in 1941. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship). Definitions change, not only due to different members on the Supreme Court, but also due to different circumstances (WW2 meant that the Supreme Court was willing to ignore the obvious incursion into the 1st Amendment, at least temporarily) EDIT: I always forget that it was actually the Office of War Information that did the Hollywood Censorship thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In...), rather than the Office of Censorship.
  - blibble 3y ago
    > Whose definition? I guess that's the underlying problem I'm not sure how you fix it really, though not having direct political appointees as top judges might be a good start (maybe put an LLM in charge of a supreme court? I kid, I kid)
- damiankennedy 3y ago
  You do have a King though. What would happen if the PM went to see him to form a government and they disagreed? The King is the one with armed guards, military rank and a fortress.
  - samus 3y ago
    As part of his coronation, the King has sworn an oath to uphold the Law and to respect the primacy of Parliament. Not appointing the PM and his government has serious consequences as the PM is the leader of Parliament, which is the institution that has actually restored monarchy after the Glorious Revolution and which actually bankrolls the armed forces, and which was ultimately elected according to the Law by the citizens.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> With regards to 1st Amendment, the limit is drawn today at [...] "Fire in a Crowded Theater" No, and it never was. That was an obiter dictum that didn’t accurately reflect the state of the law in the decision in which it appeared, and the actual holding in that case itself (now regarded as an intense intrusion on core political speech) is no longer operative. It's a catchy turn of phrase that gets stuck in the mind, but it was also an rhetorical device neither in a decision that has since been substantively overruled, not an actual example of an existing limit on free speech.
- dragontamer 3y ago
  Well, if that particular phrase is poisoned, I guess I could just say "Hobbit" instead, which is owned as a trademark IIRC by the Tolkien estate and they're very litigious about it. You can't say "Hobbit" in your own stories. But you can say "Halfling", and that's how people tend to get around that problem. Blonde Thor is Disney/Marvel (Historical Thor was a redhead IIRC, so Blonde Thor is Disney/Marvel Trademark), etc. etc. Plenty of restrictions on Free Speech in practice.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > You can't say "Hobbit" in your own stories You can, though. You can't use it to market your stories or other products, and there's some manners of use innthr body of a book that might run some risk of liability for dilution or tarnishment, but...
  - habinero 3y ago
    Of course you can. You can write about hobbits, make youtube videos discussing them, whatever. There's a lot of fanfic on hobbits out there. You can make fun of hobbits. If you want to use copyrighted characters and it's not fair use, then no.

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.
  - dragontamer 3y ago
    > 2. Schenck vs United States was largely overturned by Brandenburg vs Ohio, but this aside was still non-jurisprudential. This here is the evolving nature of the court that I want to highlight most of all however. In 1919, the Supreme Court believed one thing. Later, in 1969, half-a-century later, it believed another thing and overturned the earlier ruling. As an organization, the Supreme Court tends to try to be consistent. But its not always true, and certainly in these days where we've had a dramatic change in the makeup of the court + filled it with young justices, we're going to see a big change in how the court writes opinions in the years, and decades, to come. ----------- Laws are written. Constitutional Amendments are written. A few years ago, the 4th Amendment protected a woman's right to privacy and therefore Abortion. That's no longer true today. Etc. etc. Just a modern quickie example about how changing opinions can change our understanding of long-standing laws (or Constitutional Amendments) from the 1700s. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court is trying to do what's right for our court system. To have laws interpreted consistently over time, and across the country.
    - 3y ago

blibble 3y ago

surely that Act is by definition unlawful? I still don't really understand in the UK: Parliament has unlimited power and people talk quite a bit about formal constitutions being a good model to be followed it seems a bit sad the attempt to protect the population against government using a formal constitution doesn't seem to work in reality (even when the wording is as clear as day)

dragontamer 3y ago
> surely that Act is by definition unlawful? Whose definition? Answer: The Supreme Court decides the definition of things. Its only unconstitutional if the Supreme Court says so. That's how the USA can get away with... I dunno... the Office of Censorship in 1941. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship). Definitions change, not only due to different members on the Supreme Court, but also due to different circumstances (WW2 meant that the Supreme Court was willing to ignore the obvious incursion into the 1st Amendment, at least temporarily) EDIT: I always forget that it was actually the Office of War Information that did the Hollywood Censorship thing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_Information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_War_In...), rather than the Office of Censorship.
- blibble 3y ago
  > Whose definition? I guess that's the underlying problem I'm not sure how you fix it really, though not having direct political appointees as top judges might be a good start (maybe put an LLM in charge of a supreme court? I kid, I kid)
damiankennedy 3y ago
You do have a King though. What would happen if the PM went to see him to form a government and they disagreed? The King is the one with armed guards, military rank and a fortress.
- samus 3y ago
  As part of his coronation, the King has sworn an oath to uphold the Law and to respect the primacy of Parliament. Not appointing the PM and his government has serious consequences as the PM is the leader of Parliament, which is the institution that has actually restored monarchy after the Glorious Revolution and which actually bankrolls the armed forces, and which was ultimately elected according to the Law by the citizens.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> With regards to 1st Amendment, the limit is drawn today at [...] "Fire in a Crowded Theater" No, and it never was. That was an obiter dictum that didn’t accurately reflect the state of the law in the decision in which it appeared, and the actual holding in that case itself (now regarded as an intense intrusion on core political speech) is no longer operative. It's a catchy turn of phrase that gets stuck in the mind, but it was also an rhetorical device neither in a decision that has since been substantively overruled, not an actual example of an existing limit on free speech.

dragontamer 3y ago
Well, if that particular phrase is poisoned, I guess I could just say "Hobbit" instead, which is owned as a trademark IIRC by the Tolkien estate and they're very litigious about it. You can't say "Hobbit" in your own stories. But you can say "Halfling", and that's how people tend to get around that problem. Blonde Thor is Disney/Marvel (Historical Thor was a redhead IIRC, so Blonde Thor is Disney/Marvel Trademark), etc. etc. Plenty of restrictions on Free Speech in practice.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > You can't say "Hobbit" in your own stories You can, though. You can't use it to market your stories or other products, and there's some manners of use innthr body of a book that might run some risk of liability for dilution or tarnishment, but...
- habinero 3y ago
  Of course you can. You can write about hobbits, make youtube videos discussing them, whatever. There's a lot of fanfic on hobbits out there. You can make fun of hobbits. If you want to use copyrighted characters and it's not fair use, then no.