8 ms·

Civil rights, including those in the First Amendment, are not absolute. Regarding speech, you also can't harass people, threaten them, defraud them, incite viol

Civil rights, including those in the First Amendment, are not absolute. Regarding speech, you also can't harass people, threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, distribute copyrighted information that isn't yours, interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater), etc. Private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways. > often there's posts on HN about how the UK and all other Western European countries are totalitarian because they don't have unrestricted free speech I haven't seen these posts. Do you have an example handy?

blibble 3y ago
> I haven't seen these posts. Do you have an example handy? here's one from earlier in the week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36000459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36000459 they're pretty common, here's another one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35617773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35617773
- wolverine876 3y ago
  In the GGP you wrote, > often there's posts on HN about how the UK and all other Western European countries are totalitarian because they don't have unrestricted free speech I don't see that in the comments you cite - nothing related to totaliterianism, unrestricted free speech, or comparison to the US. The comments just look like critiques of some laws related to speech, similar to critiques of US laws. Maybe I misunderstand.
  - Freedom2 3y ago
    I don't have a source handy, I can find one later if you desire. During Melbourne's lockdowns there was consistent criticism from US based commenters about the lack of freedoms in Australia. edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28651811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28651811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523358 (this entire comment section, probably: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28522599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28522599) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35105640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35105640
- heywhatupboys 3y ago
  funnily enough, the USA has much less protective laws against self incrimination than e.g. Denmark. In Denmark, you, as charged, may lie on the stand however much you please.
  - brewdad 3y ago
    In the US you just have to shut up. It also saves you from getting caught in a lie.
    - goodpoint 3y ago
      The astonishing amount of people incarcerated without a process tells a different story.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        How many are incarcerated without a process?
        wolverine876 3y ago
        I'm not the GP, but here are some ways: Something like 95% of criminal cases are resolved with plea deals and not trials, and legal representation from public defenders has very limited resources. Cash bail results in many people imprisoned without trial: After arrest, the court requires bail. Poor people can't afford it, so they are jailed until trial, which can be over a year. The impacts go beyond the (very serious) loss of freedom: They lose jobs, their family loses income, dependents (children, elderly) lose caregivers.
        Meph504 3y ago
        Firstly, though I see the concept behind cash bail I don't agree with it. But people has a misconception of the likely result of removing it. Judges now, don't need or required to use cash bails, they choose to, they can release people without cash bail now. either into the person's own recognizance, or even into the care of others. If a judge doesn't feel the person is likely to return to their following court date, and they can't leverage financial burden as a means to insure it, they are likely just to forego the process and hold them.
weinzierl 3y ago
Then following up on blibble's question: What is the difference to the UK and other western countries that mostly also have free speech with what looks to me very similar restrictions? Honest question, like blibble, I don't really understand it either?
- all2 3y ago
  The US's first amendment is rather unique amongst Western nations. Basically it says "the government cannot infringe on this inalienable right", that is the government cannot govern speech. Here's the actual language 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. The key phrase "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". As far as I know, this kind of language is absent from other Western nations. For example, Canada jails people for criticizing those of Islamic persuasion. [0] Note, the article doesn't record what the accused actually said. Here's a wikipedia overview of hate speech laws by country [1], though it is wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt. Here's a somewhat relevant piece from Reason that takes an anti-hate-speech stance [2] where the author details the unconstitutionality of hate speech laws. "Free speech" as we understand it in the US is unique in the world. As far as the restrictions at state and federal level, these are considered unconstitutional, and you'll see a large number of them struck down in various courts across the country. Those in power definitely seek to expand their powers and fortunately we have a law that allows the citizenry to push back against that. [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/muslim-hate-1.6145160 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/muslim-hate-1.614516... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country [2] https://reason.com/2021/05/20/teen-arrested-under-connecticuts-unconstitutional-hate-speech-law-for-racist-social-media-post/ https://reason.com/2021/05/20/teen-arrested-under-connecticu...
  - 0x706B 3y ago
    Hm, not quite sure I can follow the _unique_ part. E.g. german constitution is quite similar: ``` Article 5 [Freedom of expression, arts and sciences] (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour. (3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution. ``` (2) notes that there _are_ limits, but if I understood the concept of gag orders and also wolverine876's answer correct, thats the same for the US: ``` Civil rights, including those in the First Amendment, are not absolute. Regarding speech, you also can't harass people, threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, ```
echelon 3y ago
> interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater) This is more about private property rights, is it not? You can sing loudly in a park until local ordinances (noise, curfew) kick in. The "movie theater" example I'm familiar with is that you can't scream "fire" in a crowded place.
- gremlinsinc 3y ago
  you absolutely can sing loudly in a theater, but you don't have a right to demand you can keep on doing it. It's a private location, so they have every right to throw you out and ban you. similarly to how you don't have a right to say whatever you want without being moderated on Twitter or Reddit. the fire one is basically anything that incites panic can get you into legal hot water, and if there are injuries or death as a result some form of manslaughter charges probably because ultimately you were responsible.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > you absolutely can sing loudly in a theater, but you don't have a right to demand you can keep on doing it. good point
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
thebigwinning 3y ago
It appears absolute to me if you sharpen the definition. Free speech means you can express and advocate for any view point, not that you can make any sounds with your mouth in any context.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  You cannot express or advocate viewpoints that "harass people (beyond a some limits), threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, distribute copyrighted information that isn't yours, interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater), etc." For example, someone could not express the viewpoint that 'thebigwinning sexually assaulted coworkers and stole money at their last job'. It would slander you (an exception to free speech that I omitted in the GP) and you would be entitled to damages. Nor could someone express to an angry crowd the viewpoint that 'the bigwinning should be assaulted', nor could someone selling cryptocurrency express the viewpoint that 'cryptocurrency is a safe, stable investment for unsophisticated investors', etc.
  - thebigwinning 3y ago
    That's exactly what I'm not saying. These contrived examples only strengthen my view. > sing loadly in a movie theatre. Perfect example. Inappropriately making sounds with your mouth, not holding an illegal belief. > express to an angry crowd the viewpoint The issue is the context of the angry crowd, not the content of beliefs. Do you believe the US will penalize me for believing crypto currency is safe and stating that publically? > thebigwinning sexually assaulted coworkers and stole money at their last job' They are indeed allowed to believe that. They can't be taken to jail for holding that view of me. Now if they tried to get me fired with false evidence that would be a problem. If they caused damage to my business reputation without evidence that could result in civil damages.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      The examples are not contrived, they are commonplace legal issues (though any such issue is rare in any one person's life). We are talking about speech, not thought - expression, not belief. You said "you can express and advocate for any view point", not that 'you can believe any viewpoint'. Yes, all speech depends on context. The significance of speech is its impact on other people; it is communication. You can say whatever you want in the shower.
rfrey 3y ago
Five comments below this one, user all2 claims that Canada jails people for merely criticising anyone who is Islamic.
- aroberge 3y ago
  This is simply not true.
  - nostoc 3y ago
    Just to clarify : What's not true is that Canada jails people for criticizing islam, not that it was claimed : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36061407#36064645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36061407#36064645
krageon 3y ago
Summarised as "rights [...] are not absolute", this is a really weird statement. I confess I don't understand what makes a "civil right" different from an actual "right", to you.
coldtea 3y ago
>Civil rights, including those in the First Amendment, are not absolute. Regarding speech, you also can't harass people, threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, distribute copyrighted information that isn't yours, interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater), etc. Private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways. So the First Amendment is basically just the demo. And other western countries, oft criticized, just didn't have as nice a demo as that, but offer more or less the same features and gameplay.
- scott_w 3y ago
  That's only true if you have a very surface level understand of law and how it attempts to solve real-world problems. It's nice to say "all speech should be free!" in theory but then, when faced with a situation where a mob boss says "please go kill that person" or ringleader whips up a mob into a riot. Should a judge just say "well, he was just exercising his First Amendment rights!" and ensure no consequences befall that person? A person enters my home and says things I find offensive. Should the First Amendment prevent me from removing that person from my home for that reason? I decide to leak trade secrets of my employer for profit. Should the First Amendment protect me from being fired and sued for this?
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    I thought that the First Amendment was about not allowing government to restrict speech and doesn't cover private issues such as between individuals or between an employer and an employee? With the mob boss example, wouldn't the charge be something like conspiracy to commit murder rather than prosecuting the instruction itself? i.e. saying the words is not in itself illegal, but the intention to conspire to get the person to commit crime on your behalf is the illegal part and the instruction is evidence.
    - scott_w 3y ago
      > I thought that the First Amendment was about not allowing government to restrict speech and doesn't cover private issues such as between individuals or between an employer and an employee? Absolutely, it is. However, I interpreted the comment I replied to as suggesting the First Amendment is not sufficient free speech protection.
j_french 3y ago
Here's a recent example. I've seen other examples too, it's not at all uncommon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35867043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35867043
mschuster91 3y ago
> Private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways. Fun fact: Europe actually has better protections for free speech for employees. Even if you're a hardcore Nazi taking part in actual Nazi rallies, unless you're wearing company clothing or are a high-ranking corporate official, you can't get fired for that. And when you, say, contribute to an open source project in your non-work time on your own computer, your employer doesn't get any rights to that code.
hnbad 3y ago
I think while this is a popular way to think about these things, it doesn't offer enough explanatory power for when things seemingly "go wrong": Rights afforded by a state are restrictions on a state's power over its subjects. But as the state holds ultimate authority, the only way these rights are upheld in practice is through a system of self-imposed indirection and bureaucracy that mostly exists to limit the power of any one individual operating the state, rather than the state as a whole. The First Amendment means whatever the state wants it to mean. The Supreme Court can make a case-specific ruling one way or another but it intentionally holds no direct power. A police officer can literally get away with killing you if they can construct a scenario that gives them sufficient justification to do so. The problem with intelligence agency is that by necessity they have less red tape holding them down and they're thus in practice far less limited in how much power they can wield. States are authoritarian and oppressive by default. They're only held back by self-imposed limitations. But those limitations only exist at the behest of the states themselves. Try and openly plan to dismantle a state (using violence or not) and most states will abandon any pretense of freedom of speech in a second.
cryptonector 3y ago
> Civil rights, including those in the First Amendment, are not absolute. Regarding speech, you also can't harass people, threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, distribute copyrighted information that isn't yours, interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater), etc. Private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways. That's all true and should be true, but it's also possible to take these limitations too fare, and we have.
lannisterstark 3y ago
>incite violence >threaten them You absolutely can. It just has to be nonspecific. "Kill all lannisters" is fine. "Kill x lannisters in y mall at z time" is not. See : Brandenburg v Ohio, Schenk v US, Hess v Indiana. >interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater), lmao what? You can absolutely do that. the theater will kick you out but you can absolutely not be arrested for it. what an absurd claim. >you also can't harass people You can absolutely do that, to a degree. >distribute copyrighted information that isn't yours Not really related to 1A >Private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways. That's not 1A. 1A specifically applies to the government.
- georgeplusplus 3y ago
  You beat to exactly what I wanted to say.

blibble 3y ago

> I haven't seen these posts. Do you have an example handy? here's one from earlier in the week: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36000459 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36000459 they're pretty common, here's another one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35617773 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35617773

wolverine876 3y ago
In the GGP you wrote, > often there's posts on HN about how the UK and all other Western European countries are totalitarian because they don't have unrestricted free speech I don't see that in the comments you cite - nothing related to totaliterianism, unrestricted free speech, or comparison to the US. The comments just look like critiques of some laws related to speech, similar to critiques of US laws. Maybe I misunderstand.
- Freedom2 3y ago
  I don't have a source handy, I can find one later if you desire. During Melbourne's lockdowns there was consistent criticism from US based commenters about the lack of freedoms in Australia. edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28651811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28651811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523358 (this entire comment section, probably: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28522599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28522599) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35105640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35105640
heywhatupboys 3y ago
funnily enough, the USA has much less protective laws against self incrimination than e.g. Denmark. In Denmark, you, as charged, may lie on the stand however much you please.
- brewdad 3y ago
  In the US you just have to shut up. It also saves you from getting caught in a lie.
  - goodpoint 3y ago
    The astonishing amount of people incarcerated without a process tells a different story.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      How many are incarcerated without a process?
      - wolverine876 3y ago
        I'm not the GP, but here are some ways: Something like 95% of criminal cases are resolved with plea deals and not trials, and legal representation from public defenders has very limited resources. Cash bail results in many people imprisoned without trial: After arrest, the court requires bail. Poor people can't afford it, so they are jailed until trial, which can be over a year. The impacts go beyond the (very serious) loss of freedom: They lose jobs, their family loses income, dependents (children, elderly) lose caregivers.
        Meph504 3y ago
        Firstly, though I see the concept behind cash bail I don't agree with it. But people has a misconception of the likely result of removing it. Judges now, don't need or required to use cash bails, they choose to, they can release people without cash bail now. either into the person's own recognizance, or even into the care of others. If a judge doesn't feel the person is likely to return to their following court date, and they can't leverage financial burden as a means to insure it, they are likely just to forego the process and hold them.

weinzierl 3y ago

Then following up on blibble's question: What is the difference to the UK and other western countries that mostly also have free speech with what looks to me very similar restrictions? Honest question, like blibble, I don't really understand it either?

all2 3y ago
The US's first amendment is rather unique amongst Western nations. Basically it says "the government cannot infringe on this inalienable right", that is the government cannot govern speech. Here's the actual language 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. The key phrase "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". As far as I know, this kind of language is absent from other Western nations. For example, Canada jails people for criticizing those of Islamic persuasion. [0] Note, the article doesn't record what the accused actually said. Here's a wikipedia overview of hate speech laws by country [1], though it is wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt. Here's a somewhat relevant piece from Reason that takes an anti-hate-speech stance [2] where the author details the unconstitutionality of hate speech laws. "Free speech" as we understand it in the US is unique in the world. As far as the restrictions at state and federal level, these are considered unconstitutional, and you'll see a large number of them struck down in various courts across the country. Those in power definitely seek to expand their powers and fortunately we have a law that allows the citizenry to push back against that. [0] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/muslim-hate-1.6145160 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/muslim-hate-1.614516... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_by_country [2] https://reason.com/2021/05/20/teen-arrested-under-connecticuts-unconstitutional-hate-speech-law-for-racist-social-media-post/ https://reason.com/2021/05/20/teen-arrested-under-connecticu...
- 0x706B 3y ago
  Hm, not quite sure I can follow the _unique_ part. E.g. german constitution is quite similar: ``` Article 5 [Freedom of expression, arts and sciences] (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons and in the right to personal honour. (3) Arts and sciences, research and teaching shall be free. The freedom of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution. ``` (2) notes that there _are_ limits, but if I understood the concept of gag orders and also wolverine876's answer correct, thats the same for the US: ``` Civil rights, including those in the First Amendment, are not absolute. Regarding speech, you also can't harass people, threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, ```

echelon 3y ago

> interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater) This is more about private property rights, is it not? You can sing loudly in a park until local ordinances (noise, curfew) kick in. The "movie theater" example I'm familiar with is that you can't scream "fire" in a crowded place.

gremlinsinc 3y ago
you absolutely can sing loudly in a theater, but you don't have a right to demand you can keep on doing it. It's a private location, so they have every right to throw you out and ban you. similarly to how you don't have a right to say whatever you want without being moderated on Twitter or Reddit. the fire one is basically anything that incites panic can get you into legal hot water, and if there are injuries or death as a result some form of manslaughter charges probably because ultimately you were responsible.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > you absolutely can sing loudly in a theater, but you don't have a right to demand you can keep on doing it. good point
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

thebigwinning 3y ago

It appears absolute to me if you sharpen the definition. Free speech means you can express and advocate for any view point, not that you can make any sounds with your mouth in any context.

wolverine876 3y ago
You cannot express or advocate viewpoints that "harass people (beyond a some limits), threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, distribute copyrighted information that isn't yours, interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater), etc." For example, someone could not express the viewpoint that 'thebigwinning sexually assaulted coworkers and stole money at their last job'. It would slander you (an exception to free speech that I omitted in the GP) and you would be entitled to damages. Nor could someone express to an angry crowd the viewpoint that 'the bigwinning should be assaulted', nor could someone selling cryptocurrency express the viewpoint that 'cryptocurrency is a safe, stable investment for unsophisticated investors', etc.
- thebigwinning 3y ago
  That's exactly what I'm not saying. These contrived examples only strengthen my view. > sing loadly in a movie theatre. Perfect example. Inappropriately making sounds with your mouth, not holding an illegal belief. > express to an angry crowd the viewpoint The issue is the context of the angry crowd, not the content of beliefs. Do you believe the US will penalize me for believing crypto currency is safe and stating that publically? > thebigwinning sexually assaulted coworkers and stole money at their last job' They are indeed allowed to believe that. They can't be taken to jail for holding that view of me. Now if they tried to get me fired with false evidence that would be a problem. If they caused damage to my business reputation without evidence that could result in civil damages.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    The examples are not contrived, they are commonplace legal issues (though any such issue is rare in any one person's life). We are talking about speech, not thought - expression, not belief. You said "you can express and advocate for any view point", not that 'you can believe any viewpoint'. Yes, all speech depends on context. The significance of speech is its impact on other people; it is communication. You can say whatever you want in the shower.

rfrey 3y ago

Five comments below this one, user all2 claims that Canada jails people for merely criticising anyone who is Islamic.

aroberge 3y ago
This is simply not true.
- nostoc 3y ago
  Just to clarify : What's not true is that Canada jails people for criticizing islam, not that it was claimed : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36061407#36064645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36061407#36064645

krageon 3y ago

Summarised as "rights [...] are not absolute", this is a really weird statement. I confess I don't understand what makes a "civil right" different from an actual "right", to you.

coldtea 3y ago

>Civil rights, including those in the First Amendment, are not absolute. Regarding speech, you also can't harass people, threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, distribute copyrighted information that isn't yours, interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater), etc. Private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways. So the First Amendment is basically just the demo. And other western countries, oft criticized, just didn't have as nice a demo as that, but offer more or less the same features and gameplay.

scott_w 3y ago
That's only true if you have a very surface level understand of law and how it attempts to solve real-world problems. It's nice to say "all speech should be free!" in theory but then, when faced with a situation where a mob boss says "please go kill that person" or ringleader whips up a mob into a riot. Should a judge just say "well, he was just exercising his First Amendment rights!" and ensure no consequences befall that person? A person enters my home and says things I find offensive. Should the First Amendment prevent me from removing that person from my home for that reason? I decide to leak trade secrets of my employer for profit. Should the First Amendment protect me from being fired and sued for this?
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  I thought that the First Amendment was about not allowing government to restrict speech and doesn't cover private issues such as between individuals or between an employer and an employee? With the mob boss example, wouldn't the charge be something like conspiracy to commit murder rather than prosecuting the instruction itself? i.e. saying the words is not in itself illegal, but the intention to conspire to get the person to commit crime on your behalf is the illegal part and the instruction is evidence.
  - scott_w 3y ago
    > I thought that the First Amendment was about not allowing government to restrict speech and doesn't cover private issues such as between individuals or between an employer and an employee? Absolutely, it is. However, I interpreted the comment I replied to as suggesting the First Amendment is not sufficient free speech protection.

j_french 3y ago

Here's a recent example. I've seen other examples too, it's not at all uncommon. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35867043 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35867043

mschuster91 3y ago

> Private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways. Fun fact: Europe actually has better protections for free speech for employees. Even if you're a hardcore Nazi taking part in actual Nazi rallies, unless you're wearing company clothing or are a high-ranking corporate official, you can't get fired for that. And when you, say, contribute to an open source project in your non-work time on your own computer, your employer doesn't get any rights to that code.

hnbad 3y ago

I think while this is a popular way to think about these things, it doesn't offer enough explanatory power for when things seemingly "go wrong": Rights afforded by a state are restrictions on a state's power over its subjects. But as the state holds ultimate authority, the only way these rights are upheld in practice is through a system of self-imposed indirection and bureaucracy that mostly exists to limit the power of any one individual operating the state, rather than the state as a whole. The First Amendment means whatever the state wants it to mean. The Supreme Court can make a case-specific ruling one way or another but it intentionally holds no direct power. A police officer can literally get away with killing you if they can construct a scenario that gives them sufficient justification to do so. The problem with intelligence agency is that by necessity they have less red tape holding them down and they're thus in practice far less limited in how much power they can wield. States are authoritarian and oppressive by default. They're only held back by self-imposed limitations. But those limitations only exist at the behest of the states themselves. Try and openly plan to dismantle a state (using violence or not) and most states will abandon any pretense of freedom of speech in a second.

cryptonector 3y ago

> Civil rights, including those in the First Amendment, are not absolute. Regarding speech, you also can't harass people, threaten them, defraud them, incite violence, distribute copyrighted information that isn't yours, interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater), etc. Private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways. That's all true and should be true, but it's also possible to take these limitations too fare, and we have.

lannisterstark 3y ago

>incite violence >threaten them You absolutely can. It just has to be nonspecific. "Kill all lannisters" is fine. "Kill x lannisters in y mall at z time" is not. See : Brandenburg v Ohio, Schenk v US, Hess v Indiana. >interfere with others' activities (sing loudly in a movie theater), lmao what? You can absolutely do that. the theater will kick you out but you can absolutely not be arrested for it. what an absurd claim. >you also can't harass people You can absolutely do that, to a degree. >distribute copyrighted information that isn't yours Not really related to 1A >Private entities such as your employer can restrict your speech in many ways. That's not 1A. 1A specifically applies to the government.

georgeplusplus 3y ago
You beat to exactly what I wanted to say.