4 ms·
For the most part, we get censorship because the majority wants censorship. (Or, at least, thinks they want censorship because they haven't thought all the way
by commandlinefan 3y ago
For the most part, we get censorship because the majority wants censorship. (Or, at least, thinks they want censorship because they haven't thought all the way through what that actually is going to mean). The only reason we have anything resembling free speech in the United States is because the courts are stuck with the relatively unpopular first amendment - they're going to continue to ignore it as best they can and with a few trivial exceptions, not get much resistence.
- mrkeen 3y agoThe hard problem is defining censorship. 1a is applied pretty damn broadly in general - think Citizens United. But even if you take a more narrow definition of it (ask your government to change its ways), does that mean you can stand outside your Congressman's house at 1am with a megaphone? Would it be censorship to stop that?
- bluescrn 3y ago> Does that mean you can stand outside your Congressman's house at 1am with a megaphone? These days, that seems to depend entirely upon which cause you're protesting. If you're campaigning about the climate or against racism, you'll probably get away with it. But for many other causes, you'll probably be dragged away in handcuffs.
- rootusrootus 3y agoCops are by and large right-wing, not left. Historically, progressives have gotten the sharp end of the bayonet more often.
- bluescrn 3y agoPolice follow orders. For example, it's pretty obvious that in London they've been ordered by the powers that be to be very lenient to Just Stop Oil when they block roads over and over and over again. Meanwhile, also in the UK, a lone anti-abortion campaigner has been arrested on more than one occasion for silent prayer outside an abortion clinic. Under normal circumstances, it seems reasonable to limit protest in locations where patients visiting the clinic could be directly harassed, but at the same time, other protesters are permitted to repeatedly cause traffic chaos all over London, and are disrupting major events with no indication of any particularly harsh consequences.
- rootusrootus 3y agoI think UK police and US police are quite different.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoYes.
- logicchains 3y ago> does that mean you can stand outside your Congressman's house at 1am with a megaphone? This is separately handled by the tort of nuisance, from common law; the content of the speech or the political office of the person hearing it is irrelevant. What's relevant is that it's a large noise disrupting someone's reasonable sleep hours.
- brightlancer 3y agoIn addition to tort (civil) claims, criminal harassment laws can also apply to using a megaphone outside someone's home at 1AM. > the content of the speech or the political office of the person hearing it is irrelevant. It SHOULD be irrelevant. In practice, it is often relevant: whether it's legislators (politicians) passing laws or mayors/ governors/ other executives (politicians) enforcing laws, there is a distinct partisan bent where they protect speech they agree with and target speech they don't. This is also done by government agents in non-political roles, such as teachers and police: they protect speech they agree with and target speech they don't. Sure, if a case ever makes it to a federal court, judges will take a more neutral view on the content of the speech, but how many folks can afford to do that?
- Kbelicius 3y ago> For the most part, we get censorship because the majority wants censorship. (Or, at least, thinks they want censorship because they haven't thought all the way through what that actually is going to mean). I think that you have it the other way around. The minority that doesn't want censorship hasn't thought through what it actually means to not have censorship. Either that or the two groups are working with totally different definitions of censorship.
- the_optimist 3y agoThis is an unsupported (and unsupportable) assertion over time.