5 ms·

The 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 o

by mrkeen 3y ago

The 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 ago
  Cops are by and large right-wing, not left. Historically, progressives have gotten the sharp end of the bayonet more often.
  - bluescrn 3y ago
    Police 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 ago
      I think UK police and US police are quite different.
alphanullmeric 3y ago
Yes.
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 ago
  In 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?

by mrkeen 3y ago

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 ago
Cops are by and large right-wing, not left. Historically, progressives have gotten the sharp end of the bayonet more often.
- bluescrn 3y ago
  Police 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 ago
    I think UK police and US police are quite different.

alphanullmeric 3y ago

Yes.

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 ago
In 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?