5 ms·

It's not the governments job to decide what speech is "correct" in the US at least under the current judicial regimes interpretation of the laws. There are some

It's not the governments job to decide what speech is "correct" in the US at least under the current judicial regimes interpretation of the laws. There are some very narrow exceptions but this is not one of those. That people honestly think this is a bad thing is depressing. The government simply cannot be trusted in the wider picture to make these decisions about good vs bad speech.

cowpig 3y ago
> It's not the governments job to decide what speech is "correct" in the US at least under the current judicial regimes interpretation of the laws. There are some very narrow exceptions but this is not one of those. I mean, the court seems to agree with this statement but it makes absolutely no sense to me. The classic example is yelling "fire!" in a movie theater because people might get hurt. This seems like the same kind of thing but much, much more harmful. EDIT: ok the "yelling fire" thing is not a great example, here are some others to jog your intuition that maybe your understanding of the concept of free speech needs to be fleshed out a bit: What about telling someone that a loaded gun is just an inert replica and giving it to them to use as a prop? What about telling someone that your company has a bunch of clients and tons of revenue when you are raising money as an investor? What about if you put the wrong ingredients on your food product and it kills someone with an allergy?
- anon291 3y ago
  > The classic example is yelling "fire!" in a movie theater because people might get hurt. This commonly brought up example is a complete garbage. It was first brought into American jurisprudence during WWI In fact, this case illustrates exactly why we ought not to criminalize speech. The phrase first entered American jurisprudence in Eugene v Debs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs), in which the government tried to prosecute an anti-war protester. Do you think the anti-war guy was popular in his time? Do you understand now why the government has no business policing speech? In the United States, short of direct threats, you can always say whatever you want. It's a fundamental human right, and frankly, no government has a moral right to take that away. This idea is foundational to American democracy. FFS, civil rights group will defend your right to proclaim 'hate speech' in
  - akerl_ 3y ago
    > In the United States, short of direct threats, you can always say whatever you want. This isn't the case. There are many exceptions to the 1st Amendment's protection of speech, beyond just true threats.
- prepend 3y ago
  > The classic example is yelling "fire!" in a movie theater because people might get hurt. This is legal [0], and is a misunderstanding. The case where this came up was overturned as yelling fire falsely is crime depending on the circumstances. And yelling fire truthfully is never a crime. If there’s a fire in a crowded theater, you definitely want people yelling fire. And trying to limit them will lead to more deaths, not less. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- qingcharles 3y ago
  This case almost seems more like there is an actual fire in the movie theater and the firemen run in, but now they are banned from telling the theater operator to shout "FIRE" over the public address system?
- christophilus 3y ago
  Fraud and intent to kill are all reasonable things for the government to fight. Forcing consensus on all speech surrounding a new and unknown virus doesn’t seem to fall into those categories. There’s plenty of gray area, and probably some intentionally harmful misinformation was disseminated, but on the whole, I’d prefer to err on the side of liberty when dealing with gray areas.

cowpig 3y ago

> It's not the governments job to decide what speech is "correct" in the US at least under the current judicial regimes interpretation of the laws. There are some very narrow exceptions but this is not one of those. I mean, the court seems to agree with this statement but it makes absolutely no sense to me. The classic example is yelling "fire!" in a movie theater because people might get hurt. This seems like the same kind of thing but much, much more harmful. EDIT: ok the "yelling fire" thing is not a great example, here are some others to jog your intuition that maybe your understanding of the concept of free speech needs to be fleshed out a bit: What about telling someone that a loaded gun is just an inert replica and giving it to them to use as a prop? What about telling someone that your company has a bunch of clients and tons of revenue when you are raising money as an investor? What about if you put the wrong ingredients on your food product and it kills someone with an allergy?

anon291 3y ago
> The classic example is yelling "fire!" in a movie theater because people might get hurt. This commonly brought up example is a complete garbage. It was first brought into American jurisprudence during WWI In fact, this case illustrates exactly why we ought not to criminalize speech. The phrase first entered American jurisprudence in Eugene v Debs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs), in which the government tried to prosecute an anti-war protester. Do you think the anti-war guy was popular in his time? Do you understand now why the government has no business policing speech? In the United States, short of direct threats, you can always say whatever you want. It's a fundamental human right, and frankly, no government has a moral right to take that away. This idea is foundational to American democracy. FFS, civil rights group will defend your right to proclaim 'hate speech' in
- akerl_ 3y ago
  > In the United States, short of direct threats, you can always say whatever you want. This isn't the case. There are many exceptions to the 1st Amendment's protection of speech, beyond just true threats.
prepend 3y ago
> The classic example is yelling "fire!" in a movie theater because people might get hurt. This is legal [0], and is a misunderstanding. The case where this came up was overturned as yelling fire falsely is crime depending on the circumstances. And yelling fire truthfully is never a crime. If there’s a fire in a crowded theater, you definitely want people yelling fire. And trying to limit them will lead to more deaths, not less. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
qingcharles 3y ago
This case almost seems more like there is an actual fire in the movie theater and the firemen run in, but now they are banned from telling the theater operator to shout "FIRE" over the public address system?
christophilus 3y ago
Fraud and intent to kill are all reasonable things for the government to fight. Forcing consensus on all speech surrounding a new and unknown virus doesn’t seem to fall into those categories. There’s plenty of gray area, and probably some intentionally harmful misinformation was disseminated, but on the whole, I’d prefer to err on the side of liberty when dealing with gray areas.