4 ms·

> Prop 65 for example routinely mandates this sort of disclosure for lead or cadmium content in a product. The dangerous (overt?) implication you're making is

by renlo 3y ago

> Prop 65 for example routinely mandates this sort of disclosure for lead or cadmium content in a product. The dangerous (overt?) implication you're making is that some speech is "poisonous" and the government needs to step in and make sure the people aren't being "poisoned"

jasonjayr 3y ago
Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater should be protected by the 1A ? That's dangerous, and the law should rightly restrict that
- pelorat 3y ago
  I think it is, you will get charged for something else, like inciting panic.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  "The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
- hellojesus 3y ago
  It is protected. See Brandenburg vs. Ohio. """ The Court in Brandenburg, in a per curiam opinion, held that Ohio's Syndicalism law violated the First Amendment. According to the Court, "constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. """ https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/brandenburg-v--ohio--permissible-restrictions-on-violent-speech.html https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/brandenbu...
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  The law does not restrict that. "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a myth. Anyone parroting this immediately outs themselves as lacking even the most basic knowledge of first ammendment. The court case where that quote came from was overturned 54 years ago! https://www.techdirt.com/tag/fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.techdirt.com/tag/fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTsPgiUoBKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTsPgiUoBKA https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
  - jasonjayr 3y ago
    I was not aware of that court case, but that is enlightening. I have much learning to do. But based on reading through the report at the findlaw article in a sibling comment, (in my opinion) I think it's a pretty dangerous precedent, and definitely a pillar of the breakdown of modern political discourse.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  Your other responses have correctly explained why you're wrong but I just want to add a little bit more context: "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" was a euphemism by Justice Holmes to describe the act of protesting the draft. It did not come from a case about a theater and a human stampede as many naturally assume. It came from a case about a war protestor being arrested for telling people they should resist the draft (decidedly political speech.)
Eisenstein 3y ago
Except that this is about disclosing how a corporation removes speech, not about the government removing speech from anyone.
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
Information hazards exist. There is precedence. > Words can kill, a Massachusetts Juvenile Court judge decided last Friday, when he found 20-year old Michelle Carter guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the 2014 suicide of her then-boyfriend, Conrad Roy III. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/now/2017-06-22-you-may-be-jailed-for-telling-someone-to-die-in-a-fire.html https://www.yahoo.com/now/2017-06-22-you-may-be-jailed-for-t...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
DSMan195276 3y ago
No? All they're requiring is clarification on what moderation (if any) is happening. This is almost the opposite of what you're describing, that more moderation you do the harder such clarifications become - if you do none then there's nothing to disclose. Of course, arguably most people _want_ some minimum level of content moderation, so whether it's beneficial to do more or less content moderation is up to the company, they just have to disclose it.
cratermoon 3y ago
> some speech is "poisonous" Yes, this kind of speech is called 'perlocutionary' and is dicussed in international human rights law, https://revistaselectronicas.ujaen.es/index.php/TAHRJ/article/view/4810 https://revistaselectronicas.ujaen.es/index.php/TAHRJ/articl...
justapassenger 3y ago
Yes, some speech is totally illegal, under 1st amendment. Telling a bank teller “give me all the money, now!” is illegal. Telling a hit man “go kill that person who owes me money” is also illegal.
tzs 3y ago
Instead of Prop 65, look at it as like nutritional labeling rules. There is no implication in having to list e.g. how much protein is an a serving of your product means that protein is dangerous.

by renlo 3y ago

jasonjayr 3y ago

Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater should be protected by the 1A ? That's dangerous, and the law should rightly restrict that

pelorat 3y ago
I think it is, you will get charged for something else, like inciting panic.
shadowgovt 3y ago
"The act of shouting fire when there are no reasonable grounds for believing one exists is not in itself a crime, and nor would it be rendered a crime merely by having been carried out inside a theatre, crowded or otherwise." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
hellojesus 3y ago
It is protected. See Brandenburg vs. Ohio. """ The Court in Brandenburg, in a per curiam opinion, held that Ohio's Syndicalism law violated the First Amendment. According to the Court, "constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. """ https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/brandenburg-v--ohio--permissible-restrictions-on-violent-speech.html https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/brandenbu...
madeofpalk 3y ago
The law does not restrict that. "Shouting fire in a crowded theatre" is a myth. Anyone parroting this immediately outs themselves as lacking even the most basic knowledge of first ammendment. The court case where that quote came from was overturned 54 years ago! https://www.techdirt.com/tag/fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.techdirt.com/tag/fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTsPgiUoBKA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTsPgiUoBKA https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim...
- jasonjayr 3y ago
  I was not aware of that court case, but that is enlightening. I have much learning to do. But based on reading through the report at the findlaw article in a sibling comment, (in my opinion) I think it's a pretty dangerous precedent, and definitely a pillar of the breakdown of modern political discourse.
mcpackieh 3y ago
Your other responses have correctly explained why you're wrong but I just want to add a little bit more context: "Shouting fire in a crowded theater" was a euphemism by Justice Holmes to describe the act of protesting the draft. It did not come from a case about a theater and a human stampede as many naturally assume. It came from a case about a war protestor being arrested for telling people they should resist the draft (decidedly political speech.)

Eisenstein 3y ago

Except that this is about disclosing how a corporation removes speech, not about the government removing speech from anyone.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago

Information hazards exist. There is precedence. > Words can kill, a Massachusetts Juvenile Court judge decided last Friday, when he found 20-year old Michelle Carter guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the 2014 suicide of her then-boyfriend, Conrad Roy III. [1] https://www.yahoo.com/now/2017-06-22-you-may-be-jailed-for-telling-someone-to-die-in-a-fire.html https://www.yahoo.com/now/2017-06-22-you-may-be-jailed-for-t...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

DSMan195276 3y ago

No? All they're requiring is clarification on what moderation (if any) is happening. This is almost the opposite of what you're describing, that more moderation you do the harder such clarifications become - if you do none then there's nothing to disclose. Of course, arguably most people _want_ some minimum level of content moderation, so whether it's beneficial to do more or less content moderation is up to the company, they just have to disclose it.

cratermoon 3y ago

> some speech is "poisonous" Yes, this kind of speech is called 'perlocutionary' and is dicussed in international human rights law, https://revistaselectronicas.ujaen.es/index.php/TAHRJ/article/view/4810 https://revistaselectronicas.ujaen.es/index.php/TAHRJ/articl...

justapassenger 3y ago

Yes, some speech is totally illegal, under 1st amendment. Telling a bank teller “give me all the money, now!” is illegal. Telling a hit man “go kill that person who owes me money” is also illegal.

tzs 3y ago

Instead of Prop 65, look at it as like nutritional labeling rules. There is no implication in having to list e.g. how much protein is an a serving of your product means that protein is dangerous.