4 ms·
If his rapper persona had tweeted the lyrics to a diss track but clarified the theatrical kayfabe by breaking the fourth wall, that arguably could be less of a
by this_steve_j 3y ago
If his rapper persona had tweeted the lyrics to a diss track but clarified the theatrical kayfabe by breaking the fourth wall, that arguably could be less of a threat but still demonstrate questionable judgment, so I agree with you there.
But violent rhetoric certainly increases the likelihood that others will escalate violence against the target, and so the risk (threat) of death and harm very much does increase as seen in many unfortunate cases.
That is how asymmetric information warfare has a chilling effect on democracy and infringes others’ fundamental liberties (life, pursuit of happiness), and is different from “free speech”.
It doesn’t require sophisticated thinking to discern the difference, but X is where discourse goes to die.
- Amezarak 3y agohttps://missionlocal.org/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-garry-tans-online-rant-spurs-threat-to-supe-police-reports/ https://missionlocal.org/2024/01/y-combinator-ceo-garry-tans... > Half a dozen lawyers and judges told Mission Local that, however ill-advised, Tan’s comments do not rise to the legal definition of a death threat. Your interpretation involves a large change to how free speech has been legally defined in America for a long time. You may be interested in this case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio Where the Supreme Court clarified that even more disgusting speech tinged with violence-encouraging rhetoric was, in fact, legally free speech. (Please, let's not call rhetoric itself violence.)
- paulryanrogers 3y agoEven a supreme court can be wrong sometimes. In the US that's been happening more often of late.
- rayiner 3y agoCan you give an example?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- blackguardx 3y agoThey call judicial output opinions for a reason.
- neon_electro 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
- rayiner 3y agoCitizens United says that something that’s undeniably speech—a movie about a politician—can’t be suppressed merely because the speakers pay for it through the vehicle of a corporation. What do you think is incorrect about that? If Citizens United has gone the other way, the Trump administration would have been able, for example, to order Facebook to suppress posts about COVID death tolls near the election.
- loeg 3y agoMorse v. Frederick
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago"Legally allowed" doesn't mean it's protected from consequences. Call someone a dick and you're protected under free speech, but you can still get punched in the face. And a judge won't be very amenable to a possible consequent assault case if the victim was goaded.
- Amezarak 3y agoThe grandparent post is centered around the idea that it wasn't free speech, which is what I was responding to, not the idea that there can't be social consequences. > And a judge won't be very amenable to a possible consequent assault case if the victim was goaded. This is incorrect and fairly disturbing. The idea of "fighting words" (which are not protected speech) is extremely circumscribed; it applies basically only to the case of someone standing in front of you and saying something with the intent to provoke an "immediate instinctive reaction." (Ginsburg's words.) It absolutely does not justify punching someone you see in the street for a Tweet they made yesterday and you will go to jail for this. You will not get sympathy from a judge. Unfortunately, this is one of the very sorts of ideas that disintegrates free societies - "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is true, but it doesn't justify violence legally or morally, and saying so undermines free and fair societies.
- this_steve_j 3y agoApparently there is plenty of room for debate on this subject, and Brandenburg v Ohio — involving a KKK leader whose conviction under a state law for making threatening and racist remarks was overturned by a divided court — is still being hashed out by constitutional experts to this day. It doesn’t invalidate the central idea that free speech is different from inflammatory speech “condoning” violence (wink wink) when it is amplified by technology to have an asymmetrical effect on the target of that speech. And in any case, we are discussing the use of telecommunications systems for harassment and not someone shouting in a park behind a police barricade. I don’t do either of these things, so I’m admittedly not well-informed about the constitutional and case law in the US that might apply. If I were a C-level executive I would probably aspire to higher level of online citizenry and behavior, perhaps, than a KKK leader, and hire someone else to do the tweeting.