4 ms·

Is the 1st amendment relevant here? I thought that was only about the state limiting your speech through law etc.

by barbazoo 3y ago

goodSteveramos 3y ago
Freedom of speech is not a constitutional amendment. It’s an American cultural value.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Freedom of speech is literally a constitutional amendment. It might also be an American cultural value, but it's absurd to say it's not a constitutional amendment.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    The amendment is just one minor manifestation of a very fundamental cultural value. People who do not believe in freedom of speech will often excuse curtailment of it when such curtailment is not prohibited by the amendment, as freedom of speech is just that one law. So no, the amendment LITERALLY is not what freedom of speech is.
    - TheCleric 3y ago
      Yeah but one of those we have encoded into law, and the other is just vibes. What you define as a freedom of speech and what I do may be different. How should we adjudicate which one is correct in terms of how our laws are enforced?
      - goodSteveramos 3y ago
        Where do you think laws come from?
        TheCleric 3y ago
        Where they come from is irrelevant. What they are right now is.
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        Why?
        TheCleric 3y ago
        Why not?
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        Because we can change the law based on our feelings of fairness so talking about where laws came from is not irrelevant as you bluntly asserted.
  - barbazoo 3y ago
    Non-US person here so please excuse my ignorance. What amendment covers speech that doesn't involve the government. This is what I found on wikipedia about the 1st: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... > Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors, there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities.
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      If you personally believe in freedom of speech, then you will give your political opponents a platform to disagree with you and debate them on the merits (if any) of their arguments. This principle of honor is what motivated the first amendment and so people confuse the principle with the amendment.
mikeyouse 3y ago
This is the state enforcing a penalty against a citizen - so yes, still relevant.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  I'm not USAian, so I may be wrong; but I believe the 1st is about the state restricting speech, not about the courts enforcing penalties for civil damages.
  - mikeyouse 3y ago
    Yeah that’s not right - the most prominent examples are about the state restricting speech, but the first amendment provides really broad protections to all manner of speech that would have to be refereed by ‘the state’. Ken White (Popehat) is a prominent 1st amendment attorney and has written about this - the second bullet point applies; https://web.archive.org/web/20240116140758/https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240116140758/https://www.popeh...
marchingkazoo 3y ago
This was a civil case, not a criminal case. Steyn and Simberg were not prosecuted for their speech. They were asked to be held accountable for a tort. Different standard. That said, Steyn and Simberg would almost surely not be in the position that they find themselves now if they had simply refrained from using three words: Jerry, Sandusky, molested.

Is the 1st amendment relevant here? I thought that was only about the state limiting your speech through law etc.

goodSteveramos 3y ago

Freedom of speech is not a constitutional amendment. It’s an American cultural value.

BobaFloutist 3y ago
Freedom of speech is literally a constitutional amendment. It might also be an American cultural value, but it's absurd to say it's not a constitutional amendment.
- goodSteveramos 3y ago
  The amendment is just one minor manifestation of a very fundamental cultural value. People who do not believe in freedom of speech will often excuse curtailment of it when such curtailment is not prohibited by the amendment, as freedom of speech is just that one law. So no, the amendment LITERALLY is not what freedom of speech is.
  - TheCleric 3y ago
    Yeah but one of those we have encoded into law, and the other is just vibes. What you define as a freedom of speech and what I do may be different. How should we adjudicate which one is correct in terms of how our laws are enforced?
    - goodSteveramos 3y ago
      Where do you think laws come from?
      - TheCleric 3y ago
        Where they come from is irrelevant. What they are right now is.
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        Why?
        TheCleric 3y ago
        Why not?
        goodSteveramos 3y ago
        Because we can change the law based on our feelings of fairness so talking about where laws came from is not irrelevant as you bluntly asserted.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  Non-US person here so please excuse my ignorance. What amendment covers speech that doesn't involve the government. This is what I found on wikipedia about the 1st: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_... > Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors, there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities.
  - goodSteveramos 3y ago
    If you personally believe in freedom of speech, then you will give your political opponents a platform to disagree with you and debate them on the merits (if any) of their arguments. This principle of honor is what motivated the first amendment and so people confuse the principle with the amendment.

mikeyouse 3y ago

This is the state enforcing a penalty against a citizen - so yes, still relevant.

denton-scratch 3y ago
I'm not USAian, so I may be wrong; but I believe the 1st is about the state restricting speech, not about the courts enforcing penalties for civil damages.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  Yeah that’s not right - the most prominent examples are about the state restricting speech, but the first amendment provides really broad protections to all manner of speech that would have to be refereed by ‘the state’. Ken White (Popehat) is a prominent 1st amendment attorney and has written about this - the second bullet point applies; https://web.archive.org/web/20240116140758/https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240116140758/https://www.popeh...

marchingkazoo 3y ago

This was a civil case, not a criminal case. Steyn and Simberg were not prosecuted for their speech. They were asked to be held accountable for a tort. Different standard. That said, Steyn and Simberg would almost surely not be in the position that they find themselves now if they had simply refrained from using three words: Jerry, Sandusky, molested.