4 ms·
>the Australian Government isn't asking to censor any speech .. they want to dampen down the glorification of violent acts by asking social media to not carry
by DEADMINCE 2y ago
>the Australian Government isn't asking to censor any speech .. they want to dampen down the glorification of violent acts by asking social media to not carry the video of the stabbing.
Posting the video is a form of speech.
- defrost 2y agoUse your words. Explain how, if "video is a form of speech" it is the case that Miller_v._California : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California and Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Adult_Theatre_I_v._Slaton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Adult_Theatre_I_v._Slato... even exist as U.S. Supreme Court rulings?
- DEADMINCE 2y ago> Use your words. Please keep in mind the HN guidelines. Be kind. Don't be snarky. [0] The cases you linked are about limits on speech. They don't do anything to demonstrate video isn't a speech. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- defrost 2y agoThey specifically limit video | film. They specifically treat film | video in a manner distinct from the spoken or written word.
- pseudalopex 2y agoMiller's offense was mailing brochures. The Miller test has been applied to books. Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton distinguished businesses and homes according to the article.
- defrost 2y agoBut I'm guessing we're agreed that video and books have been treated seperately and that limitations on availability have been applied to film|video content by a Federal US Government despite a "free speech" ammendment? Which really is all that is sufficient to establish the point that free speech has categories and that video has been treated in as a seperate category to the spoken word and both to the written word. The claim that free speech is equally and equivilantly { film , speech , writing } in the USofA is false in law. They overlap to a large degree, but not perfectly. There is precedent for limiting video content within a free speech society.
- pseudalopex 2y agoYou admit now video is speech? > But I'm guessing we're agreed that video and books have been treated seperately In a narrow and irrelevant manner only. Visual child pornography is extra illegal. > There is precedent for limiting video content within a free speech society. There is precedent for limiting all forms of speech.
- defrost 2y agoThere is: * Speech, * Writing, * Video, * Dance, * Morse Code, and many many other forms of communication. > Visual child pornography is extra illegal. But written isn't? Clearly there are priors for Australia limiting video content.
- pseudalopex 2y agoIn politics and law speech is not spoken words only. You seemed to understand this when you brought up written words. The statute making visual child pornography extra illegal was limited to visual media. The reasons the statute held up in court were not. There is precedent for Australia limiting written and spoken words.
- DEADMINCE 2y agoSo you're acknowledging video AND posting a video (which are not the same thing) are both forms of speech, and instead you are just quibbling over the fact that they are not the same as spoken or written speech, even though that wasn't something that was ever claimed?