5 ms·

> 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 anythin

> 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 ago
They specifically limit video | film. They specifically treat film | video in a manner distinct from the spoken or written word.
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  Miller'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 ago
    But 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 ago
      You 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 ago
        There 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 ago
        In 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 ago
      So 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?
      - defrost 2y ago
        > So you're acknowledging video AND posting a video (which are not the same thing) are both forms of speech, No. Speech is talky talky audible words. Video is moving pictures but not film. > the fact that they are not the same as spoken or written speech, Yes, that's the fact, both in real life and legally, as evidenced in transcripts of numerous cases before courts. > even though that wasn't something that was ever claimed? This person did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40154349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40154349 They typed in written form "Posting the video is a form of speech." apparently not grasping what you have just agreed to as fact; moving pictures are not spoken words.
        DEADMINCE 2y ago
        > Speech is talky talky audible words. Legally, it's much broader in scope. At this point arguing further and not agreeing or acknowledging that basic truth is arguing semantics and nothing more, and not something I'm interested in continuing for the sake of it to to have a final say. Cheers.

defrost 2y ago

They specifically limit video | film. They specifically treat film | video in a manner distinct from the spoken or written word.

pseudalopex 2y ago
Miller'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 ago
  But 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 ago
    You 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 ago
      There 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 ago
        In 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 ago
    So 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?
    - defrost 2y ago
      > So you're acknowledging video AND posting a video (which are not the same thing) are both forms of speech, No. Speech is talky talky audible words. Video is moving pictures but not film. > the fact that they are not the same as spoken or written speech, Yes, that's the fact, both in real life and legally, as evidenced in transcripts of numerous cases before courts. > even though that wasn't something that was ever claimed? This person did: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40154349 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40154349 They typed in written form "Posting the video is a form of speech." apparently not grasping what you have just agreed to as fact; moving pictures are not spoken words.
      - DEADMINCE 2y ago
        > Speech is talky talky audible words. Legally, it's much broader in scope. At this point arguing further and not agreeing or acknowledging that basic truth is arguing semantics and nothing more, and not something I'm interested in continuing for the sake of it to to have a final say. Cheers.