9 ms·

>Why would you allow that to continue in your country? We have a constitution that protects our rights, and among them a right to make up our minds on the basi

>Why would you allow that to continue in your country? We have a constitution that protects our rights, and among them a right to make up our minds on the basis of an uncensored discourse. That's the other, implicit half of the first amendment: the right to listen to what others want to tell you.

avip 2y ago
Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?
- DEADMINCE 2y ago
  If worded in a way to prevent outright calls to violence, then yes.
  - bilbo0s 2y ago
    Um. Had cops show up at the home of a child that was on a sports team of my daughter's. They were looking for her brother and took him in. Afterwards we spoke more to her mother and found out that users in game forums had told him he could make these kinds of comments and it was free speech as long it wasn't a call to violence. Well I don't know the legalities, but I do know he was never welcome back at that school. (Nor even in the district for that matter.) Worse, the neighboring district got word, and they implemented their own machinations to ensure he was effectively banned from there as well. In the end, they sent him to live with relatives. I wouldn't be so cavalier about telling people they can say things like this. It's like, well you can say anything. But if you say things that make oblique suggestions towards violence, expect to watched from that point on. And excluded from any activities that people believe would provide you opportunity to act on what they now suspect to be your intentions. You can't talk about indirect suggestions of violence against airliners, presidents, or students in high schools and still expect to be able to show up at the White House, or board an airliner, or go to the high school you attend. Society doesn't work like that these days.
    - jakelazaroff 2y ago
      I mean, sure, but the question was about the First Amendment.
    - loeg 2y ago
      Minors essentially don't have the same rights as adults.
- SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
  Leaving that question aside, I believe there's a difference between that, and reporting, uncensored, that somebody else did. Presumably Israel is happy for the "right" people to report it, with the appropriate condemnation and editing. What that ends up amounting to is compelled speech. I know that's not quite the issue you're responding to, but I do believe that free speech requires the right to report that somebody said something that might be illegal itself, and that free speech also requires that you not be compelled to rebuke it with the appropriate government talking points to do so.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  Yes. Neo-Nazis serve as an obvious example. As long as you aren’t inciting imminent lawless actions you can say pretty much anything. Or https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-gay-massacre-in-orlando-prompting-outrage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-ga...
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  [flagged]
- csdreamer7 2y ago
  > Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ? You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread. From the poster a few levels above: > In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas. Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through media, not as an unbiased news agency. Showing a video of an enemy of the country calling for genocide of that country is a newsworthy event that is part of journalistic practice. The American media showed Osama Bin Laden videos calling for the death of Americans, to report on him. Please learn the difference of showing a video of a terrorist calling for genocide to report on him vs the news anchor/owner of that news company agreeing with that terrorist and joining that call for genocide. America has other limits on free speech. Foreign control of media for example which I am not familiar with.
  - trogdor 2y ago
    >You can not There is more to it than that. The Supreme Court has held that “advocacy of the use of force” is only unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    > You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread. Brandenburg v Ohio (the current standard for what constitutes incitement) literally says your free speech rights run up to and include advocacy for violent overthrow of the government. The limitation it establishes is "incitement to imminent lawless action", with heavy emphasis on "imminent".
    - csdreamer7 2y ago
      Learned something new. Thank you.
- dangerwill 2y ago
  Balaji Srinivasan - "Take total control of your neighborhood. Push out all Blues. Tell them they’re ... unwelcome Just as Blues ethnically cleanse me out of San Francisco, like, push out all Blues." https://youtu.be/EqJoXaNFFjY?si=x3HD6-P9n98KTHGi&t=14723 https://youtu.be/EqJoXaNFFjY?si=x3HD6-P9n98KTHGi&t=14723
- rendall 2y ago
  > Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ? Yes. We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "Globalize the Intifada" ...as long as the call is not likely to produce "imminent lawless action". Brandenburg v. Ohio was a decision by the Supreme Court establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for determining when speech advocating illegal conduct is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court held that speech is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
  - ClumsyPilot 2y ago
    > We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" I particularly object to taking worst possible interpretation, and labelling the slogan as a call for ethnic cleansing. The phrase "will be free" would not normally be interpreted this was in in any other conflict.
    - rendall 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - jakelazaroff 2y ago
        I would describe this as a motte and bailey: using the failure of peace processes to advance the claim that any call for Palestinian freedom is genocidal. Although even the “motte” in this case is tenuous, since preventing the recognition of a Palestinian state has been an explicit goal of Israeli and U.S. foreign policy. Honestly not even sure what to say about the second paragraph, other than that “implacable religious and ethnic hatred” is definitely a deeply held Western value. We don’t have a monopoly on it, but the idea that we are the uniquely moral ones, while all those other people are just motivated by hatred… sheesh.
- omegaworks 2y ago
  [flagged]
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  It depends. Not sure of the threshold offhand, but I believe it has to do with “incitement of imminent lawlessness” — that is, whether your words are designed to cause specific violent acts (as opposed to just generally stirring up hate that ends up being violent). Concrete examples: “Jews will not replace us” is protected speech; “everyone go out and find a Jew” to an angry mob is probably not.
- austin-cheney 2y ago
  That’s complicated. The US has criminal and civil law. With regards to criminal law in terms of expression and liberties there are very few things you cannot do. The default is to lean towards liberty always. In terms of civil law you can generally sue anyone for anything at anytime unless there is existing law or contracts halting further civil actions.
  - emodendroket 2y ago
    You can't sue someone for calling for violence, including racially motivated violence. Incitement is a crime, but incitement happens when you direct someone to take a specific action and they do exactly what you said (e.g., you tell them to go beat someone and they do it).
- jachee 2y ago
  I mean, that’s what the KKK does.
- objektif 2y ago
  Apparently as far as I learned from a lawyer the answer is yes. If you are not acting or planning to act on it what you described is protected under free speech.
- emodendroket 2y ago
  Actually yes.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  I think you can. I mean the Daily Stormer amongst other horrible hate-filled online publications are allowed to publish online, and US citizens are allowed to read it. Meanwhile Israeli citizens cannot read Al Jazeera legally now.
reddog 2y ago
Exceptions: yelling fire in a crowded theater and TikTok.
reissbaker 2y ago
The U.S. Constitution provides rights for citizens to have free speech — not non-citizens. And in fact, the U.S. does not allow broadcast companies (along with various others, e.g. common carrier and aeronautical radio companies) to be more than 25% owned by foreign entities unless the FCC specifically approves them: https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-policies-common-carrier-aeronautical-en-route-and-aeronautical https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli... And for 60+ years the cap was 20%, and you could not go higher: there was no FCC approval process, and the cap was mandated by Congress. (And alternatives like the Internet didn't exist!) And the E.U. banned Russia's RT media network, and has strict rules over foreign-owned media. This is all just the pot calling the kettle black to score points with anti-Israel domestic audiences. Literally every country complaining about it has some kind of similar restriction. Qatar doesn't recognize Israel as a state and has funded Hamas for years; Israel banning their state-owned media domestically is only controversial because some people find Israel to be controversial. Qatar complaining about it is especially ironic, since they hand out life sentences in prison for criticizing the Qatari government (e.g. Qatari poet Mohammed al-Ajami).
- amanaplanacanal 2y ago
  Free speech in the US is not limited to citizens. The first amendment reads “Congress shall make no law”. It doesn’t say anything about citizens. That’s a complete misunderstanding of the first amendment.
  - reissbaker 2y ago
    I believe you are incorrect. While non-citizens are granted freedom of speech while physically present in America, they are not granted freedom of speech outside of America. If they were, legal restrictions on foreign ownership of broadcast media companies would be difficult to enforce, since corporate expenditures are considered speech under Citizens United. https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-am...
  - refurb 2y ago
    It’s not, but it’s nuanced. The US Constitution applies to any US Person - someone within the US’ international borders, regardless of citizenship status. Banning a foreign news outlet who broadcasts outside the US isn’t violating anyone’s 1st amendment rights.
bamboozled 2y ago
This is fine but you have to realise that war isn’t just about bombs. It’s about information too. An information war. In order to make up your mind correctly you need to be feed accurate information. Al Jazeera making up causality figures in real-time isn’t how you make up your mind.
- objektif 2y ago
  Do you really think say if you listen to US MSM you will make up your mind correctly?. They are constantly making up stuff and omitting facts to influence public opinion.
  - bamboozled 2y ago
    Well at this point, I'm not so sure some of what I've seen on US MSM isn't created by foreign interference. Anyway, I get your point but the difference here is this, you're allowed to ask questions like that in the very places where this nonsense is being fabricated. That same toxic propaganda shouldn't be allowed to spread freely and unabated within our information space or we become those very dystopias we try to avoid. I think this blind belief that "all information" is part of "free speech" is our Achilles heel, it might destroy our country.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- chmod775 2y ago
  > In order to make up your mind correctly you need to be feed accurate information. Haha. And we're going to let the government decide what is "correct" and "accurate"? Letting whoever is currently in power control what information the electorate has access to is one of the single biggest threats to democracy. > Al Jazeera making up causality figures in real-time isn’t how you make up your mind. The correct response is pointing out that their numbers are made up. In a working democracy you get people to see truth through public discourse, not censorship. Don't make a deal with the devil just to shut up the neighbor's annoying dog.
flanked-evergl 2y ago
I'm not aware of any country with a constitution that prohibits all manners of media censorship and I'm also not aware of any country that does not have some level of media censorship that it engages in. What country are you talking about?
- whatshisface 2y ago
  The United States has no prior speech restrictions, only limitations on the use of finite public spaces (town squares, broadcast spectrum), and restrictions based in the illegal origin of certain materials (CSAM). Libel laws are not restraints on speech, they're an avenue for torts arising from harms proven after they occurred. Specifically, the restraints the US does not have are called prior restraints. There are no banned media outlets or silenced individuals, which would be prior (before the fact) restraints on speech.

avip 2y ago

Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ?

DEADMINCE 2y ago
If worded in a way to prevent outright calls to violence, then yes.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Um. Had cops show up at the home of a child that was on a sports team of my daughter's. They were looking for her brother and took him in. Afterwards we spoke more to her mother and found out that users in game forums had told him he could make these kinds of comments and it was free speech as long it wasn't a call to violence. Well I don't know the legalities, but I do know he was never welcome back at that school. (Nor even in the district for that matter.) Worse, the neighboring district got word, and they implemented their own machinations to ensure he was effectively banned from there as well. In the end, they sent him to live with relatives. I wouldn't be so cavalier about telling people they can say things like this. It's like, well you can say anything. But if you say things that make oblique suggestions towards violence, expect to watched from that point on. And excluded from any activities that people believe would provide you opportunity to act on what they now suspect to be your intentions. You can't talk about indirect suggestions of violence against airliners, presidents, or students in high schools and still expect to be able to show up at the White House, or board an airliner, or go to the high school you attend. Society doesn't work like that these days.
  - jakelazaroff 2y ago
    I mean, sure, but the question was about the First Amendment.
  - loeg 2y ago
    Minors essentially don't have the same rights as adults.
SuperNinKenDo 2y ago
Leaving that question aside, I believe there's a difference between that, and reporting, uncensored, that somebody else did. Presumably Israel is happy for the "right" people to report it, with the appropriate condemnation and editing. What that ends up amounting to is compelled speech. I know that's not quite the issue you're responding to, but I do believe that free speech requires the right to report that somebody said something that might be illegal itself, and that free speech also requires that you not be compelled to rebuke it with the appropriate government talking points to do so.
ceejayoz 2y ago
Yes. Neo-Nazis serve as an obvious example. As long as you aren’t inciting imminent lawless actions you can say pretty much anything. Or https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-gay-massacre-in-orlando-prompting-outrage.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/pastors-praise-anti-ga...
alfiedotwtf 2y ago
[flagged]
csdreamer7 2y ago
> Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ? You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread. From the poster a few levels above: > In the case of Israel, the Middle-Eastern unit were literally showing videos demanding further uprising against Israel across the region directly from Hamas. Also the entire point of Al Jazeera was for Qatar to provide political influence through media, not as an unbiased news agency. Showing a video of an enemy of the country calling for genocide of that country is a newsworthy event that is part of journalistic practice. The American media showed Osama Bin Laden videos calling for the death of Americans, to report on him. Please learn the difference of showing a video of a terrorist calling for genocide to report on him vs the news anchor/owner of that news company agreeing with that terrorist and joining that call for genocide. America has other limits on free speech. Foreign control of media for example which I am not familiar with.
- trogdor 2y ago
  >You can not There is more to it than that. The Supreme Court has held that “advocacy of the use of force” is only unprotected when it is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and is “likely to incite or produce such action.”
- jcranmer 2y ago
  > You can not. Inciting violence and calls for criminal action is a well establish limit of the First Amendment, but that is not what they are doing from what I gathered in this thread. Brandenburg v Ohio (the current standard for what constitutes incitement) literally says your free speech rights run up to and include advocacy for violent overthrow of the government. The limitation it establishes is "incitement to imminent lawless action", with heavy emphasis on "imminent".
  - csdreamer7 2y ago
    Learned something new. Thank you.
dangerwill 2y ago
Balaji Srinivasan - "Take total control of your neighborhood. Push out all Blues. Tell them they’re ... unwelcome Just as Blues ethnically cleanse me out of San Francisco, like, push out all Blues." https://youtu.be/EqJoXaNFFjY?si=x3HD6-P9n98KTHGi&t=14723 https://youtu.be/EqJoXaNFFjY?si=x3HD6-P9n98KTHGi&t=14723
rendall 2y ago
> Can you openly call for the murder of <enter ethnic group> in the US under the protection of the first amendment ? Yes. We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "Globalize the Intifada" ...as long as the call is not likely to produce "imminent lawless action". Brandenburg v. Ohio was a decision by the Supreme Court establishing the "imminent lawless action" test for determining when speech advocating illegal conduct is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court held that speech is protected unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > We see this with open chants of "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" I particularly object to taking worst possible interpretation, and labelling the slogan as a call for ethnic cleansing. The phrase "will be free" would not normally be interpreted this was in in any other conflict.
  - rendall 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - jakelazaroff 2y ago
      I would describe this as a motte and bailey: using the failure of peace processes to advance the claim that any call for Palestinian freedom is genocidal. Although even the “motte” in this case is tenuous, since preventing the recognition of a Palestinian state has been an explicit goal of Israeli and U.S. foreign policy. Honestly not even sure what to say about the second paragraph, other than that “implacable religious and ethnic hatred” is definitely a deeply held Western value. We don’t have a monopoly on it, but the idea that we are the uniquely moral ones, while all those other people are just motivated by hatred… sheesh.
omegaworks 2y ago
[flagged]
jakelazaroff 2y ago
It depends. Not sure of the threshold offhand, but I believe it has to do with “incitement of imminent lawlessness” — that is, whether your words are designed to cause specific violent acts (as opposed to just generally stirring up hate that ends up being violent). Concrete examples: “Jews will not replace us” is protected speech; “everyone go out and find a Jew” to an angry mob is probably not.
austin-cheney 2y ago
That’s complicated. The US has criminal and civil law. With regards to criminal law in terms of expression and liberties there are very few things you cannot do. The default is to lean towards liberty always. In terms of civil law you can generally sue anyone for anything at anytime unless there is existing law or contracts halting further civil actions.
- emodendroket 2y ago
  You can't sue someone for calling for violence, including racially motivated violence. Incitement is a crime, but incitement happens when you direct someone to take a specific action and they do exactly what you said (e.g., you tell them to go beat someone and they do it).
jachee 2y ago
I mean, that’s what the KKK does.
objektif 2y ago
Apparently as far as I learned from a lawyer the answer is yes. If you are not acting or planning to act on it what you described is protected under free speech.
emodendroket 2y ago
Actually yes.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
I think you can. I mean the Daily Stormer amongst other horrible hate-filled online publications are allowed to publish online, and US citizens are allowed to read it. Meanwhile Israeli citizens cannot read Al Jazeera legally now.

reddog 2y ago

Exceptions: yelling fire in a crowded theater and TikTok.

reissbaker 2y ago

The U.S. Constitution provides rights for citizens to have free speech — not non-citizens. And in fact, the U.S. does not allow broadcast companies (along with various others, e.g. common carrier and aeronautical radio companies) to be more than 25% owned by foreign entities unless the FCC specifically approves them: https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-policies-common-carrier-aeronautical-en-route-and-aeronautical https://www.fcc.gov/general/foreign-ownership-rules-and-poli... And for 60+ years the cap was 20%, and you could not go higher: there was no FCC approval process, and the cap was mandated by Congress. (And alternatives like the Internet didn't exist!) And the E.U. banned Russia's RT media network, and has strict rules over foreign-owned media. This is all just the pot calling the kettle black to score points with anti-Israel domestic audiences. Literally every country complaining about it has some kind of similar restriction. Qatar doesn't recognize Israel as a state and has funded Hamas for years; Israel banning their state-owned media domestically is only controversial because some people find Israel to be controversial. Qatar complaining about it is especially ironic, since they hand out life sentences in prison for criticizing the Qatari government (e.g. Qatari poet Mohammed al-Ajami).

amanaplanacanal 2y ago
Free speech in the US is not limited to citizens. The first amendment reads “Congress shall make no law”. It doesn’t say anything about citizens. That’s a complete misunderstanding of the first amendment.
- reissbaker 2y ago
  I believe you are incorrect. While non-citizens are granted freedom of speech while physically present in America, they are not granted freedom of speech outside of America. If they were, legal restrictions on foreign ownership of broadcast media companies would be difficult to enforce, since corporate expenditures are considered speech under Citizens United. https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforum.org/non-citizens-protected-first-am...
- refurb 2y ago
  It’s not, but it’s nuanced. The US Constitution applies to any US Person - someone within the US’ international borders, regardless of citizenship status. Banning a foreign news outlet who broadcasts outside the US isn’t violating anyone’s 1st amendment rights.

bamboozled 2y ago

This is fine but you have to realise that war isn’t just about bombs. It’s about information too. An information war. In order to make up your mind correctly you need to be feed accurate information. Al Jazeera making up causality figures in real-time isn’t how you make up your mind.

objektif 2y ago
Do you really think say if you listen to US MSM you will make up your mind correctly?. They are constantly making up stuff and omitting facts to influence public opinion.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  Well at this point, I'm not so sure some of what I've seen on US MSM isn't created by foreign interference. Anyway, I get your point but the difference here is this, you're allowed to ask questions like that in the very places where this nonsense is being fabricated. That same toxic propaganda shouldn't be allowed to spread freely and unabated within our information space or we become those very dystopias we try to avoid. I think this blind belief that "all information" is part of "free speech" is our Achilles heel, it might destroy our country.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
chmod775 2y ago
> In order to make up your mind correctly you need to be feed accurate information. Haha. And we're going to let the government decide what is "correct" and "accurate"? Letting whoever is currently in power control what information the electorate has access to is one of the single biggest threats to democracy. > Al Jazeera making up causality figures in real-time isn’t how you make up your mind. The correct response is pointing out that their numbers are made up. In a working democracy you get people to see truth through public discourse, not censorship. Don't make a deal with the devil just to shut up the neighbor's annoying dog.

flanked-evergl 2y ago

I'm not aware of any country with a constitution that prohibits all manners of media censorship and I'm also not aware of any country that does not have some level of media censorship that it engages in. What country are you talking about?

whatshisface 2y ago
The United States has no prior speech restrictions, only limitations on the use of finite public spaces (town squares, broadcast spectrum), and restrictions based in the illegal origin of certain materials (CSAM). Libel laws are not restraints on speech, they're an avenue for torts arising from harms proven after they occurred. Specifically, the restraints the US does not have are called prior restraints. There are no banned media outlets or silenced individuals, which would be prior (before the fact) restraints on speech.