4 ms·

Ok... First, it is 100% free speech. Second, the government isn't allowed to make laws prohibiting the exercise of free speech based on the content of said sp

Ok... First, it is 100% free speech. Second, the government isn't allowed to make laws prohibiting the exercise of free speech based on the content of said speech. Nor can it take actions which are arbitrary or capricious. Third, restrictions on free speech MUST fulfill some overriding public good like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or words meant to incite violence. Slander, libel, &etc. Fourth, why is it even necessary to explain this?

philipwhiuk 2y ago
> First, it is 100% free speech. It's speech for sure. > Second, the government isn't allowed to make laws prohibiting the exercise of free speech based on the content of said speech. Nor can it take actions which are arbitrary or capricious. Except that they can and do, as you outline below. All laws are arbitrary. > Third, restrictions on free speech MUST fulfill some overriding public good like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or words meant to incite violence. Slander, libel, &etc. Firstly, the fire thing is a myth. Secondly, so we're just quibbling on "overriding" then? > Fourth, why is it even necessary to explain this? Well because none of your points are that conclusive?
- hfgjbcgjbvg 2y ago
  > It's speech for sure. Good point. It’s specifically paid speech that’s the problem.
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  > Except that they can and do, as you outline below. All laws are arbitrary. The third rule follows from the second, the government isn't allowed to curtail speech except under extraordinary circumstances which has been whittled down to basically "panic and disorder" and "fighting words". The other two are civil torts if I'm not mistaken, you can't be arrested for slander or libel. There's others but they are extremely limited. > Firstly, the fire thing is a myth. Go spread panic and see how fast you get charged with disorderly conduct or whatever the equivalent local statute is. Bonus points if someone is harmed by your actions. > Secondly, so we're just quibbling on "overriding" then? No, the Supreme Court has some pretty hard and fast rules on this.
  - philipwhiuk 2y ago
    > There's others but they are extremely limited. By the laws that people write which the article proposes to change.
    - UncleEntity 2y ago
      The problem is you can't outlaw an entire class of speech as the article proposes. The other exceptions are, literally, extremely limited to things which hold no legitimate public value like child pornography. If you can name only one legitimate instance of advertising then they are, by definition, proposing a content based prohibition of speech -- they don't like what these advertisers say while those other ones are fine because of whatever reasons. They can change the laws but the courts place the burden on the government to prove that the problem can't be solved by any lesser means. And when they say "any" they really do mean "any", the problem can't be solved without making the targeted speech illegal.
      - philipwhiuk 2y ago
        > The problem is you can't outlaw an entire class of speech as the article proposes. Sure you can, you just have to alter one big law.
        UncleEntity 2y ago
        Good luck altering the constitution to allow for content based prohibition of speech. Now, on the other hand, the Supreme Court can also chose to ignore a couple centuries of case law and effect the same goal but that's also less likely than changing the constitution. Let's take advertising out of it, what are the chances we would even be seriously discussing this issue if TFA was proposing to outlaw an entire religion?
goatlover 2y ago
I'm not convinced modern advertising qualifies as free speech. It's often manipulative, used by bad faith actors, used for tracking, slows websites down, is obtrusive, disrupts concentration, etc.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  None of those things exempt something from speech protection in the US, as far as I'm aware. Different countries have different laws, but here you are legally allowed to say just about anything (including way worse stuff than any of the things you mentioned).
teddyh 2y ago
Are cigarette ads still free speech? Are you saying those should be legal again?
- UncleEntity 2y ago
  > Are cigarette ads still free speech? Apparently there was a "significant public health crisis associated with tobacco use" according to the google. I'm not even sure they're universally banned, I don't pay that much attention but seem to recall still seeing them in the windows of gas stations and whatnot.

philipwhiuk 2y ago

> First, it is 100% free speech. It's speech for sure. > Second, the government isn't allowed to make laws prohibiting the exercise of free speech based on the content of said speech. Nor can it take actions which are arbitrary or capricious. Except that they can and do, as you outline below. All laws are arbitrary. > Third, restrictions on free speech MUST fulfill some overriding public good like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or words meant to incite violence. Slander, libel, &etc. Firstly, the fire thing is a myth. Secondly, so we're just quibbling on "overriding" then? > Fourth, why is it even necessary to explain this? Well because none of your points are that conclusive?

hfgjbcgjbvg 2y ago
> It's speech for sure. Good point. It’s specifically paid speech that’s the problem.
UncleEntity 2y ago
> Except that they can and do, as you outline below. All laws are arbitrary. The third rule follows from the second, the government isn't allowed to curtail speech except under extraordinary circumstances which has been whittled down to basically "panic and disorder" and "fighting words". The other two are civil torts if I'm not mistaken, you can't be arrested for slander or libel. There's others but they are extremely limited. > Firstly, the fire thing is a myth. Go spread panic and see how fast you get charged with disorderly conduct or whatever the equivalent local statute is. Bonus points if someone is harmed by your actions. > Secondly, so we're just quibbling on "overriding" then? No, the Supreme Court has some pretty hard and fast rules on this.
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  > There's others but they are extremely limited. By the laws that people write which the article proposes to change.
  - UncleEntity 2y ago
    The problem is you can't outlaw an entire class of speech as the article proposes. The other exceptions are, literally, extremely limited to things which hold no legitimate public value like child pornography. If you can name only one legitimate instance of advertising then they are, by definition, proposing a content based prohibition of speech -- they don't like what these advertisers say while those other ones are fine because of whatever reasons. They can change the laws but the courts place the burden on the government to prove that the problem can't be solved by any lesser means. And when they say "any" they really do mean "any", the problem can't be solved without making the targeted speech illegal.
    - philipwhiuk 2y ago
      > The problem is you can't outlaw an entire class of speech as the article proposes. Sure you can, you just have to alter one big law.
      - UncleEntity 2y ago
        Good luck altering the constitution to allow for content based prohibition of speech. Now, on the other hand, the Supreme Court can also chose to ignore a couple centuries of case law and effect the same goal but that's also less likely than changing the constitution. Let's take advertising out of it, what are the chances we would even be seriously discussing this issue if TFA was proposing to outlaw an entire religion?

goatlover 2y ago

I'm not convinced modern advertising qualifies as free speech. It's often manipulative, used by bad faith actors, used for tracking, slows websites down, is obtrusive, disrupts concentration, etc.

bigstrat2003 2y ago
None of those things exempt something from speech protection in the US, as far as I'm aware. Different countries have different laws, but here you are legally allowed to say just about anything (including way worse stuff than any of the things you mentioned).

teddyh 2y ago

Are cigarette ads still free speech? Are you saying those should be legal again?

UncleEntity 2y ago
> Are cigarette ads still free speech? Apparently there was a "significant public health crisis associated with tobacco use" according to the google. I'm not even sure they're universally banned, I don't pay that much attention but seem to recall still seeing them in the windows of gas stations and whatnot.