3 ms·

A good saying I heard recently is that the first amendment doesn’t exist to protect the speech you like, it exists to protect the speech you hate.

jfengel 9mo ago
Not necessarily. According to the Supreme Court, "implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance". That seems asinine to me, and it's just one in a long line of reasons to hold the court in utter contempt. But they're in charge and I'm not.
- KPGv2 9mo ago
  > That seems asinine to me Until you realize that child pornography would be protected by the First Amendment without obscenity carved out. The Miller Test is what defines obscenity, and it seems pretty reasonable to me: is it about gross sex according to the average person (not the most Karen person), and does it lack serious literary, political, scientific, or artistic merit. Honestly, I'm not aware of a Supreme Court case that held something to be obscene that was IMO wrongly decided. Pornography is fine. Even lolicon (cartoon sex of children) has been protected under the First Amendment and not deemed obscene.
  - ethbr1 9mo ago
    The problem with opening the "which obscene is protected" door is that it gives the government (presumed to be correct in judgement by default) too much power. See Bush W admin's leaning on credit card processors to freeze out content they didn't like. If a Miller bargain must be struck, then "not allowing pornography to be exposed to minors (and no other limits for everyone else)" seems a better line. Then putting some safeguards in around what can and cannot be used as an age test in order to maximally preserve privacy (e.g. independent, non-government company, no identifiable information persisted, non-id verification options, etc) and what constitutes pornography (and what isn't). I'm a free-speech maximalist, but "porn for kids" is a tough hill to die on. Even if there are sound technical reasons why that should be allowed, there are too many social ones to make that the all-in bet in a democracy.
  - jfengel 9mo ago
    Production of child pornography is illegal even without obscenity laws That doesn't criminalize possession, and arguably there's a compelling interest to do that. But I hate the dance that lawyers do, pretending to legal rigor while simultaneously carving out exceptions that the text cannot justify.
nntwozz 9mo ago
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire
- p0w3n3d 9mo ago
  More like Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  - nntwozz 9mo ago
    Thank you for that, I'll update my database. "That famous quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," isn't actually by Voltaire, but was written about him by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her 1906 book The Friends of Voltaire, summarizing his views on free speech, though he strongly championed it, notes the BBC and Quote Investigator." https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
mystraline 9mo ago
No. It serves as a defense for people to criticize government. Its why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag. People who 'advocate' for threats, assault, or death of people should never be permitted. Like, for example, Kiwi Farms. They've advocated for online bullying, threats, and ended up getting a bunch of people killed.
- jfengel 9mo ago
  If you don't fear the gulag, you're not paying attention. He routinely attempts to put his political enemies in jail.
  - mystraline 9mo ago
    Oh I'm paying attention. But I also stay quiet publicly. Speaking out is a way to get the hammer. Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do.
    - Aloha 9mo ago
      > No. It serves as a defense for people to criticize government. It's why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag. > Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do. How do you reconcile those two statements?
      - lovich 9mo ago
        He is lying or suffering cognitive dissonance. A lot of people get angry when I call out people as liars, but sometimes these people are just fucking lying to everyone and you have to call a spade a spade.
      - mystraline 9mo ago
        Think of https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/... Pay close attention to section "General Interference with Organizations and Production" pages 28-32.

jfengel 9mo ago

Not necessarily. According to the Supreme Court, "implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance". That seems asinine to me, and it's just one in a long line of reasons to hold the court in utter contempt. But they're in charge and I'm not.

KPGv2 9mo ago
> That seems asinine to me Until you realize that child pornography would be protected by the First Amendment without obscenity carved out. The Miller Test is what defines obscenity, and it seems pretty reasonable to me: is it about gross sex according to the average person (not the most Karen person), and does it lack serious literary, political, scientific, or artistic merit. Honestly, I'm not aware of a Supreme Court case that held something to be obscene that was IMO wrongly decided. Pornography is fine. Even lolicon (cartoon sex of children) has been protected under the First Amendment and not deemed obscene.
- ethbr1 9mo ago
  The problem with opening the "which obscene is protected" door is that it gives the government (presumed to be correct in judgement by default) too much power. See Bush W admin's leaning on credit card processors to freeze out content they didn't like. If a Miller bargain must be struck, then "not allowing pornography to be exposed to minors (and no other limits for everyone else)" seems a better line. Then putting some safeguards in around what can and cannot be used as an age test in order to maximally preserve privacy (e.g. independent, non-government company, no identifiable information persisted, non-id verification options, etc) and what constitutes pornography (and what isn't). I'm a free-speech maximalist, but "porn for kids" is a tough hill to die on. Even if there are sound technical reasons why that should be allowed, there are too many social ones to make that the all-in bet in a democracy.
- jfengel 9mo ago
  Production of child pornography is illegal even without obscenity laws That doesn't criminalize possession, and arguably there's a compelling interest to do that. But I hate the dance that lawyers do, pretending to legal rigor while simultaneously carving out exceptions that the text cannot justify.

nntwozz 9mo ago

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Voltaire

p0w3n3d 9mo ago
More like Evelyn Beatrice Hall
- nntwozz 9mo ago
  Thank you for that, I'll update my database. "That famous quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it," isn't actually by Voltaire, but was written about him by Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her 1906 book The Friends of Voltaire, summarizing his views on free speech, though he strongly championed it, notes the BBC and Quote Investigator." https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/

mystraline 9mo ago

No. It serves as a defense for people to criticize government. Its why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag. People who 'advocate' for threats, assault, or death of people should never be permitted. Like, for example, Kiwi Farms. They've advocated for online bullying, threats, and ended up getting a bunch of people killed.

jfengel 9mo ago
If you don't fear the gulag, you're not paying attention. He routinely attempts to put his political enemies in jail.
- mystraline 9mo ago
  Oh I'm paying attention. But I also stay quiet publicly. Speaking out is a way to get the hammer. Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do.
  - Aloha 9mo ago
    > No. It serves as a defense for people to criticize government. It's why I can insult and talk terrible of president Turnip (spit) and not fear the gulag. > Theres different ways to protest. Being an obvious target isn't what I do. How do you reconcile those two statements?
    - lovich 9mo ago
      He is lying or suffering cognitive dissonance. A lot of people get angry when I call out people as liars, but sometimes these people are just fucking lying to everyone and you have to call a spade a spade.
    - mystraline 9mo ago
      Think of https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/SimpleSabotage.pdf https://www.cia.gov/static/5c875f3ec660e092cf893f60b4a288df/... Pay close attention to section "General Interference with Organizations and Production" pages 28-32.