4 ms·

This is why the First Amendment is so important

by charliebwrites 6mo ago

pixl97 6mo ago
Eh, there was a lot of media censorship during WWII.
- tencentshill 6mo ago
  So we give up our rights when at war? Why not always be at war? Eastasia has always been at war with us.
  - pixl97 6mo ago
    Yes and yes. It's unfortunate life isn't black and white, but that's the way it is.
    - deleted 6mo ago
      [deleted]
  - folkrav 6mo ago
    Guess why the US now has a "Department of War".
  - aunty_helen 6mo ago
    Hauntingly, they’re actually calling the ME “west asia” now. In my copy of animal farm, there’s actually a foreword relevant for this discussion. It goes into Orwells difficulty getting things published around ww2 as there was speech that whilst legal was frowned upon during wartime.
- righthand 6mo ago
  “It’s fine because it happened during WWII, the only thing we base history off of to determine limiting rights is fine. Dumber less informed people did it, so should we!”
- kibwen 6mo ago
  It's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment during wartime. > The objective of wartime censorship was to prevent the exposure of sensitive military information to the enemy. Similar censorship had been practiced by the U.S. Army in the Civil War and the Spanish-American War. During World War I, however, the press censorship system was formalized and extended, according to the Army's official history, to include anything that might "injure morale in our forces here, or at home, or among our Allies," or "embarrass the United States or her Allies in neutral countries." https://www.army.mil/article/199675/u_s_army_press_censorship_in_world_war_i https://www.army.mil/article/199675/u_s_army_press_censorshi...
  - dennis_jeeves2 6mo ago
    > It's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment during wartime. Happens even without a war, just saying...
    - kibwen 6mo ago
      Let me rephrase that: it's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment using war as a pretense.
      - kelnos 6mo ago
        It's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment whenever it suits their interests, using whatever plausible-enough pretense they can find.
Maxious 6mo ago
“[w]hen a nation is at war, many things that might be said in times of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” Schenck v. United States (1919)
- hackingonempty 6mo ago
  "In 1969, Schenck was largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of speech that the government may ban to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot)." - Wikipedia
  - iamnothere 6mo ago
    Thank you. It really is disturbing how many people want to take us back to the Wilson era. Civil liberties are a good thing, folks!
    - chasil 6mo ago
      The legal term has its own wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
basisword 6mo ago
If you believe Trump wouldn't be doing things like this if America was actually facing direct consequences for its warmongering, I have a bridge to sell you.
raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
Yes because with the first amendment, a president can’t sue news organizations for saying mean things and get them to pay him personally $15 million a piece (Paramount/CBS and Disney/ABC) and teachers can’t be fired for quoting racist comments of a dead podcaster. https://cbs12.com/news/local/matthew-theobold-florida-martin-county-teacher-suspended-over-charlie-kirk-social-facebook-post-gets-state-hearing-termination-free-speech https://cbs12.com/news/local/matthew-theobold-florida-martin...

This is why the First Amendment is so important

pixl97 6mo ago

Eh, there was a lot of media censorship during WWII.

tencentshill 6mo ago
So we give up our rights when at war? Why not always be at war? Eastasia has always been at war with us.
- pixl97 6mo ago
  Yes and yes. It's unfortunate life isn't black and white, but that's the way it is.
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
- folkrav 6mo ago
  Guess why the US now has a "Department of War".
- aunty_helen 6mo ago
  Hauntingly, they’re actually calling the ME “west asia” now. In my copy of animal farm, there’s actually a foreword relevant for this discussion. It goes into Orwells difficulty getting things published around ww2 as there was speech that whilst legal was frowned upon during wartime.
righthand 6mo ago
“It’s fine because it happened during WWII, the only thing we base history off of to determine limiting rights is fine. Dumber less informed people did it, so should we!”
kibwen 6mo ago
It's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment during wartime. > The objective of wartime censorship was to prevent the exposure of sensitive military information to the enemy. Similar censorship had been practiced by the U.S. Army in the Civil War and the Spanish-American War. During World War I, however, the press censorship system was formalized and extended, according to the Army's official history, to include anything that might "injure morale in our forces here, or at home, or among our Allies," or "embarrass the United States or her Allies in neutral countries." https://www.army.mil/article/199675/u_s_army_press_censorship_in_world_war_i https://www.army.mil/article/199675/u_s_army_press_censorshi...
- dennis_jeeves2 6mo ago
  > It's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment during wartime. Happens even without a war, just saying...
  - kibwen 6mo ago
    Let me rephrase that: it's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment using war as a pretense.
    - kelnos 6mo ago
      It's entirely common for the government to wipe their ass with the first amendment whenever it suits their interests, using whatever plausible-enough pretense they can find.

Maxious 6mo ago

“[w]hen a nation is at war, many things that might be said in times of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” Schenck v. United States (1919)

hackingonempty 6mo ago
"In 1969, Schenck was largely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of speech that the government may ban to that directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot)." - Wikipedia
- iamnothere 6mo ago
  Thank you. It really is disturbing how many people want to take us back to the Wilson era. Civil liberties are a good thing, folks!
  - chasil 6mo ago
    The legal term has its own wiki. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

basisword 6mo ago

If you believe Trump wouldn't be doing things like this if America was actually facing direct consequences for its warmongering, I have a bridge to sell you.

raw_anon_1111 6mo ago

Yes because with the first amendment, a president can’t sue news organizations for saying mean things and get them to pay him personally $15 million a piece (Paramount/CBS and Disney/ABC) and teachers can’t be fired for quoting racist comments of a dead podcaster. https://cbs12.com/news/local/matthew-theobold-florida-martin-county-teacher-suspended-over-charlie-kirk-social-facebook-post-gets-state-hearing-termination-free-speech https://cbs12.com/news/local/matthew-theobold-florida-martin...