4 ms·

For what it's worth, yelling fire in a crowded theater is First Amendment protected speech. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/14/setting-1st-amendment-myths-on-

For what it's worth, yelling fire in a crowded theater is First Amendment protected speech. https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/14/setting-1st-amendment-myths-on-fire-in-a-crowded-theater/ https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/14/setting-1st-amendment-my... I'm just stating facts. https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute

lurk2 4mo ago
This video was extremely disingenuous.
- rpdillon 4mo ago
  The video is educational. It uses an extreme scenario to make its point, but that's because it's being illustrative. Okay, so maybe you don't believe a lawyer. Let's try a different lawyer that's more famous. > So, there you have it: obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct. Throw in true threats - which was left out of this list for some reason - and child pornography, and you’ve got the categories. Note that the Court specifically identifies them as well-known and historic, not as in flux. https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute
jmull 4mo ago
Sigh. Yes, it depends on context. Like everything. Yet, what’s the point of pedantic digressions that distract and muddy rather than clarify and communicate?
- redsocksfan45 4mo ago
  [dead]
- rpdillon 4mo ago
  You're specifically arguing that speech that harms is disallowed, and algorithms could be construed as harmful, so hey, let's not protect them with free speech. These are legal matters, so pedantry is part of the equation. The popehat piece is specifically written to refute this entire line of argument: free speech has extremely specific carveouts, and the way you're arguing isn't in line with how that would be expanded. This is outlined very specifically in the Popehat piece. This is in no way a pedantic digression: I'm pointing out a fundamental flaw in your proposal, and citing work by lawyers that describes that flaw in detail.

lurk2 4mo ago

This video was extremely disingenuous.

rpdillon 4mo ago
The video is educational. It uses an extreme scenario to make its point, but that's because it's being illustrative. Okay, so maybe you don't believe a lawyer. Let's try a different lawyer that's more famous. > So, there you have it: obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct. Throw in true threats - which was left out of this list for some reason - and child pornography, and you’ve got the categories. Note that the Court specifically identifies them as well-known and historic, not as in flux. https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute https://www.popehat.com/p/the-first-amendment-isnt-absolute

jmull 4mo ago

Sigh. Yes, it depends on context. Like everything. Yet, what’s the point of pedantic digressions that distract and muddy rather than clarify and communicate?

redsocksfan45 4mo ago
[dead]
rpdillon 4mo ago
You're specifically arguing that speech that harms is disallowed, and algorithms could be construed as harmful, so hey, let's not protect them with free speech. These are legal matters, so pedantry is part of the equation. The popehat piece is specifically written to refute this entire line of argument: free speech has extremely specific carveouts, and the way you're arguing isn't in line with how that would be expanded. This is outlined very specifically in the Popehat piece. This is in no way a pedantic digression: I'm pointing out a fundamental flaw in your proposal, and citing work by lawyers that describes that flaw in detail.