4 ms·
> Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protect
by junofan 4mo ago
> Generally speaking, we deem various kinds of speech that harms people as NOT protected under the first amendment, and that kind of speech would not be protected here.
That is not a general principle. Consider the following: it is now illegal to say the word “election” because it would harm the President.
- kbelder 4mo agoYeah, we don't ban harmful speech, and we shouldn't. Harming people can be a legitimate and valuable consequence of speech. We ban a subset of harmful speech with a direct link to clear harms, usually criminal.
- jmull 4mo agoIs that really what you think I said? It’s probably more productive to read with the goal to understand rather than the goal to misunderstand.
- junofan 3mo agoYes, that’s how I read your comment. There are narrow circumstances but no general principle. To generalize from narrow circumstances is simply misguided, so I commented.