3 ms·

A couple of points: 1) The project creator has freedom of speech to a point. For one, he cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there actually is a fir

A couple of points: 1) The project creator has freedom of speech to a point. For one, he cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there actually is a fire. He also cannot advocate or call for illegal activity by others (such as "Go and mug that guy walking down the street"). This is where the line of protected speech gets blurred. Reading some excerpts from his works it's clear that he advocates for aggressive physical/sexual contact with or without permission, to the point of making the woman struggle to rebuff advances. Basically this is borderline sexual assault depending on how good of a lawyer you have. 2) Whether or not it is within the project creator's right to publish this as free speech, Kickstarter has their own interests in mind. By facilitating funding for this project, they may open themselves to legal liability if someone going by the guidelines set in the book does end up sexually assaulting someone. To address what I see as the core of your comment, I agree that an old fashion book burning / banning is not the answer. Just understand that this work dances the line between protected and unprotected speech, and Kickstarter does not want to play a part in that. Also understand that there is a significant difference between Kickstarter not allowing a certain project (or class of projects), and the government declaring a topic to be unpublishable. IANAL, so everything I'm saying comes from one vague semester of business law.

iandanforth 13y ago
1) I think you may be incorrect about the advocating of illegal acts thing, but neither am I a lawyer so lets agree on "they could get sued out of existence." Totally valid. 2)A larger point is that the public/private divide is a false dichotomy. We have our lives and we want to be able to express ourselves. So my point is that the difference between the government and kickstarter banning something is one of degree but not in kind. It is a restriction on expression within a space. Granted, a much smaller space.
- dkokelley 13y ago
  You may be correct on 1), but take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio There are a few tests that have to be met. The key piece is "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action." On point 2), I still think there is a clear difference in kind between government and private entity bans. The government can enforce their bans with legal threat of violence (i.e. You can go to prison). Another point of distinction is that within private spaces there may be implicit endorsement by the private space owner. For instance you have the public right to promote a political candidate, but if you do it by planting a sign on my lawn, it is implied that I endorse that candidate. I may not want to make that endorsement and restrict you from posting your sign, but that is not nearly the same as the government saying "No one may publish endorsements for Communist Party members".
AnIrishDuck 13y ago
> For one, he cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there actually is a fire. This meme really needs to die. The "fire in a crowded theater" standard hasn't been relevant for half a century [1]. > He also cannot advocate or call for illegal activity by others (such as "Go and mug that guy walking down the street"). This sounds like the "imminent lawless action" standard [2]. IANAL, but it seems that the "imminent" part of the standard applies to someone telling his pal to "go and mug that guy", not to someone who writes terrible advice for seducing women. Even if those that follow that advice are guilty of sexual assault, it is doubtful this author is placing women in imminent danger of sexual assault. > Whether or not it is within the project creator's right to publish this as free speech, Kickstarter has their own interests in mind. By facilitating funding for this project, they may open themselves to legal liability if someone going by the guidelines set in the book does end up sexually assaulting someone. Again, IANAL, but I doubt that Kickstarter faces real legal liability here. This seems like standard first amendment territory. I am not aware of any constitutional law that forbids running a campaign to fund a book, no matter how bad the advice in that book is. If you can cite relevant statutes or caselaw, or can state a potential civil cause of action, I'm willing to be proven wrong. > Just understand that this work dances the line between protected and unprotected speech, and Kickstarter does not want to play a part in that. It seems firmly on the right side of that line, no matter how distasteful it is. IMO, it is far more likely that Kickstarter doesn't want to be branded in the public eye as a safe haven for molestation advocates, which I can understand. 1. http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hac... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
- dkokelley 13y ago
  Regarding "fire in a crowded theater", I don't see how it's any less relevant that it was in the past, regardless of the context it was first used in. The concept is that I say something false in order to cause a panic and through the panic cause harm. (Admittedly I only skimmed the article linked. If I missed where the article specifically addresses this, I apologize.) Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawless action", this is where having a good lawyer would come in to play. It's a matter of definitions and arguing for a definition to side your way. Kickstarter might not be breaking any constitutional laws, but that doesn't prevent them from being sued or even having a judgement declared against them. Again, this goes to the use of a good lawyer to make arguments for defining the role Kickstarter played. Are they an active participant, or just a neutral 3rd party (like perhaps a bank where a criminal stored stolen money). I'm not saying that this is the only reason, or even the main reason that Kickstarter wants to prohibit something like this. I'm only saying that I believe legal liability is a legitimate concern in this case.

iandanforth 13y ago

1) I think you may be incorrect about the advocating of illegal acts thing, but neither am I a lawyer so lets agree on "they could get sued out of existence." Totally valid. 2)A larger point is that the public/private divide is a false dichotomy. We have our lives and we want to be able to express ourselves. So my point is that the difference between the government and kickstarter banning something is one of degree but not in kind. It is a restriction on expression within a space. Granted, a much smaller space.

dkokelley 13y ago
You may be correct on 1), but take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio There are a few tests that have to be met. The key piece is "The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action." On point 2), I still think there is a clear difference in kind between government and private entity bans. The government can enforce their bans with legal threat of violence (i.e. You can go to prison). Another point of distinction is that within private spaces there may be implicit endorsement by the private space owner. For instance you have the public right to promote a political candidate, but if you do it by planting a sign on my lawn, it is implied that I endorse that candidate. I may not want to make that endorsement and restrict you from posting your sign, but that is not nearly the same as the government saying "No one may publish endorsements for Communist Party members".

AnIrishDuck 13y ago

> For one, he cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater unless there actually is a fire. This meme really needs to die. The "fire in a crowded theater" standard hasn't been relevant for half a century [1]. > He also cannot advocate or call for illegal activity by others (such as "Go and mug that guy walking down the street"). This sounds like the "imminent lawless action" standard [2]. IANAL, but it seems that the "imminent" part of the standard applies to someone telling his pal to "go and mug that guy", not to someone who writes terrible advice for seducing women. Even if those that follow that advice are guilty of sexual assault, it is doubtful this author is placing women in imminent danger of sexual assault. > Whether or not it is within the project creator's right to publish this as free speech, Kickstarter has their own interests in mind. By facilitating funding for this project, they may open themselves to legal liability if someone going by the guidelines set in the book does end up sexually assaulting someone. Again, IANAL, but I doubt that Kickstarter faces real legal liability here. This seems like standard first amendment territory. I am not aware of any constitutional law that forbids running a campaign to fund a book, no matter how bad the advice in that book is. If you can cite relevant statutes or caselaw, or can state a potential civil cause of action, I'm willing to be proven wrong. > Just understand that this work dances the line between protected and unprotected speech, and Kickstarter does not want to play a part in that. It seems firmly on the right side of that line, no matter how distasteful it is. IMO, it is far more likely that Kickstarter doesn't want to be branded in the public eye as a safe haven for molestation advocates, which I can understand. 1. http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ http://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hac... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

dkokelley 13y ago
Regarding "fire in a crowded theater", I don't see how it's any less relevant that it was in the past, regardless of the context it was first used in. The concept is that I say something false in order to cause a panic and through the panic cause harm. (Admittedly I only skimmed the article linked. If I missed where the article specifically addresses this, I apologize.) Regarding the second point, the "imminent lawless action", this is where having a good lawyer would come in to play. It's a matter of definitions and arguing for a definition to side your way. Kickstarter might not be breaking any constitutional laws, but that doesn't prevent them from being sued or even having a judgement declared against them. Again, this goes to the use of a good lawyer to make arguments for defining the role Kickstarter played. Are they an active participant, or just a neutral 3rd party (like perhaps a bank where a criminal stored stolen money). I'm not saying that this is the only reason, or even the main reason that Kickstarter wants to prohibit something like this. I'm only saying that I believe legal liability is a legitimate concern in this case.