4 ms·

Barring a jarring alteration of the existing trajectory, the US will soon have just as watered down free speech rights.

by gr3yh47 13y ago

JunkDNA 13y ago
Not sure that this is true. The Supreme Court in recent years has smacked down several regulations on free speech grounds in surprising ways. Campaign finance reform (aka "Citizens United") isn't a popular one on the left, but it's an example of deferring to the first amendment even when regulation has good intentions. Another case was the FDA regulation of off label marketing of prescription drugs. The crux was that you can't tell certain people (sales reps) that they aren't allowed to talk to other people (doctors) about objective facts.
- forgottenpass 13y ago
  The two cases you cite have big differences from the "extremest narrative" that prompted this submission and alone are not a good thermometer for how the court will rule regarding speech in general. Both cases regarded speech that is already highly publicly tolerable. Sure people may moan regarding the level of rhetoric some in political ads, but it's ultimately just because they're lying. The FDA case is similar, objective facts known about drugs communicated between professionals in fields related to those drugs isn't distasteful to the public. Both cases were about otherwise-legal speech that was restricted in a narrow business context. Citizens United overturned a finance rule, not Pacifica. Those ads could have been shown before Citizens United if they were funded differently. Doctors could already learn about off label use outside of a sales call. The circumstances around the speech are important to the court. While I see no chance that regulations on religious hate speech would go over at all (especially not once the Christians realize it would apply to them too), the legal reasoning would probably not draw from either of those as precedent. If the court actually were to issue surprising rulings on free speech, they would have found in FCC v Fox that Pacifica's "uniquely pervasive" rationale no longer held. One wouldn't be too hard pressed to make the argument (although I won't) that those cases are examples of the court being business-friendly rather than broadly speech-friendly.
oftenwrong 13y ago
I would say the US already has the same sorts of provisions in place. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States .
rollo_tommasi 13y ago
It's worth noting that in the United Kingdom, you can already be fined or jailed for tweeting. Neither of these would be criminally actionable offenses in the US, and the first one especially would be clearly protected political speech: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fabrice-muamba-tweets http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fab...
- DanBC 13y ago
  People are denied entry to the US because they've made a stupid tweet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312 People are arrested for stupid youtube videos http://www.dailydot.com/news/cameron-dambrosio-boston-bomb-threat-youtube-rap/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/cameron-dambrosio-boston-bomb-t... etc etc
  - rollo_tommasi 13y ago
    There is a huge degree of difference between being denied entry to a foreign country and having punitive action taken against you by the government. Your second case is about a guy who was thought to be making immediate threats, rather than simply tweeting something offensive, and he was released after the grand jury refused to indict him on free speech grounds: http://www.ibtimes.com/cameron-dambrosio-set-free-massachusetts-teen-released-following-arrest-facebook-terror-post-1296997 http://www.ibtimes.com/cameron-dambrosio-set-free-massachuse... This is not even a false equivalency, etc. etc.
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    Our constitution obviously only protects citizens... Not sure what your point is.
    - dec0dedab0de 13y ago
      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I don't see the word citizen in there at all. While the courts generally agree that it only applies to citizens, it is definitely not obvious.

Barring a jarring alteration of the existing trajectory, the US will soon have just as watered down free speech rights.

by gr3yh47 13y ago

Barring a jarring alteration of the existing trajectory, the US will soon have just as watered down free speech rights.

Not sure that this is true. The Supreme Court in recent years has smacked down several regulations on free speech grounds in surprising ways. Campaign finance reform (aka "Citizens United") isn't a popular one on the left, but it's an example of deferring to the first amendment even when regulation has good intentions. Another case was the FDA regulation of off label marketing of prescription drugs. The crux was that you can't tell certain people (sales reps) that they aren't allowed to talk to other people (doctors) about objective facts.

forgottenpass 13y ago
The two cases you cite have big differences from the "extremest narrative" that prompted this submission and alone are not a good thermometer for how the court will rule regarding speech in general. Both cases regarded speech that is already highly publicly tolerable. Sure people may moan regarding the level of rhetoric some in political ads, but it's ultimately just because they're lying. The FDA case is similar, objective facts known about drugs communicated between professionals in fields related to those drugs isn't distasteful to the public. Both cases were about otherwise-legal speech that was restricted in a narrow business context. Citizens United overturned a finance rule, not Pacifica. Those ads could have been shown before Citizens United if they were funded differently. Doctors could already learn about off label use outside of a sales call. The circumstances around the speech are important to the court. While I see no chance that regulations on religious hate speech would go over at all (especially not once the Christians realize it would apply to them too), the legal reasoning would probably not draw from either of those as precedent. If the court actually were to issue surprising rulings on free speech, they would have found in FCC v Fox that Pacifica's "uniquely pervasive" rationale no longer held. One wouldn't be too hard pressed to make the argument (although I won't) that those cases are examples of the court being business-friendly rather than broadly speech-friendly.

oftenwrong 13y ago

I would say the US already has the same sorts of provisions in place. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States .

rollo_tommasi 13y ago

It's worth noting that in the United Kingdom, you can already be fined or jailed for tweeting. Neither of these would be criminally actionable offenses in the US, and the first one especially would be clearly protected political speech: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-19883828 http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fabrice-muamba-tweets http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/27/student-jailed-fab...

DanBC 13y ago
People are denied entry to the US because they've made a stupid tweet. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16810312 People are arrested for stupid youtube videos http://www.dailydot.com/news/cameron-dambrosio-boston-bomb-threat-youtube-rap/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/cameron-dambrosio-boston-bomb-t... etc etc
- rollo_tommasi 13y ago
  There is a huge degree of difference between being denied entry to a foreign country and having punitive action taken against you by the government. Your second case is about a guy who was thought to be making immediate threats, rather than simply tweeting something offensive, and he was released after the grand jury refused to indict him on free speech grounds: http://www.ibtimes.com/cameron-dambrosio-set-free-massachusetts-teen-released-following-arrest-facebook-terror-post-1296997 http://www.ibtimes.com/cameron-dambrosio-set-free-massachuse... This is not even a false equivalency, etc. etc.
- EpicEng 13y ago
  Our constitution obviously only protects citizens... Not sure what your point is.
  - dec0dedab0de 13y ago
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I don't see the word citizen in there at all. While the courts generally agree that it only applies to citizens, it is definitely not obvious.