4 ms·

> "Its (sic) judges like these that should be taken out back and shot." And, "Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if

> "Its (sic) judges like these that should be taken out back and shot." And, "Why waste ammunition? Wood chippers get the message across clearly. Especially if you feed them in feet first." These are not clear death threats, but what benefit to society is there from speech that advocates murder?

asift 11y ago
The government already oversteps their bounds in issuing subpoenas to investigate "threats" that aren't truly threats. It's hard to say where they would draw the line if given authority to police general hyperbole.
- cactusface 11y ago
  So we need to allow murder advocacy because the government might make a mistake in identifying it?
  - mikerichards 11y ago
    It's questionable that these comments were murder advocacy as opposed to political hyperbole. But in any case, the slippery slope of interpretation would be a stifling of free-speech.
    - cactusface 11y ago
      Ironically, "slippery slope" is the name of the logical fallacy you are making by not admitting a middle ground.
nate_meurer 11y ago
Fortunately, the First Amendment doesn't limit its protection to speech that "benefits society". For then the question would become, who decides which speech benefits society? The answer to that question is not likely to be you, or anyone you can trust.
- cactusface 11y ago
  So advocating murder doesn't bring any benefit to society? Then why do we need to be able to do it? I'm not talking about any kind of speech besides murder advocacy. Note: you cannot advocate terrorism. Further, you cannot make an explicit death threat. As far as I can tell, your claim is that we need to be able to do something bad, because otherwise somebody would have to decide what the good and bad things are.
  - nate_meurer 11y ago
    What I'm saying is that "benefit to society" is not and has never been a valid test for lawful expression in the U.S. And yes, we allow people to do many things you might consider "bad", such as garish hyperbole (as is the case here), and much worse things like advocating for the overthrow of the government (e.g., by impeachment, prosecution, election, mass protests, etc.) Angry speech against government officials and entities is a vital, fundamental right, a key to liberty in democratic societies.
    - cactusface 11y ago
      I think there's a misunderstanding. I wasn't questioning what the law is or how it works. I was questioning the benefit of allowing for murder advocacy under the law. That is, why is free speech ever useful, in the specific case of murder advocacy? If murder advocacy is never beneficial, why do we need to protect it? I'm not disputing that there's a benefit to angry speech.
      - nate_meurer 11y ago
        > "If murder advocacy is never beneficial, why do we need to protect it?" If tasteless hyperbole isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it? If offensive comedy or idle chatter on facebook isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it? If pornography (which includes nudity in classic artwork to some people) isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it? If insulting the Prophet Mohammed isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it? If advocating for the overthrow of the government isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it? I hope you see the point here, because I'm running short on ways to explain it. I couldn't give a shit whether woodchipper-murder fantasies are a "benefit to society", and guess what? The constitution doesn't give a shit either. It's protected speech because, in the absence of a clear threat, harassment, or defamation (or espionage, etc.), we as a society have decided that it's none of our business whether your speech is "beneficial" by any criteria.

asift 11y ago

The government already oversteps their bounds in issuing subpoenas to investigate "threats" that aren't truly threats. It's hard to say where they would draw the line if given authority to police general hyperbole.

cactusface 11y ago
So we need to allow murder advocacy because the government might make a mistake in identifying it?
- mikerichards 11y ago
  It's questionable that these comments were murder advocacy as opposed to political hyperbole. But in any case, the slippery slope of interpretation would be a stifling of free-speech.
  - cactusface 11y ago
    Ironically, "slippery slope" is the name of the logical fallacy you are making by not admitting a middle ground.

nate_meurer 11y ago

Fortunately, the First Amendment doesn't limit its protection to speech that "benefits society". For then the question would become, who decides which speech benefits society? The answer to that question is not likely to be you, or anyone you can trust.

cactusface 11y ago
So advocating murder doesn't bring any benefit to society? Then why do we need to be able to do it? I'm not talking about any kind of speech besides murder advocacy. Note: you cannot advocate terrorism. Further, you cannot make an explicit death threat. As far as I can tell, your claim is that we need to be able to do something bad, because otherwise somebody would have to decide what the good and bad things are.
- nate_meurer 11y ago
  What I'm saying is that "benefit to society" is not and has never been a valid test for lawful expression in the U.S. And yes, we allow people to do many things you might consider "bad", such as garish hyperbole (as is the case here), and much worse things like advocating for the overthrow of the government (e.g., by impeachment, prosecution, election, mass protests, etc.) Angry speech against government officials and entities is a vital, fundamental right, a key to liberty in democratic societies.
  - cactusface 11y ago
    I think there's a misunderstanding. I wasn't questioning what the law is or how it works. I was questioning the benefit of allowing for murder advocacy under the law. That is, why is free speech ever useful, in the specific case of murder advocacy? If murder advocacy is never beneficial, why do we need to protect it? I'm not disputing that there's a benefit to angry speech.
    - nate_meurer 11y ago
      > "If murder advocacy is never beneficial, why do we need to protect it?" If tasteless hyperbole isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it? If offensive comedy or idle chatter on facebook isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it? If pornography (which includes nudity in classic artwork to some people) isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it? If insulting the Prophet Mohammed isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it? If advocating for the overthrow of the government isn't beneficial, why do we need to protect it? I hope you see the point here, because I'm running short on ways to explain it. I couldn't give a shit whether woodchipper-murder fantasies are a "benefit to society", and guess what? The constitution doesn't give a shit either. It's protected speech because, in the absence of a clear threat, harassment, or defamation (or espionage, etc.), we as a society have decided that it's none of our business whether your speech is "beneficial" by any criteria.