IrishKat
134207
1680
106
May 17, 2022 4:51 PM
IrishKat
134207
1680
106
activeracer28
Can't yell fire in a crowded public place.
Ohlookitsaname
WJLIII3
It's horrifying to see shit like this. How are American liberals so fucking stupid? Are you really so blind you cannot see four years ahead?
cheddarhat
No, it's not. Actual incitement is the line, not precursors.
TransAtheistMinister
It's not free speech if you want to control it. Just like free Healthcare isn't actually free.
skipweasel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
dasAchteck
I prefer Abbie Hoffman's take that real "free speech is shouting theater in a crowded fire."
Groovechild
Pushing the boundaries of free speech will give the government an excuse to shrink those boundaries. It's a slippery slope, to be sure.
unclesporky
It provides an easy scapegoat to those who would love to see rights reduced, but it doesn't necessarily make it a good excuse.
NSAgent
Freedom of speech is dependent on good faith. Intentionally lying to preserve power is fascism not freedom.
AxelBeingCivil
This is the exact same reasoning that was used to make distributing socialist literature illegal in the United States of over fifty years.
AxelBeingCivil
Seriously, this is why rights are *rights*. They will not target a powerful and aggressive fringe first; they'll go for minorities.
masteryoplait
Fuck Tucker
TheRealRhodry
These morons don't understand what free speech even is anyway. They act like it's a constitutional violation when someone is de-platformed.
HollyRex
This is an important distinction. Free speech does not guarantee you a platform- especially on a private companies social media site. They
HollyRex
have every right to say who can and can not post and what content can and can not be posted, it is their site.
TheRealRhodry
It's not even limited to social media. You can say whatever you want in a stadium to your friends but they don't have to give you a mic.
Clockworkdancerobot
Every right carries with it an inherent responsibility. Rights are not absolute.
darthstormer
Except guns, right? The founding fathers clearly intended every citizen to own as many as they want with zero restrictions of any kind.
AnyJester
Guns are not an unlimited right by any means and to suggest so is bad faith arguing. (or ignorant).
darthstormer
You are absolutely right. And there are some very vocal groups who would argue that by saying so, you are pissing on the founding fathers.
NothingBeatsFamily
Ranier
Paradox of tolerance
TeddyMoment
The right to free speech doesn't come with an obligation for others to publish or amplify what you say.
binaryspike
Apparently it does in Texas: https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/13/tech/texas-hb20-social-media-law/index.html
junkgoof
Unfortunately there are many propaganda networks funded to dupe the most gullible into the worst actions.
MADchemEE
Obligation? Maybe not. But, if someone were to turn that anger and hatred, into profit, via an algorithm...! Oops! Fascist megaphone!
TheDayTheBrainStoodStill
But others *want* to publish and amplify what you say, because it makes them money.
NepLeet
"Oh, but the clicks!"
Communik8
yeah Rupert Murdock you racist rat bastard
shelworth
You mean like when ANTIFA attacked and injured all those people in the Pacific Northwest?
norealreasoninparticular
Yes, exactly this, good to see someone remembers to call out the other fascists in America.
Evilpercy
We call this Hate Speech.
Burke616
Incitement is definitely not protected speech.
WJLIII3
Yes, let's have the US GOVERNMENT start tightening controls on permissible speech, I can see now way this could go horribly wrong.
GentlemanScientist
ScootiePuffJrSucks
I've been saying it for a bit now, but intentionally lying and manipulating the masses for personal gain is NOT an opinion.
valvarsson
there actually is no right to the free speech inciting violence.
khety1890
§130 of the Strafgesetzbuch.
Shapster
That is pretty much the definition of free speach
flynnman504
The age old question. Is a tolerant society required to tolerate intolerance?
TheJackKetch
Right up to the point where the intolerant become your society and then it’s too late.
Retrikaethan
the answer is demonstrably "absolutely fucking not." doing so is a surefire way for intolerance to reign supreme.
Einstein9073
Tolerance is a peace treaty, not a death compact. If You Preach intolerance, you will not be tolerated.
mm1434
Very well put
cepacolusmaximus
It's not that hard to figure out. The answer is categorically NO. Tolerating the intolerant only guarantees the death of tolerance.
BearsDontCare
No. Its like shitting on dinner. Noone has to eat it
FakeBanditHat
PoopyProblem5
unluckyandbored
No. In fact it is obligated to NOT tolerate intolerance. Because if you allow hate to spread, it will.
knivesthebrutal
This is a play on words & definitions used as a maliciously framed thought exercise. No is the answer.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
To me it's a question of who's more important to protect - those spreading hate, or those being subjected to hatred? I'd rather be free /1
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
from constant hatred than make sure the haters can freely voice how much they hate me. /2
tekcor
The intolerant will always drive out the tolerant, so to maintain tolerance, the intolerant must not be tolerated.
Mashedup9999
That sounds like some intolerant thinking from you right there. Better be rid of you, it is what you want.
LocalZoophile
DetailDevil
But where is the limit. If you don't tolerate their opinion, your intolorence will turn Turn into oppression.
Shurenai
The limit: Is it a spoken opinion, Or is it a behavior that affects others? You say you hate green things, You behave by burning down trees.
Zreen
Mass shootings is apparently an acceptable limit to free speech
Micah1966
If their opinion is "ppl should be treated like crap if they're not looking and living like me" then their opinion should not be tolerated.
trey009872
Devil's advocate: you're using the same standard you're railing against.
LuminoZero
No, he's not. He's not saying "All religious people should be outlawed". He's saying "Religious people should mind their own business."
OlympicFail
As soon as calls for violence start, that’s when it’s acceptable to not tolerate the intolerant.
Micah1966
No I'm really not. They're excluding ppl for who they are while those ppl are having no bearing on their lives. Those intolerant ppl >
Burnteye
The right to free speech is contingent on it not infringing upon others rights. Once you infringe, you should be able to be held liable.
WJLIII3
Tthe right of a husband to fuck his wife, regardless of what she wants? That was a right codified in law- was infringing on it "bad speech?"
Burnteye
Umm… how does this relate to what I said? Raping your wife is not a matter of expressing yourself. If it is still a law, it needs not be.
WJLIII3
Correct- but what you just said is "a call to illegal action" and the sort of speech all these "liberals" want to give the state power over.
Burnteye
No, I said that if you’re words were to cause someone a loss of their rights, then you should be held liable. “In court” is implied.
Burnteye
Also, saying the law itself is a piece of garbage, is not infringing on anyones rights. If that’s what you meant.
Navrodel
Your right to swing your fist stops at someone else's face. As soon as your voice incites crimes, you face consequences for the crimes done.
DrKriegersClone
But you actually don't, though. Make the incitement at all vague, and the consequences are all on the trigger man.
Navrodel
Perhaps I should have said "you /should/ face consequences" - in reality it's hard to perfectly prove a link from A's voice to B's actions.>
Navrodel
> And of course, as you said, shitty people do what they can to make sure you can't link them to shitty things done on their word.
sirlapins
Has any yank ever read their constitution ? ,, it is the right to criticize their government . not the right to spread lies ,
Domino1917
#1 Do you honestly trust gov and corp to decide what is "poisonous" and "dangerous" for us to say?
TakeTheStairs
thats whats worked in many places for a very long time now. providing overarching guidlines for society is what govt does.
TheobromineAddict
Do you trust Fox news, and Rupert Murdoch?
CaldariBob
Instead you trust Facebook, and boy-howdy did THAT work out great.
Ikwilstroopwaffels
Yes? I mean, Europe has sorted it out, so yeah?
WJLIII3
"Europe has sorted it out" might be one of the boldest assertions I've ever seen :D Europe has invented fascism three times in 70 years.
Ikwilstroopwaffels
Yet the US is beset with white nationalism and mass murder. Neat.
WJLIII3
Oh yes, Europe is /famously/ so free of white nationalists, they have white nations!
Ikwilstroopwaffels
Which place has a constant plague of mass shootings, police murder of minorities, and an entirely open white supremacist party?
Lemmingofdarkestnight
There have always been limits on free speech. Always. It's not an absolute.
WJLIII3
All rights are absolute. The only way to take the right of speech is to tear out a tongue with pliers. Consequences change, never rights.
Youhavinagiraffe
There's also nothing pro-free speech about allowing people to bully others into silence. If you want freedom of expression then you need...
Youhavinagiraffe
...to be fostering an environment in which freedom of expression is protected actively rather than just assuming it'll sort itself out
unclesporky
Yeah. Too many people lean on free speech only being a 1st amendment matter, as if we have to begrudgingly accept this law, when really >
unclesporky
free speech is more about a culture that actually values and promotes the free exchange of ideas. That's more important than law.
TheWhiteRat
The correct response to harmful speech is debunking speech. If you silence any debate, only the asshats will talk.
Eucrow
Yeah but obviously there aren't many consequences.
JoeT85
you are free to say what you wish, but there are always consequences. But in 1776, no one could have envisioned the internet.
AFistfulOfDollHairs
It’s like a chaos engine, you need some order otherwise the energy could turn your crew into demons and then what? You have to rip and tear.
HardDoseOfReality
That's true about anything
emenelopee
Yeah, but, like, free speech tho
TheSHR3DD3R
Yupp, hate Speech and Speech that incites violence arent protected under the 1st... according to the no votes, that's the SECOND amendment!
unclesporky
What are interpreted as "limits on speech" are more often legal consequences based on actions surrounding the speech, and not speech itself.
Shaodyn
And yet, people insisted that Trump inciting his followers to revolution was protected by free speech.
TheWhiteRat
Any power given to governments is invariably abused, 100%. Be careful what leeway you provide to declare something "violent" speech.
Lemmingofdarkestnight
Any power given to people is invariably abused. The government isn't special, but I prefer them over corporations or mobs.
WJLIII3
No corporation or mob has ever successfully effected a genocide. States do it all the time. Think harder.
Lemmingofdarkestnight
Suuuure. East India Company and the modern oil companies never hurt anybody.
WJLIII3
I never said they didn't, but they caused a lot less damage than the Third Reich or the United States or Turkey. No money in slaughter.
InfocalypseRising
The classic example being that you can't just yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire
Blakeadelic
It is the classic example, however, wasn’t that concept scrapped when they eliminated the Fairness Doctrine?
hardytardigrade
Also threats, harassment, slander... there are plenty of exceptions
Mechman13
The example of "fire in a crowded theater" was from a ruling that you couldn't hand out fliers criticizing the draft during world war 1
Mechman13
It's actually used as an example of why the government should be able to restrict freedoms that you have on the basis of national security
Philosopherott
This isn't true stop perpetuating it.
tr26
Oh? Go on!
tr26
Please cite Brandenburg when splaining
Philosopherott
The other guy got this right please Brandenburg v Ohio. Entire fire in a crowded theater thing is a Miss quote from supreme Court Justice
Philosopherott
In a case about distributing pamphlets against the draft in world war 1. It's never been the law of the land and it's not true. Brandenburg
ThatsNoMoonThatsAGalaxy
There is absolutely a line, and that line is immediate calls to illegal behavior. You can say you hate all left handed people, or that you—
ThatsNoMoonThatsAGalaxy
Think all left handed people should die. You can wish that every left handed person would explode, or claim left handed people are —
ThatsNoMoonThatsAGalaxy
Responsible for every evil in the world. But you are not protected when you say “Pick up a gun and shoot the nearest left handed person.”
unclesporky
Or if in response to a post about Jeff Bezos, someone were to say "I'm sharpening my guillotine."
WJLIII3
What about "break those chains and let those poor men free?" That was recommending illegal action, before 1865. "Let her have an abortion."
ThatsNoMoonThatsAGalaxy
I’m not a lawyer, and I do not know how that case worked out without searching for it, but I would assume that vague/flowery speech gives—
WJLIII3
What case? I'm just saying what you've just described is peasant talk. "The only limit is disobedience to the state."
ThatsNoMoonThatsAGalaxy
Some sort of protection/cover.
WJLIII3
The state is very often wrong and immoral, and very often must be opposed with both illegal words and, for that matter, illegal violence.
WJLIII3
What about "husbands who force their wives to have sex should be put in jail" that is advocacy for illegal violence against the husband.
norealreasoninparticular
advocating for legal consequences is not violence.
ThatsNoMoonThatsAGalaxy
Advocating for someone to go to jail isn’t “illegal violence”. And even if they said that they should be lined up and shot, that’s not the—
ThatsNoMoonThatsAGalaxy
Same as saying “You need to grab the nearest person of this description and shoot them.” Saying that someone should be killed is legal.
WJLIII3
You're speaking from the perspective of this being a crime, which it is. But recently, it wasn't, and making it one required that violence.
WJLIII3
Putting someone in jail when they haven't committed a crime is absolutely violence, advocating for it is advocating violence.