31–40 of 163 posts
Wikileaks gets raked over the coals for (allegedly) printing similar information and the LA Times gets a pass. I believe it was in the Noriega case where the first order to CNN not to publish was made. It was overturned by the 11th Circuit.
Hu? The LA Times took it down. How is that "gets a pass"?
The LA Times also acquired the information lawfully, Wikileaks did not.
Stifling the first amendment is serious business. When are judges going to be held accountable for their wrong actions?
Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
I know this isn't related to hate speech, it was done to protect someone's family, but in much of the world, various forms of speech are regulated (by judges or elected officials). To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. This is not a slippery slope. I think i…
Free speech is one of those things that fits into this category, regulating speech that makes people uncomfortable does have a very provable slippery slope effect.
https://theintercept.com/2017/08/29/in-europe-hate-speech-la...
We've experimented with aggressively limiting free speech before, and it went very very bad, very fast, I'd rather not try the experiment again.
Another point I'd like to make, is that I'd rather know what peoples 'real' views are, so I can either avoid them or help change their mind, pushing objectionable opinion underground, does not stop people from holding those opinions, it just hides them where it cannot been seen, and actioned upon.
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/15/judge-orders-la-times-to...
Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
Judges and elected officials routinely regulate free speech. Every court sealed record, every copyright performance enforcement, every liable/slander ruling, every pornograpy lewd speech law/FCC regulation, hate crime and bullying laws that limit what anyone can say, tons of national security arms export that restrict wide gamut of things like CPUs and maths algorithms. Some of those I agree with. Some I don't. Point…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Judges and elected officials routinely regulate free speech. Every court sealed record, every copyright performance enforcement, every liable/slander ruling, every pornograpy lewd speech law/FCC regulation, hate crime and bullying laws that limit what anyone can say, tons of national security arms export that restrict wide gamut of things like CPUs and maths algorithms. Some of those I agree with. Some I don't. Point…
> every copyright performance enforcement Apropos of anything else, if I go somewhere and broadcast Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody, or whatever, that is in no way my speech, and regulating the ability to do so without commission or royalty in no way restricts my ability to speak.
Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
Here's the article before it was edited: https://web.archive.org/web/20180714180330/http://www.latime...
And an archive.is link of that one, for good measure: https://archive.is/g8jV7
Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
I know this isn't related to hate speech, it was done to protect someone's family, but in much of the world, various forms of speech are regulated (by judges or elected officials). To me, anyways, there's overwhelming anecdotal proof that having some limits on speech correlates (and more than likely contributes) to a safer and more just society without any virulent side effect. This is not a slippery slope. I think i…
Regardless of their reasons, it feels very wrong to think a judge or an elected official could even think about regulating free speach. Double wrong for doing to the press. I hope the judge get removed from office. I don't want people like that in charge of justice.
Removal from office is the last thing that should happen in this situation. The judge made a questionable decision, which will be appealed, but the judge should not be fired (that is an action reserved for actual misconduct). If we do the latter to judges with whom we do not agree, we jeopardize the independence of our judiciary.
That said, you may be right about this particular situation.