101–110 of 480 posts
"In nations where millions of people hold diverse beliefs, who gets to decide exactly when speech becomes “harmful” and which people should be protected from offensive or critical speech?" I don't know, maybe we could all get together and collectively decide with some kind of voting mechanism??? Or, if voting every time is too onerous, we could elect a "representative" to stand in for our views? Just a thought!
[flagged]
Would you feel differently if it wasn't about canceling those who "hurt people" (where we again would need a definition of what is violent speech that hurts)? Like, if some group went out to cancel people because of their skin color, religion, sexual orientation, political persuasion, gender etc, would that also fall under "reasonable and sensible"? After all, these mobs would be just as offended by some person's reach/platform/existence as the ones who are doing the canceling now.
Now it was okay for me to say because I was telling you it was illegal to say "I want to kill the President of the United States of America", because I wasn't saying it, I was telling you it was illegal to say it, like a public service.
But it is not illegal to say "with a mortar launcher", because that's it's own sentence. It's an incomplete sentence but it may have nothing to do with the sentence before that. So that's perfectly fine, perfectly legal.
It's incredibly illegal, extremely illegal to go on the internet and say something like "The best place to fire a mortar launcher at the White House would be from the roof of the Rockerfeller Hewitt building, because of minimal security and you'd have a clear line of sight to the President's bedroom." That's insanely illegal, ridiculously illegal, recklessly illegal, horribly illegal, extremely felonious, super illegal because they will come to your house in the middle of the night and they will lock you up. Extremely against the law
One thing that is technically legal to say is "We have a group that meets Friday's at midnight under the Brooklyn bridge and the password is sic semper tyranus"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet people don't get how narrow the Brandenburg test is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test > The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test: > The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” > AND > The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.” [snip] >…
Hello, I was just born yesterday and now I'm shocked to discover every single person I've met so far has hold some view I dislike. Theoretically, how much outrage do I need to manufacture to get the legal system to ignore the Brandenburg test and prosecute today's flavor of thought villain? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OV4VaNW4FU
I think this article makes a key mistake that I see almost all commentators make of visions of free speech less radical than, say, the first amendment: They consider only the direct effects of speech on those who hear it. If you accept this, it's very easy to(correctly) respond that it's not the state's job to police mere offense, no matter how grave it may be. Some people who try to make criticisms of a radical free…
Did you guys know it is illegal to say "I want to kill the President of the United States of America". It is illegal it is a federal offence, it's one of the only sentences that your not allowed to say. Now it was okay for me to say because I was telling you it was illegal to say "I want to kill the President of the United States of America", because I wasn't saying it, I was telling you it was illegal to say it, lik…
> few liberal-minded commentators seemed eager to say Rushdie was entirely without fault This does not match my recollection. As I recall things, Rushdie was vigorously defended by the left, which at the time quite liked the idea of freedom of speech. At least in the UK, can't speak for anywhere else.
My recollection, which could be faulty, was that people sided with Rushdie but there was a "but he probably shouldn't be so provocative" attached to it. So that tracks with the "entirely without fault" bit, as I remember it. However, that's based on my memory from the "buzz" around the book and the fatwa when I was a high school senior. I could easily be misremembering or maybe took too strong an impression from a sp…
"What many people failed to understand, and therefore failed to defend, is an unpleasant fact of intellectual liberalism: When speech causes emotional or mental pain, the offended parties are morally entitled to nothing in the form of compensation from or punishment for the offender." A line that many people still can't handle.
The US legal system also provides many avenues for punishing people based on their speech.
Most legal systems and most religions follow similar rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those professors and teachers are employees of the government. Like it or not, that puts them under the same umbrella as police officers, fire fighters, and others. Government employees are very much restricted in what they can say and do when they are on the clock.
Amazing how quickly people will pivot to "actually, it's ok to censor campus professors" as soon as the censored ideas are ones they don't like.
I don't dislike professors or teachers at state schools, but I understand that they work in an institution that effectively does not offer academic freedom. If you are a professor, you can work at any other institution in the country, other than the 50-100 or so that are run by states, and you will have all the academic freedom you want. If this country goes to a major war, a large number of those professors are likely going to be told to work on something war-related, because they are agents of the state.
If you are a teacher, who was actually targeted by the education control bills in FL, you arguably don't have enough training to have really have earned academic freedom. Until about 5 minutes ago, nobody argued that they did have academic freedom. Curricula are there for a reason.
Did you guys know it is illegal to say "I want to kill the President of the United States of America". It is illegal it is a federal offence, it's one of the only sentences that your not allowed to say. Now it was okay for me to say because I was telling you it was illegal to say "I want to kill the President of the United States of America", because I wasn't saying it, I was telling you it was illegal to say it, lik…